Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Profit from paid Propaganda vs. Public Debate:re to Sykorra Message-ID: <1766@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 04:40:16 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.1766 Posted: Wed Jul 10 04:40:16 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:51:15 EDT References: <8472@ucbvax.ARPA> <2380072@acf4.UUCP> <679@whuxl.UUCP> Reply-To: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA Lines: 46 Keywords: political debates, television, propaganda Summary: are not political debates ``propaganda''? In article <679@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Did it ever occur to you that the reason Public Debates and Presidential >addresses are less profitable is because they have no paid propaganda? >(i.e. commercials) Is this (explicitly) paid propaganda (commercials) somehow more abhorrent than the pap spewed by political candidates during their so-called debates? The political debates ARE propaganda as well! I watched the debates last year and was disgusted to see Reagan/Mondale and Bush/Ferraro spend most of their time sniping and snearing at each other rather than address issues or (God forbid!) ``inform'' the public? >Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide >for broadcasting of debates on public issues? I am a member of the Public that isn't Interested. I'm glad you are, though. You watch `em -- you *pay* for `em. >Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past >political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon? Millions of people watch ``The A-Team'' every week. It is fairly clear that the debates are a glamour contest as far as which candidate can use the medium best. They can be fun to watch, to be sure, but you seem to be implying that they are somehow good for us. >Oh yes, but I forgot that you have stated that there is no reason to >allow ambulances or fire engines to exceed the speed limit to save lives >if it means you might be five minutes late for a hockey game..... >So why should the media cease to make $$$$ during an emergency? Hey, is this a debate, too? >And why should the media do *anything* which is in everybody's public >interest when they could be so cheerfully making money by telling us how >to think? I think we differ on the the ``everbody's public interest'' part. > tim sevener whuxl!orb -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam