Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Profit from paid Propaganda vs. Public Debate:re to Sykorra
Message-ID: <679@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 08:17:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.679
Posted: Mon Jul  8 08:17:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:57:15 EDT
References: <8472@ucbvax.ARPA> <2380072@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 39

> >From me:       > From Michael Sykora
> >Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served 
> >when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are
> >not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations
> >could  make more money with commercial programming?
> 
> What right to circulate opinions and views?  What does such a right entail?
>  
> Did it ever occur to you that the reasons the broadcasting of such debates
> doesn't yield as great a profit as other programming is because the
> public prefers watching other things?  Should we force them to watch
> these debates because you and others deem them important.  Could such
> actions be defended in the name of "freedom of speech?"  Hardly.  They
> could in fact be attacked on the grounds that they violate this freedom.
> (Note that I haven't said anything about how boring political debates
> are. :-)
> 
 
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)
Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide
for broadcasting of debates on public issues?
Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past
political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon?
Los Angeles TV stations refused to broadcast the Senatorial debate in 1982
*because* they would lose out on paid propaganda $$$$$.
Regardless of those $$$ they have an obligation to present alternative
political views before the public, just as they have the obligation in
emergencies and disasters to inform the public rather than try to sell
soap or fallout shelters.
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?
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?
                              tim sevener whuxl!orb