Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!whuxlm!mag From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Profit from paid Propaganda vs. Public Debate:re to Sykorra Message-ID: <788@whuxlm.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:51:57 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxlm.788 Posted: Tue Jul 9 07:51:57 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 05:54:17 EDT References: <8472@ucbvax.ARPA> <2380072@acf4.UUCP> <679@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 69 >> = Sykora > = Sevener >> 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) I think he implies that pretty clearly above. Since my TV set works without inserting coins, I conclude that someone else is paying for the broadcast. I imagine Sykora is well aware of where the money comes from. The reason debates have no "paid propaganda" is that advertisers like people to see their messages. Perhaps not enough people watch political debates to justify an advertiser spending hard-earned money to broadcast them. > Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide > for broadcasting of debates on public issues? Well, speaking as one member of the public, I don't see it as in my interest. PS - I love those capital letters you use; does that somehow make the "Public Interest" more holy and important? How about "PUBLIC INTEREST"? > Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past > political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon? It probably did. If they want to watch them, let them pay for them. If television broadcast is too expensive, they could always buy a paper for a quarter and read a transcript. > Los Angeles TV stations refused to broadcast the Senatorial debate in 1982 > *because* they would lose out on paid propaganda $$$$$. Must have been a real yawner. > Regardless of those $$$ 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. From where does this obligation derive? The "Public Interest"? Which alternative political views? Who decides? If the majority of the country thinks Blacks should have no rights, are the networks required to broadcast those views? Or do you just mean views you approve of, or at least consider worth debating? > 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? What's necessarily wrong with making money during an emergency? If I call a private ambulance to take me to the hospital, I don't begrudge them the fare. > 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? As far as I can see, no one on this net has EVER been able to tell you how to think. Not much money to be made there. Mike Gray, whuxlm!mag