ERIN: I just wanted to butt in and respond to this.
> 1) If you wanted to argue that case that Curtis is the manipulator and all
> the advertising is done out of concern for our welfare (hee hee) then you
> need to explain to us what Curtis has to gain for manipulating us. Come
> and sell your idea (try and refrain from the sex sells approach--keep it
> clean)
PLATT: My guess would be that Curtis solicited and received a fat fee for his
documentary from the BBC who, like our PBS, pays big bucks for
programs supporting an anti-capitalist agenda. In fact, if I recall
correctly, this program was part of a series, which sounds like there
may be a book deal in there, too. When looking for motive, especially in
the world of showbiz, one can usually rely on the twin rewards of fame
and fortune. From what Rod told us about Curtis, I doubt if he is
another Mother Teresa.
ERIN: His intentions may or may not be okay but that doesn't necessarily say
anything about manipulating us or distorting the truth. Someone may be doing
research in physics for the claim to fame and a paycheck but that doesn't
discredit his research findings unless he distorted the data.
I don't feel like analyzing advertising is anti-capitalist. I don't have an
intent to abolish advertising but it is out of control to me. I think it okay
if there are a couple of channels warning us about the other 60 or so
channels.
I took off another article off The Edge site. I am sure he will appear to be
just as bad as Curtis to you but it would help to see your point if you tell
us what is wrong with WHAT they said.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rushkoff/rushkoff_p4.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST