From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 02:47:16 GMT
On 18 Jan 2005 at 15:16, Platt Holden wrote:
I guess this puts Zen and LIla out of bounds as nowhere do I find in
them notes, internal memos, references, or anything even
approximating legitimate research.
msh says:
Ant pretty well showed the fallacy here. So, I'll let it go at
that...
platt:
Likewise your supposed evidence of non-liberal bias in the major
media due to their need to make a profits amounts to little more than
fanciful speculation, like your notion of how the NY Times would
report a proposed tax on BMW's to fund a public transit system.
msh says:
You've misunderstood my point. I believe there is neither a
"liberal" or "conservative" bias in the commercial media. Like all
profit-driven institutions, the commercial media, who are in the
business of selling audiences to advertisers, are loathe to do
anything that might offend their customers. Sometimes this results
is articles like the BMW tax example (an amalgamation of actual
stories from the Times), and sometimes it results in not calling Sean
Penn a traitor to his country. But, because the links between
conservatism and business and political power are well defined, I
believe it's safe to say that the general trend of commercial media
reporting is more right than left. But this is an institutional
analysis, not a political one, and it is backed by tons of
documentation and study by Herman, McChesney, Chomsky, Edwards,
Cromwell, which I know you will be eager to verify for yourself.
platt:
Further, when I cite individuals who are part of the system admitting
there's a bias, you do not respond with any eye-witness evidence to
the contrary, but simply, again without evidence and in the usual
liberal ad hominem mode, assert their motives are suspect.
msh says:
Ant and I both responded to your presentation of Goldberg, showing
studies which prove that not only is his one testable assertion
false, but that it is 180 out of phase with reality. See Ant's post,
and take a look here, as well:
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/bias.html
platt::
I suppose this way of presenting an argument meets Ian's standard of
"truth through conversation," but hardly meets your own standard of a
wide variety of outside source verification.
msh says:
You've been provided with outside source refutation of Goldberg's one
testable statement. What is your response?
platt:
But, not to worry. I enjoy your fanciful speculations as much as the
next guy. If you start with the premise that profit-making is evil,
all sorts of entertaining Twilight Zone scenarios will emerge.
msh says:
But that's not my starting premise. My premise, the one that is
important to this thread, is that profit-making for the few, to the
detriment of the many, is an extremely low-quality form of socio-
economic system. That is, when individuals attempt to enhance their
personal social and biological positions in a way that destroys
freedom for others, thereby putting at risk society as a whole, they
are behaving immorally.
This is why I believe that certain vital services should not be
privatized for profit.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 04:10:57 GMT