From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2005 - 15:10:03 GMT
MSH rails against U.S. TV:
> msh asks:
> How many of these channels broadcast full-spectrum discussion of
> whether or not profit-driven dissemination of information is the
> highest quality way of helping the public stay informed?
>
> How many of these channels broadcast full-spectrum discussion of
> whether or not profit-driven health care is the highest quality way
> of making basic health services available to everybody?
>
> Which of these channels show the real situation on the ground in
> Iraq, showing the utter destruction of Falluja, for example, and
> reporting the fact that the so-called insurgency is stronger than
> ever, that the hostility toward the American occupation is at an all-
> time high? Fox News and CNN are part of every cable and satellite
> package offered in the US. Why isn't al-Jazeera? As far as I know, the
> only way to get al-Jazeera is through one sat tv company, EchoStar. Why
> the discrepancy?
>
> Which of your 200 channels show the flag-draped coffins of Americans
> killed in Iraq, or even broadcast their burial services. Which
> channels are reporting on what happens to American's injured in Iraq, after
> they return? Why do you suppose such information is considered
> non-newsworthy?
According to MSH, America would have been better served if during World
War II U.S. radio had broadcast what the Germans were listening to from
Goebbels, or the Japanese from Tojo, and after the war, what the Russians
were learning from Pravda. Why do I doubt such information would have made
the world better than it is today? Could it be because the Nazis and the
Japs and the Communists might still be in power, or have it least stayed
in power longer to slaughter millions more?
Anyone today who truly desires to get differing points of view from what
is broadcast on American TV over 200 channels can get it from the
Internet, by subscribing to foreign newspapers, or by listening to short
wave radio. After all, MSH must be getting his information, as distorted
as it is, from someplace.
> msh says:
> People are thinkers.
There's a twist. I thought the people who voted for Bush were stupid.
> Thinkers aren't chosen. The important issue,
> one at the heart of this thread, is whether or not entrenched power
> is likely to permit action on thoughts which question the authority
> of existing power structures. For example, it would be foolish of
> profit-driven-instutions, such as the commercial media, to allow the
> dissemination of ideas that undermine the notion that the best way to
> deliver information is on a for-profit basis. They are not going to plant
> the seeds of their own destruction. This makes perfect sense; and this is
> why no one who seeks a high-quality understanding of world affairs will
> rely solely on the commercial media.
I know of no media that isn't commercial. Last time I looked Chomsky's
books weren't free, nor as far as I know has he refused to take a salary
from MIT provided by taxpayers, alumni donations, and investments in
corporate America. When he renounces all that, I might begin to put some
credence in his anti-profit, anti-capitalist, anti-American rants.
> > platt:
> > As for the evils of profit-making, what do you have to say in
> > response to Pirsig's endorsement of free markets?
> msh said:
> > As for Pirsig's endorsement of free markets, I agree that in theory
> > they are dynamic and therefore good. But since nothing like a free-
> > market system exists in reality, the point is moot.
>
> platt:
> So Pirsig's comparison of the dynamism of New York city with
> socialist cities as "always dull" places was a moot point?
> msh says:
> NYC has desperate third-world-level poverty existing along side the
> neon glitz of the so-called free and dynamic market. By focusing on
> the vibrant excitement and ignoring the stagnant misery you wilfully
> distort the positive influence of the so-called free market system.
> If you are right in thinking that Pirsig would claim that NYC is the
> highest quality example of urban life (I don't think you are), then
> he, like you, is demonstrating a willful blindness that is the result of
> anything but the pursuit of Quality.
Pirsig blind to the pursuit of Quality? Far out, man, far out.
> Besides, Arlo has provided you with numerous examples of cities,
> with a different sense of the value of social equality, that are
> anything but dull. Why is his opinion any less important than
> Pirsig's?
I've been to many socialist cities, too, and found them dull like Pirsig
says. So why is my opinion any less important than Arlo's, or yours?
Platt
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 -
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 : Tue Jan 25 2005 - 15:22:36 GMT