From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 03:18:34 GMT
msh asks platt seven very specific questions:
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?
and this is platt's response:
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?
msh says:
I ask seven precise questions, and I'm told that during WWII I would
have been a Fascist sympathizer. How's that for an argument?
But that aside, the implication seems to be that the people who have
power over information services know best about what should and
should not be heard. That's a scary thought, whether it comes from
Goebbels or Murdoch.
platt:
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:
It comes from spending a large portion of everyday reading. Why
should people have to do this in order to stay informed? Shouldn't
the public airwaves provide the full spectrum of information, so that
people can be informed as easily as they can buy a new set of Ginzu
knives?
msh says:
People are thinkers. 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.
platt:
I know of no media that isn't commercial.
msh says:
Which proves my point. In the US, there are no truly non-commercial
TV stations, and only one non-commercial radio network, Pacifica,
which is completely listener supported but available on the air in
only three or four major cities. Thanks to the internet, they can be
streamed, but that still keeps them unavailable to the vast majority
of Americans. Again, why the discrepancy?
Fortunately, there are many more non-com sources available on the
internet but, again, not everyone has access or time to avail
themselves of these. In a free society, non-com sources of
information would be available to everyone over the air.
platt:
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.
msh says:
Though your tone here is insulting (and laughable, considering the
source), I'll say this much: 1) The question under discussion is
about profiting from other people's misery, not about making a
living. 2) NC's been teaching at MIT for 45 years; his work in
Linguistics alone has brought tremendous value and honor to MIT, and
to thousands of people all over the world; his work in human rights
has benefited millions. 3) Chomsky regularly and quietly donates
book profits, speaking honoraria, and prize money, including the full
amount of the Kyoto Prize. 4) Questioning his integrity in this
regard is the supreme example of your favorite phrase: "Killing the
messenger."
And, besides, it makes you look like an asshole which, BTW, is an
insult not an ad hominem attack. ;-)
msh said:
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.
platt:
Pirsig blind to the pursuit of Quality? Far out, man, far out.
msh says:
This is a meaningless unsupported comment, similar to stuttering.
msh continued:
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?
platt:
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?
msh says:
It isn't. It's just a matter of taste, really, not even opinion, on
all sides, even Pirsig's. Besides, how have you managed to equate
the absence of dullness with the presence of Quality? There's
nothing dull about, say, throwing infants into the air and catching
them on bayonets.
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 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 03:26:27 GMT