roundtable: OP-ED ON TV - PUBLIC

roundtable: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC

OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC

Michael G. Koopman (koopman@ctc.com)
Mon, 2 Jan 95 18:25:53 -0500 

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 95 18:25:53 -0500
From: koopman@ctc.com (Michael G. Koopman)
Message-Id: <9501022325.AA23736@sgi81.ctc.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
In-Reply-To: CANTV@delphi.com's message of Sun, 1 Jan 1995 21:43:31 -0500 <01HLB1C2A0GI937LRH@delphi.com>
Subject: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC


Greg Boozell seems a bit wrapped up in _Videodrome_ paranoia:
> 
> ...Corporate media must maintain a veil of objectivity in order to
> effectively propagandize viewers.  The fact is that TCI or any other
> corporation would not financially support programs which effectively
> criticized their conduct.

This seems Citzen Kane, Rosebud, freakish.  If a singular entity with
profound, even warped, political views was to provide the network with
a brighter bottom line without stockholder rejection, if possible,
then the bigger bottom line wins.  That simple.

> While supposedly neutral, journalistic "objectivity" is itself an
> ideological position used to dismiss any notions of bias in order to
> protect the the interests of the elites who fund the media.

The elite resolves to we who buy products advertised on TV, right?
Back in the "rosebud" '50s people used to understand the power of
consumerism a bit better than today.  On the other hand, collusion by
rich power structures is not greatly deterred by legislative acts, is
it?  So, how do you trust, or force, those who supply into a political
corner such behemoths can be contained within?  Supply side economics?
Yeah, sure, razor sharp concept -- like that gnawing Hawaiian jungles.

Mike Koopman internet: koopman@ctc.com phone: +1-814-269-2637

[CNI Home Page]