roundtable: Re: OP-ED ON TV - PUBLIC

roundtable: Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC

Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:56:03 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:56:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC
In-Reply-To: <9501022325.AA23736@sgi81.ctc.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950103164911.10004B-100000@access2.digex.net>


On Tue, 3 Jan 1995, Michael G. Koopman wrote:
> > 
> > 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.


  A sound response to the civilization that is constructed around the 
ethic of "self-interest" is two fold:

  1.  Continuously expose the falacy in the ethic, as this dialogue 
is doing quite well, to the point that people are not constrained by 
the rigged and lopsided competition of ideas, to think and act for 
the larger public good; and

  2.  Build an infrastructure (information, telecommunications, 
education, sustainable development) that is not based on self-interest, 
or the profit motive, but is instead designed to serve the paramount 
public goods that Americans find most important (such as those included 
in the parenthetical preceding phrase).

  Vigdor

Vigdor Schreibman
<fins@access.digex.net>

[CNI Home Page]