roundtable: Re: Content is the cargo of truth

roundtable: Re: Content is the cargo of truth

Re: Content is the cargo of truth

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:54:30 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:54:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Content is the cargo of truth
In-Reply-To: <199503301715.JAA14829@video.hidden.videomaker.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950331104208.14925C-100000@access2.digex.net>


On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Matt York wrote:
> 
> Victor Schreibman writes:
> > The television model is comprised of the medium and it is that 
> > medium following the profit motive that has produced a muderous product.  
> 
> What I think you are saying here is that television is a hopeless 
> medium. I stand by my assertion that television can be vastly improved 
> and serve mankind if more people can participate in the production and 
> distribution of video content. There is nothing intrinsically evil about 
> the medium, its just in the wrong hands. Don't shoot the messenger Victor.


  It is not necessary that the medium produce "a murderous product" 
but for better products to be produced it is necessary that the 
structure of power be radically altered.  Instead of governing the 
system of allocation of the limited spectrum resource based on market 
dominated power, the purpose and struture must focus on the shared 
desires of the people to be served.  In short, a structure that 
supports democracty must eplace the current sstructure of "artificial 
aristocracy."

> >The print model does not include the video medium, 
> >which has numerous differences from the print medium, in case you had 
> >not noticed, onbe of which is exclusive licenses to utilize discrete 
> >channels of broadcasting. 
> 
> A free press (including a free video press someday) inevitably leads to 
> a fair share of "garbage" and "important information". The distinction is
> subjective. Correct. The print model does not include the video medium,
> currently. The print model has great merits that the video medium can and
> should have. There are  millions of content providers (writers like you).
> Text also includes millions of unrestrained distribution options (e-mail,
> WWW, hand delivered/newspapers, common carriage of magazines and
> newsletters, free LIBRARIES) 
> 
> 
> > If we could compare the garbage that is published, 
> >including the garbage published in books, newspapers, and periodicals, 
> >with the important information that has been denied publication because 
> >of the danger to the propaganda system, we might see a more truthful 
> >story.  
> 
> The "truthful story" is in the eye of the beholder. There is no 
> "propaganda system" in the world of text. Anyone can publish text. Video 
> may be a different story. I wouldn't go so far as to call it propaganda, 
> but certainly bias. But there are now millions of people with video 
> cameras and they are expressing themselves on public access channels 
> and emerging TV networks like The 90's Channel and Deep Dish TV)
> 
> 
> >Profit pressures distort the information that is conveyed in 
> >every medium that is used, some worse than others, due to limited 
> >competition.  The worst of these is video.
> 
> Profit is fundamental to the creation and distribution of products,
> including information products. It won't go away. People that create
> information need to make house payments and put food on the table. We 
> can't leave the media system to volunteers because there are too many 
> shrewd capitalists evangelizing their messages FOR profit. You hit the 
> nail on the head when you said that limited competition is a key reason 
> for distorted information.

  We do not have to build a society that is deliberately made vulnerable 
to the vagarities of raw power.  Public goods can and must be supplied 
in more responsive ways, the structure of the Internet/NREN is a good 
model of an eminently successful alternative.  If people wanted to 
foster social and enviromental betterment, and not just self-interest, 
the design and implementation of such an lternative would be easy.

  Vigdor Schreibman
  <fins@access.digex.net>

[CNI Home Page]