From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 22:17:03 MDT
Apologies, I'm re-sending this because it bounced.
On Wed, 28 May 2003 13:24:34 -0700, Michael M. Butler <mmb@spies.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 09:23:13 -0400, Michael Wiik <mwiik@messagenet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <<Absolute proof the media ain't liberal
> ...
>> It really should be the end of the "liberal media" argument.>>
>
> It can't be, because the label does not contain the thing.
>
> My personal impression is that "the media" is largely populated by low-
> and mid-level operatives with obvious leanings that could easily fit that
> description. I know several. At the same time, the people who own the
> companies have an agenda that includes an interest in promoting some
> things that align with that description, and others that do not--and they
> very likely would prefer to promote one set of things for others, and
> another for themselves (NIMBY effect, etc.).
>
> Simplistic analyses yield incomplete results. Ignoring the slant of the
> beat reporters and their editors is just as bad as ignoring what stories
> get spiked because of pressures from higher up--and the latter is harder
> to determine from simple inspection of what *does* get published.
>
> "As long as they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't
> matter what answers you get." -- Noam Chomsky
>
> He really did say that, you know. And he really was right about that, as
> far as it goes.
>
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 22:28:42 MDT