[Vision2020] Public vs. Private Sector News
timlohr at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 21 09:28:55 PDT 2004
I'm not a Fox News Fan either--mainly because the topics they choose to cover are ratings driven and because of the shallow coverage of what is newsworthy. My point is that concentration of media ownership--private or public-- is a bad thing.
And monopolies are bad whether the monopolizer is FOX, AOLTIMEWARNERCNN, or PBS/NPR.
I've got no problem with the existence of government owned media, I've just got no illusions that they're unbiased just because the govt. owns them.
You contend that the media sensationalism is to blame for your perception that Sandy Berger's supposed exoneration not being covered to the same extent as the allegations against him.
First of all, I've got news---most people have never even heard of Sandy Berger, know who he is, or have heard of any stories involving him. My point about sensationalism was that stories involving a person who is to most an obscure individual about whom they have little or no interest doing something with documents just don't cut it. Sensationalism needs blood, sex, stuff like that--stuff like the ad nauseum coverage of the Scott Peterson murder trial, Michael Jackson, the SLC murder.
As for your getting all worked up that only a few stories were written about Berger being cleared of wrongdoing, perhaps this was because most media outlets didn't think anyone really gave a whit about the story anymore and probably never did.
In any event and rightly or wrongly, it's a long-time tradition that retractions/corrections are printed on interior pages even if lead stories are being corrected. This isn't a recent development in newspaper coverage and the situation with Berger is analagous.
Or maybe they thought it was premature to print the story--after all printing that a Clinton official who admittedly took documents and reportedly stuck them in his socks and other clothing is cleared of wrongdoing is pretty incredible.
Tbertruss at aol.com wrote:
Tim et. al.
This is really a hoot!
I'll get up on any side of the bed you want if you will just read the dang nam Wall Street Journal article on Sandy Berger's "exoneration." Then we can discuss this issue reasonably. If you refuse to at least respond to my previous post exhorting you to "Do Your Home Work," which contains some detailed info from that article, I can only conclude you are not debating sincerely, and I am wasting my time.
If you think the Wall Street Journal is full of it on this issue, fine, tell me why! But you have not made reference to the specific content of this article regarding the evidence it offers that contradicts your statements about the Berger investigation of document theft.
As for you finding it amusing that I suggest that democratic government is supposed to represent the people, including government funded media, I gave an example in Canada's CBC of government funded media that I think is an excellent news source. No, I don't think the CBC represents Big Brother. I think FOX news is much closer to that, and it is "private sector." Why could totalitarian control not come from the corporate "private sector" agenda?
Can you respond to this contrast I just made between FOX news and the CBC? Perhaps this will offer a clue as to what bias you have towards public funded news vs. private sector news, if you do have a bias one way or the other.
I do not have an a priori bias one way or the other. Depending on the circumstances, I rely on both private and public funded news sources. And I think it healthy in any society to have a balanced mixture of public and private sector media.
What do you think of this approach?
Ted Moffett _____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020