<DIV>Ted,</DIV>
<DIV> I don't pay any attention to the CBC, haven't watched/listened to it much at all and wouldn't know how to do so unless I go onto the shortwave bands. So I don't know much about CBC. I have no clue what "bias" it is that you believe would preclude me from approving of the CBC if it was a good network. I've got no problem with some governmental involvement with media, nor did I state that I did.</DIV>
<DIV> I only mentioned that government media usually has its own set of biases and that I wouldn't like to see a government controlled media monopoly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You're stating that I"admit" that media has changed is odd. You make it sound as if I'm some sort of defender of the media status quo and was finally forced to admit the errors of my ways. </DIV>
<DIV> Where you came up with that I have no idea. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You assert that media's interest in scandal and sensationalism is a recent thing and that this sort of coverage is somehow related to the concentration of ownership of the media. My point is that this is simply untrue. As I mentioned before, many of the big cities of this country used to have several daily newspapers, but this competition and diversification of ownership certainly didn't stop them from being 'scandal sheets.' They covered the most salacious least newsworthy stories as long as hey were sensational enough to stir up sales. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Apparently since I pointed out this error in your analysis, you then assume that I believe that concentrated media ownership is a good thing. Why I don't know. </DIV>
<DIV> Best, Tim L.<BR><BR><B><I>Tbertruss@aol.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Tim:<BR><BR>First read my post about "Doing your homework" concerning Sandy Berger and your responses on this subject. I did not miss anything you wrote on this subject, but it appears you have not looked at all the info on this.<BR><BR>I don't take anything as "gospel" but try to consider all the facts and sources I can on an issue. I have no axe to grind a priori against private or public funded sources of news.<BR><BR>OK. Great. You admit there have been major changes in how much the profit motive is controlling news content today compared to 40 years ago. So we agree on something. Wonderful.<BR><BR>Yes, in a democracy the government is supposed to represent the people. Including government funded media. And I gave you a good example of a government funded media, CBC in Canada, that I think is a excellent source of news. They do a good job, and I trust them as much as,!
though
not without question, any news source, public or private.<BR><BR>Will you acknowledge that the CBC does a good job? Or will your bias get in the way?<BR><BR>Ted Moffett<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/50x/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">Yahoo! Mail</a> - 50x more storage than other providers!