Liberals typically use intolerant, illerberal censorship intermittently, so that they can hypocritically pose as tolerant after radicals have been materially undermined by dirty tricks.
In another area, this has been the history of First Amendment jurisprudence. Socialists and Communists were jailed during WWI and the twenties even as Holmes and Brandeis established the clear and present danger doctrine in theory. Again, around 1950 there was no freedom of Communist speech. After the CP had been materially devastated, when the coast was clear, the Supreme Court pronounced its liberalism , hypocritically declaring its tolerance of " unpopular" views, which it had prevented from having a fair shot at being heard by the populace. Bingo ! America the great democracy.
The history of television is strategic and intermittent, not continuous, censorship.
To create a market for a Moore type product, now, there would have to be a flood of about thirty similar type shows , with enormous promotion. Not likely.
Charles Brown
>>> "Nathan Newman" <nnewman at ix.netcom.com> 05/17 3:51 PM >>>
-----Original Message----- From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> To: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>; lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>The exclusion of Michael Moore from network television is as much a form of
>political censorship as is the exclusion of important working-class
>struggles today.
I think this is too simplistic a statement. Michael Moore had not one but two different shots at TV NATION on two different networks, one on NBC (owned by General Electric) and then on Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch).
His ratings were never great and if the networks have any ideology, it is worship of the ratings. Add to the fact that key rating numbers are not just total numbers but the affluence of the viewers, since advertisers pay more for young, upper middle class viewers (can we say Seinfeld). Tom Selleck was paid big bucks for a new sitcom called THE CLOSER but when the ratings remained low, they killed his show.
Given these facts, TV NATION had trouble by the standard rules applied to every TV show. We can argue with the rules for good measure, but to describe Moore's case as censorship avoids dealing with some basic issues that the Left needs to grapple with.
I loved TV NATION, especially the second season on Fox. Moore made me laugh and think. He obviously inspired deep fan loyalty (which is worthwhile to advertisers and may explain why he stayed on as long as he did.
But he did not get the massive numbers of the top rated sitcoms or news magazines. This may be due to lack of promotion by the networks the show was on, but it also may have something to do with why Letterman's humor got blander and more conservative when he moved his time slot - you can have attitude and a point of view when playing to a small, niche audience but to survive in prime advertising times, you have to appeal to a low common denominator.
Syndication and cable are opening up new opportunities for edgier, less bland shows, but in the meantime, it is self-delusion to just blame censorship for the absence of leftwing shows. A number have gotten on TV, but none has ever gotten gigantic ratings. If we had an example of a show with good ratings being taken off, there might be a case of censorship, but I can't think of an example.
Why leftwing shows don't appeal to really mass audiences is an important issue. Moore has done better than almost anyone else and even he hasn't quite made it.
--Nathan