lbo-talk-digest V1 #3809

Leslilake1 at aol.com Leslilake1 at aol.com
Wed Jan 10 23:39:00 PST 2001


Thanks to all who responded to my questions, esp. the thorough answers on Horowitz. A few more questions:

<<Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:31:47 -0000

From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: questions<<

<< What TV personalities are liberal? John McLuaghlin? John Stoessel? William

F. Buckley? I mean it. The liberal media is a myth.>>

Yeah, well, I agree with you, but what I'm looking for is an answer that will satisfy a conservative of the free republic persuasion, especially on the question of why corporate owners of the media might benefit from slanting the news (esp. on social issues, which don't seem automatically connected with the profit motive).

<< >5. Is the idea of public challenges to the existing media framework (say,

>the provisions of the 1996 telecommunications bill) totally quixotic?

>

<<Be more specific.

I'm not sure I can. I'm just wondering why a give-away like the telecommunications bill can go through with so little discussion and why I hear so little about attempts to make broadcasters give back some of that largesse (for example, by giving free political time in connection with campaign finance reform).It seems like a winning issue because regular folks across the political spectrum are ticked off at "the media."

<< Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:04:12 -0800

From: "Christine Petersen" <ottilie at hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: Questions

<<Here is a SF Bay guardian article:

I checked the link but couldn't find anything related to my post. Was it related?

<<My father used to be a democrat, but now in his 70s he keeps shifting around

all over the place, and he was sending me Horowitz books about a year ago so

I could possibly send you one

Thanks for the offer, but just wanted his background. My conservative correspondent sent me an article, and I got the gist of his style - seems the propaganda style, taking one example and using it to club an entire class of people.

<<I'm not really answering your question, which is very complex, but I think

that a lot of the public might classify the 'media', broadly, as liberal

because they would call the tabloid news shows, stuff on the FOX channel,

and most fluffy TV talk shows 'liberal' because it shows corruption and lack

of morals and so forth, and some people associate that with the term

'liberal'. Speaking about television news, I really don't know how I would

classify my local newscasts as liberal or conservative because they don't

even show any news at all.

I think there's a lot to that; when I try to engage people that seem to me quite pleasant except for their quirks about our liberal media, liberal government, etc., their concerns mostly comes down to social issues (abortion, sex, gun control, etc.) - and taxes. But I have a hard time engaging; I don't understand the logic, I can't find a common language. The image I get from my attempts at discussion is of some powerful liberal conspiracy based on ideology alone (as v. being based on self-interest, desire for power and profit, etc.). It's like the "liberals" have taken the place of the communists in the communist conspiracy paradigm. This seems so absurd on its face that I'm obsessed with trying to understand why this way of analyzing reality is so common (at least where I live).

Les



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list