blatham wrote:Is the only reason you weren't fond of Pravda because of its political ideas, george?
That certainly covers most of it. Perhaps the only additional comment I would add is that it was the mouthpiece for a party that, as a matter of both doctrine and practice, allowed no other viewpoint or competing voice to be heard.
blatham wrote:Any publication, like any individual, will have a set of considerations and preferences on matters political and social, of which they will be to some degree conscious and to some degree unaware. Therefore it clearly follows that all publications/media outlets are exactly like all others. And it must also surely follow that there is no rational basis for any sorts of limits on media ownership...it would be fine if deregulation (and wealth) permitted Murdoch or Soros to pick up all major tv networks in America. It also follows, obviously, that none of us need concern ourselves even in the slightest regarding any media outlet's investment in factual data gathering and reporting or the lack of it. One sentence is exactly like any other sentence. There is bias and that is all there is. Do I have you right here?
No. This is not at all my view. I believe there are significant differences easily detected among the various magazines and publications to which you refer - differences involving points of view; political philosophy; accuracy in reporting facts; quality of writing or presentation; and the degree to which they distinguish between fact and a priori belief in the material they sell. I don't accept what I read or hear in any of them as absolute truth - instead I regard it as a selection of material, shaped and selected in accordance with their prejudices, skills and target audience and delivered with varying degrees of skill and style. I don't think there is any possibility of improving that situation in a lasting way as long as it is operated by human beings.
It is for precisely that reason that I oppose any attempt to regulate or control the media to meet someone's preconceptions of what is "fair and balanced". I'm no Platonist, and I recognize no philosopher kings. The chief virtue of our present system is the competitive marketplace for ideas and belief. It reliably tends to cancel out the worst excesses of all sides. Though this system based on freedom and competition is far from perfect, any attempt to endow government with the power to regulate "firness" and "quality" would surely yield a far worse result -- as history amply demonstrates.
You seem to imply that we face the danger of monopolistic control of the media by Murdoch or other like figures, hateful to you. I believe that the facts suggest otherwise. The media in this country are now more varied in type (print, broadcast, cable, internet, film) than ever before and, more importantly the economic barriers to entry, particularly on the internet, have never been lower. Just a few decades ago information reporting in this country was in the hands of just three broadcast networks, each of which exercised substantial nationwide control of their outlets. Now there are four or five in a much more competitive situation. Newspapers generally have lost ground to other media venues, but they are still dominated by a few key papers (NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.). Murdoch is hardly the dominant player, even there. The internet space is open, very competitive, and gives voice to many at very low cost. Big Brother can hardly be heard above the din.
