Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Another aspect of the problematic
Gary. (01)
Commercial media are paid for by advertisers and reporters need be
granted interviews. So, both on the advertising side and on the
reporting side there is pressure (overt, covert) for favors and, hence,
the commercial press is not fully free, only relatively so in comparison
with a press fully controlled by a regime. (02)
A first point of attack would be to free the press from the bondage of
advertising. (03)
It should be noted here that the advertisers do not themselves pay for
the adverts; the public does through the price they pay for products.
Advertising is in there. In other words, like governments levies taxes
for public services, so does business by including PR and advertising
costs along with sales taxes in the price of goods and services. (04)
There are two other bad sides to advertising: (05)
1. They waste a lot of viewers' time or of paper (i.e. trees). (06)
2. They encourage consumption, i.e. more than a justified use of
resources because all goods we buy end up as waste - 100%. (07)
I know, I know. Advertising is now seen as an indispensable part of the
mechanisms for economic growth, etc., but it seems wise that we
recognize that this is not an unassailable paradigm. (08)
So at this point, I am looking forward to an article in the commercial
press about the ills of advertising. (09)
Henry (010)
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 08:29, Gary Richmond wrote:
> Henry,
>
> I think that the events of the past couple of years
> have made me look at articles like "The Second
> American Revolution" (which in the past I too might
> have dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory") in a
> new light, as hypotheses, shall we say, that now
> ought be more seriously entertained and tested.
>
> Contemplating your four points (that Bush was
> not properly elected, that his intellectual level
> appears to be low, that the assassination attempt
> on George Sr. probably made an enduring mark
> on the Bush family and political circle, and the wide-
> spread misuse of "political pardon" resulting in too
> many members of the "upper echelons" not being held
> accountable) intensifies my discomfort with the
> current Administration. Of course the "military-
> industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us
> about dominates in a way that no doubt even he
> couldn't imagine at the time.
>
> Still, I must agree with your conclusion that only
> an expansion of the idea of public education through the media
> can hope to impact positively on the situation. Meanwhile,
> articles and research on the FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in
> Reporting) website makes me worry about the extent of
> media mis-education of the citizenry and just how difficult
> it will be to overome that. http://fair.org/
>
> HvE: Ultimately, it is an ignorant and ineffective public that permits the
> corruption of politics and business to exist. Which gets us right back
> to education and media ...
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> Henry K van Eyken wrote:
>
> >Gary.
> >
> >People of a sarcastic bent of mind would simply label "The Second
> >American Revolution" article as a conspiracy theory and be done with it.
> >
> >But there are a few things that trouble me about George W. and the
> >leadership establishment:
> >
> >1. The absence of properly exercised democracy that caused him to be
> >elected. And of previous presidents as well.
> >
> >This is merely my opinion, of course, but what do members of the
> >electorate really know about their choices? Impressions substitute for
> >facts. This, of course, applies to electoral processes everywhere. The
> >U.S. is no exception.
> >
> >2. Yesterday, I listened to G.W.'s speech on the car radio. It was a
> >pathetic piece of drivel that would just about flunk a third-grader.
> >How, I wondered, again, can this man make decisions of policy other than
> >being simply talked into them by others? When a man of the stature and
> >accomplishment such as Nelson Mandela calls G.W.'s intellectual quality
> >in question, we need to worry. (And when the same man speaks of the U.S.
> >as a terrorist state - or words to that effect - we need to worry even
> >more.)
> >
> >The thesis is that George Sr. is the man behind all this. Maybe so, but
> >I do have doubts about that; not if, as has been claimed, Jr likes to
> >upstage Sr. I would first look at those who advise him. And whether the
> >process of advising is one where G.W. really listens and digests a
> >variety of conflicting opinions and then come to a decision or whether
> >he is swayed by intellectual laziness and emotion.
> >
> >3. George Sr. was once targeted for an assassination attempt in Kuwait.
> >Jr. for one during 9/11. And the 9/11 hit on the Pentagon cannot be one
> >but a constant reminder to Washingtonians. That, I suspect, does affect
> >thinking.
> >
> >4. The process of "presidential pardon" that exonerates corruption for
> >those who have been well placed in U.S. society. I imagine that this
> >pardon is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to avoiding to make
> >members of the upper echelons in society accountable.
> >
> >Your correspondence makes reference to corrupt leadership in business
> >(Enron, Anderson). My interest has been particularly focused on the
> >Dutch conglomerate Ahold and how it neglected the interest of the
> >shareholders.
> >
> >Ultimately, it is an ignorant and ineffective public that permits the
> >corruption of politics and business to exist. Which gets us right back
> >to education and media ...
> >
> >Henry (011)