[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:33:24 +0700
Eric Yost wrote:
"Perhaps you, Phil, could explain how balanced coverage could be
attained without absolute totalitarian control of all news media,
mandating pica-size of magazine cover photos and column-inches of
newspaper articles?"
Remember, I am the one who is claiming that the belief in the
possibility of articulating the nature of balanced coverage is
illusory. My claim is that we can't say what is balanced coverage,
only what is obviously unbalanced. I am quite happy to leave in
dispute the question of whether the vast majority of political
coverage is unbalanced, since, for me, the arguments that comprise
this dispute are a crucial part of the democratic process. I find
liberal complaints about Fox News and conservative attacks on NBC good
for democracy in the U.S. and would have it no other way.
Eric continues:
"Since it's better not to have a despot setting terms of balance, one
assumes the best we can hope for is awareness of the bias."
But I am the one who is trying to keep people from putting their
fingers on the balance. It seems to me that the scientists you are
putting your faith in are more of those same despots, just wearing lab
coats. Do we really want scientists telling us what news we should
accept as truth and what we should reject as lies? Do we really want
scientists to be telling us what of our 'everyday' lives is true and
what is propaganda? Or what is good propaganda and what is bad
propaganda? No, I much prefer the give and take involved in all the
debates surrounding political news coverage, which leaves most of the
decisions up to citizens.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
