Re: Edison

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from normanmo@clark.net Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:41:14   
-0500 
 Well last I heard those who manage 'the press' are just as much a 
 part of it as those who do the writing. That said I believe the fault 
 lies with both the press and the public...the press for doing such a 
 lousy job and the public for allowing them to get away with it. I'm 
 always amazed at the overall decline in critical thinking in an age in 
 which 'spin' has become an art form.  
  
  
 >In short, never assume malice when incompetence will do. ;-) 
  
  
     True, but in this case incompetence is still no excuse. 
 
Most if not all major standard press (radio, tv, press) is owned by   
major corporations or major capitalists. And fewer and fewer of those   
as time goes on.  
 
You may have noticed that stories or viewpoints unsupportive of their   
interests get short shrift generally, if covered at all. I don't consider it   
incompetence at all. It's clearly a knowing acquiescence in tailoring   
'news' coverage to support the philosophy of the owners. (But not   
necessarily explicit. Workers can sense the corporate culture very   
readily...)  
 
You could call it malice or just amoral self-serving on the part of the   
owners; on the part of the owned, those who view themselves as   
journalists, I'd call it prostitution. Many would call it realism. 
 
To what extent such factors influence coverage of high tech (and also   
M$) I don't know. I suspect such issues have until recently been below   
the radar horizon of the policy makers, but probably aren't of late. 
 
While I agree that the public's skill at critical thinking has, shall we say,   
great potential to grow, they/we do pretty well considering the slanted   
and filtered fodder we're given by the 'press' industry. The technique   
of creating reality by limiting *all* 'credible' discussion to the desired   
parameters is remarkably powerful. 

-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net