Arthur wrote: > You mean that the other networks are not in one way or the other in > their broadcast selling us a view of the world; consumer goods; > entertainment designed to hold our attention until the next advert; > children's morning TV with a particular message.
No, I don't mean that. I forebore to remark (or concede), for the sake of brevity, that all commercial media share mercenary motivations that, to a greater or lesser degree, bend and filter "content" to those ends. That's why I don't watch TV at all, except when in the dentist's chair where a ceiling-mounted monitor displays whatever happenstance channel someone has selected. And I've never, AFAICR, watched Fox, even for sampling purposes. But I've read about it in numerous places. The ubiquitous consumerist message of commercial media is quite pernicious enough in itself. (What I take to be) The jingoist, anti-social, corporatist, malevolent rhetoric of Fox's crazed, extreme-right political product strikes me as a whole 'nother thing. So I'm open to argument but I think that refusing status to a politically malevolent information vendor is more comparable to communities who refuse business licenses to Mordor^H^H^H^H^H^H Walmart than to censorship. Is the latter "tortious interference with trade" or good communitarian wisdom resisting a powerful and malignant agressor? - Mike _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
