I suppose my view may be a bit skewed by the selection, but my exposure to Fox, back before NTSC was retired, was via a local station that carried Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert regularly, so I would see the excerpts they put up to shred. I was appalled by the kind of language used by Glenn Beck and whatsisname O'Reilly. It was the sort of speech you expect to overhear from no-neck knuckle draggers on a construction site. And that's not the political slant, just the lack of respect and dignity.
And yes, I found a lot of recent "children's" programming on commercial channels to be appalling as well, and it was depressing to see how much of that crap was being produced in Vancouver. Fortunately CBC continued to demonstrate how to do it with dignity. -Pete On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Arthur Cordell wrote: > I sure respect your postings. But I find it interesting that you are > against something you haven't seen but only heard about. Sometime you > should tune in to TV and watch some of the children's programming. I find > it offensive. But then again I am not a small child who is watching morning > TV as a form of daycare. > > For the record I wouldn't vote to have Fox as part of basic cable. It is a > "specialty" channel. > > Arthur > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pete > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:58 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Live hearing in days -- Stop "Fox News North" > > > > Except that in this case, it isn't an issue of preventing access to the > channel, it is about which tier in the cable hierarchy it is to occupy, > whether to make it on the same level as a science channel, or a similar > special interest channel, vs declaring it a key component of local > programming; a "base cable" channel. I don't think this is so clear. The > vile small-minded content of Fox is not something I would want on a TV, if I > had one, that was used by young children, if I had them, without my being > able to lock it out. Being decades away from exposure to cable TV and > hardware capabilities, I don't know what is possible these days, so I can't > comment specifically, but I would regard Fox as as viscerally offensive as > some people might regard pornography, and I have a real roblem with the > notion that that should occupy basic cable space. Let it share bandwidth > with the Playboy channel (does that still exist?) and similar garbage. > > -Pete > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Arthur Cordell wrote: > > > I am not pro Fox. I am anti censorship. I listen to talk radio from > > time to time to hear what ordinary people are saying, no matter how > > redneck they may seem to some. Listening to different points of view > tends to broaden. > > Restricting what people may hear makes the censored material all the > > more attractive. > > > > I like to hear a diversity of views and opinions. As I said to > > another on the list, the USSR engaged in censoring those views that it > > found threatening. In a free society , aside from hate speech and/or > > incitement to violence, we should be able to hear just about > > everything. (except the usual criminal things like child porn, etc.) > > > > arthur > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike > > Spencer > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:41 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Live hearing in days -- Stop "Fox News North" > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
