On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:30 pm, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes but...this should not matter. The New York Times would make more >> money if they published nothing but horoscopes and photos of naked >> women, but that is not an excuse for them to do so. Unlike Disney >> Corp, ABC News should be in the business of reporting the news, not >> the business of making money. > > I agree with you, but in this atmosphere, it's not going to happen. > If the FCC started requiring that every broadcast station's news > programs had to contain serious and purposeful journalism determined > by the people in charge, the cries of "CENSORSHIP!" would be far and > wide and Fox News would be livid. (That, of course, would be if the > FCC was allowed to monitor non-broadcast content, as the regulators do > everywhere else.) > > In the end, if we want serious news from our broadcast sources in this > country, the only way to get it is from not-for-profit sources.
I am not convinced that we have to accept this. It does not have to be partisan, but it does require putting the teeth back into the regulation of broadcasting. I am willing to put up with the clowns at CNN to minimize regulation of cable, but if we have to put up with the nonsense of mock horror over Janet Jackson's nipple, then the very least we can ask for is some serious public service too. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
