Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (61282)	10/1/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

LOL! Accuracy in media! What a change. JLA

To: Les H who wrote (61282)	10/1/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 67261

What does BS in P-BS stand for?

To: Les H who wrote (61282)	10/2/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: Jon Stept	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Les Horowitz- re:PBS Changes Name to DPBS... Hi Les, I understand your clever post is in jest, but I also want to discuss with you one of the underlying assumptions of your post- the media agenda (if you don't mind). From the tone and content of your post, I would think you are interested in this topic. I believe that the media has an agenda. I am not convinced it is sinister or righteous. I have noticed that the "media agenda" is often portrayed as something that is wrong, an unwanted dynamic in our democracy that should be stopped. Also, the media agenda is almost exclusively the domain of liberal, non-religious values. If I have this wrong, please let me know. I think the belief I mentioned above is held by those that cannot quite put their finger on what is going on in the media and often blame the media for exploring ideas that are outside their belief system. For example, I have an example of what might be considered an expression of media agenda. The recent Playboy interview contained public statements that bashed religion directly, and indirectly in regards to drugs and prostitution. These statements were made by a high-profile governor. I don't think these ideas would have been allowed in Times Magazine or Newsweek. But it is no surprise it is in Playboy which is basically soft-porn, and the vanguard of the 1950's-60's sexual revolution... especially the suggestion that sex does not have to be under the control of religion. Is this an example of an agenda? I think so. Some might ask, "What is Playboy saying...that prostitution is OK? The drugs are OK? That religion is not right?" No. I don't think the evidence supports this. Playboy is exploring and expressing ideas, the opinion of one man. The reader is the one giving these ideas legitimacy and validity... the magazine just expresses them. Can beliefs opposing religion be expressed without them being labeled as a media agenda? Are there examples of this? Or is all religious opposition the media agenda? Thank you for your post, and I look forward to your reply. Just my opinion. Jon :)