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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (2402)	8/8/2003 5:21:10 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 7834

Well, nothing magic, just the antithesis to commercial channels. This includes the fact that CSPAN just sets up the cameras and lets them roll, no comments, no nothing and no breaks for commercials with the advertiser paying or not paying. Additionally a magic skill of respect for who ever calls in and whatever guest, no interrupting (well, the call-ins) and letting the (Washington Journal) guests speak their mind. (although it demands some skill to decide on who can only function alone and which ones can attempt a debate with another point of view) Obviously not a "holy grail" of reporting, but a holy anti-thesis to the US commercial networks and even PBS who needs to beg for money all the time. Additionally moving more and more from cable to internet where there "largest in the world archives" can be utilized. (Especially as the washington politicans,etc have had access to that archive since the very start, but only now, still limited,availability for the masses) Note also CSPAN's struggle to "stay on the local cables", while nobody can kick them off internet. Well, there might be the problem of living on one cent/cablebox if CSPAN becomes too much internet, but they have already found a solution for that, broadband internet access over TV-cable. Ilmarinen Btw, in a proportional representation, multy-party system all of this (and campaign financing) is easier, the parties cover, in much more detail, close to 95-97% of the population and they can be given proportional time on a PBS (or BBC) style of media (as well as public campaign financing) However, for a two-party system it would be silly to year after year have half, 49-51% (depending on the latest election) going to the same two parties. Note, there is this progression from US to UK-media and onwards to scandinavian media, UK has BBC as a common platform for their still-two-party-system, while scandinavia with proportional representation actually can implement "that common platform" as well as the really partisan media. That is, old theory as well as reality, a media-system needs - totally partisan, non-neutral sources (as they are free to come up with anything they like, no need to unbiased,etc) - a common platform on which they can meet That is, the first group are the ones which can suggest solutions,etc The second group is the forum where they are debated. If only one of them exist, it is called propaganda. (the point is that an "unbiased", "neutral" media cannot be "creative", suggest "new things") What major US commersial media would decide to just be the spokes-media for one of the two parties?? Especially the losing one, sooner or later, if the two-party system will survive and not become a one-party-system?? (well, imported Murdoch-Fox attempts that)