Information Age

2002-10-5 14:36:00

Larry writes:
Here is a question for you JJ.

In regards to the press, and increasing/ decreasing freedom since 1960, how many independent newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations existed in 1960? Now, fast forward to today. How many independent newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations exist today? On the other hand, how many huge conglomerates control the vast majority of all news outlets?

I think you will find that in 1960 there was a great deal more diversity and independence in the ownership media of that day, and today almost all public media of any real importance (outside of the Internet) is owned and controlled by a very small number of very large conglomerates.

But if I am wrong about that, tell me so. Also what do you suppose the possible effect of such a situation would be? Look at national evening news on any channel. How much diversity of opinion do you see? When is the last time you ever saw any major media in the U.S. speak approvingly of the right to keep and bear arms, or speak approvingly of religious minorities?

JJ
In the Sixties there were only three networks on TV and they all reported news that was similar to each other with a particular slant, censoring out much of the good stuff. For these three networks the situation is about the same today. But we now have Fox news and many cable channels having talk shows which offer much more information to the seeker than ever before.

We had virtually no national talk or debate shows on TV or radio in the Sixties and the growth of this medium (talk shows) has caused an instant dissemination of information which was suppressed in the Sixties. Then add the Internet and the free flow of information today compared to the Sixties is overwhelming.

I remember back then when I knew a few underground things that there was no one to talk to about it because few were informed. Now there are few things concerning current events that are not available to all. That which was underground in the Sixties is now in my face through E-mail SPAM before I have time to think about it.

I do not care who owns what as long as their government does not own the media. What I look at is the end result.

As far as the printed media, I do not think much has changed there. There may have been more independent ownership, but that didn't make information more available

Larry,
"When they came for the Branch Davidians I did not speak out..."

JJ
Actually, I have heard an avalanche of people speaking out on this to the extent I am almost tired of hearing about it. There was even quite a bit of outrage expressed even in the mainstream reporting and a tremendous amount in the letters to the editor and mainstream talk shows.

Because of the greater free flow of information today national law enforcement has been held somewhat in check and I would suppose that several other Wacos have been avoided.

Larry
When I read JJ's statement that, "If there is flagrant abuse the press will catch wind of it. - like Waco and Ruby Ridge" I had to laugh - not laughter of amusement, but laughter of disbelief.

JJ
You laugh because you know something. Share it with us. Tell us of an incident comparable to Waco in the U.S. that was not picked up by the press. If you cannot do this then perhaps you shouldn't laugh at my words.

Larry
I believe if the press had _really_ done their job then Lon Horiuchi would be in prison, and many BATF and FBI agents would be awaiting execution on "death row" in Huntsville, Texas.

JJ
I live in Idaho and perhaps we were better informed on this incident, but the press here covered this well enough so the man on the street where I live felt outraged over Horiuchi's shooting of Mrs. Weaver and felt he should be prosecuted. What more do you want the press to do? They gave us the details and that was enough to make an informed decision for those who kept up on things. I would say the press did a lot better here than they have on most political issues.

I believe it would have taken protests in the streets to get a conviction on Horiuchi.

The press is often criticized for what they do not cover. The truth is that they have to be selective, for they can only cover a small amount of potential stories. There are many abuses by authorities but unless it becomes newsworthy like Waco or Ruby Ridge, many will be ignored.

For instance there are thousands of missing children every year, but the Elizabeth Smart case caught their attention. However, something as big as Waco or Jim Jones will not be ignored if they catch wind of it.

Larry
JJ is probably one of the greatest experts on Mormon history here. I wonder what his "take" is on that period? Did it represent a "tyranny of the majority"?

JJ
If you are going to make a case about the Tyranny of the majority in history this is one of the best examples. This is a hard one to call because in that age they did little, if any polling about such matters. If the owner of a local newspaper was down on the Mormons he could make it sound like they were universally hated.

The main thing that created the problem was not the evil intent of the majority, but the deception of the majority. All kinds of untruths were circulated by the local and national press as well as word of mouth. This caused many people to become alarmed.

When the Mormons were chased out of Missouri, of course it was done by a minority who actually participated, but the question is how did the majority feel? Did they support the "extermination" order proclaimed by Governor Boggs? I doubt this, but it is quite possible that the majority were supportive of somehow expelling the Mormons from Missouri.

But. . . the majority people in Illinois at that time were sympathetic toward the Mormons and took in the refugees.

How did the majority of the people of the United States feel about the persecutions of the Mormons? I think it is possible the majority of the Missourians supported it, but I think the majority of the country as a whole was against it, even though they were misinformed and had malicious misinformation about them. (Mormons were not completely innocent as Susan pointed out) I think the majority in this country saw the Mormons as a dangerous threat, but did not support mob action. A minority supported mob action and this created a reoccurring problem for them.

"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy." George Washington