Re: Financing of media.

[Trond Andresen <Trond.Andresen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Herb says:

>
> 	I still maintain that it is a mistake to prohibit private
> commercial stations, and the public in a democratic society not
> support a policy of this type. If people don't want to listen to
> commercial stations, the stations will not succeed.
>

I do not want to prohibit them, but institute a comprehensive regime
for regulation,  as should be clear from my last message.

(me:)
> >The fundamental reason for this insistence on non-commercial financing
> >of media may be explained by an analogy: If we look at society as an
> >organism, then media is an important part of the brain/nervous system.
> >For the health of the whole individual, we have to ensure that it does
> >not misuse drugs, because then thinking will be impaired and the
> >individual will be damaged in the long run.
>
(Herb:)
> 	This is a prejudice of yours, Trond, without empirical
> support.  There is no scientific sense in which advertizing is
> addictive.

Yes, my analogy is not perfect.

> There is very little evidence that advertizing has a great
> deal of effect on people's preferences.

First: This is another discussion, on the impact of advertising on
people.

Second: Why advertise if the impact is negligible? Are the capitalists
throwing billions out the window?

trond andresen