Re: PKT digest 1342/chomsky et al

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

Since dialogue with you has become pointless,
I only ask that you back  up your distortions of my
arguments with substantial enough quotes to provide
context. (Note that I am not assuming the distortion
is intentional, a courtesy you have not extended to me.)

The context of my comments on print media was, of course,
the *current* (as opposed to potential) availability of
alternative news analysis. The reason current availability
came up at all is that you and Doug (if I have understood
you correctly) were defending an "unmet demand"
perspective that, as I have extensively argued,
is indefensible.

--Alan G. Isaac

PS To dismiss an argument as "psuedo-sophisticated" is a
transaparent rhetorical ploy that simply avoids engaging
the argument. And of course, it is just this point to
which you have never offered an adequate or interesting
response.



On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 14:09:13 -0800 Paul Henry Rosenberg said:
>Here's Alan in his psuedo-sophisticated mode:
>
>
>> ii. At a deeper level, we need to understand how consumers,
>> news media, advertisers, and government are interacting over
>> time to sustain the outcome that we see. Simply focussing
>> on the behavior over time of the dominant institutions fails
>> to address the fundamental question of why *these*
>> institutions are dominant. This is what seems left out of
>> your (admittedly short) comments.
>
>But, of course, none of this really matters to Alan, since, as he points
>out elsewhere, he is only concerned about PRINT media.