Re: news media and social soma

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

Greg, Again I appreciate the constructive way in
which you engage my arguments. A couple of comments
below.
--Alan

On Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:23:56 -0500 (EST) Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant) said:
>But it is of course senidng up
>the flares to argue that the current media system
>"reflects what people want" in a totally non-problematic
>sense; it can be seen as an argument that the "system
>is working" and that "there's nothing wrong with it."
>
>I think that Isaac may have put this view forward
>either deliberately or by accident.

It would certainly be by accident.
I have consistently referred to the endogeneity of
consumer interests. I have also commented on the fact
that the media both reflect and form consumer interests.
Further, I do not believe that I have ever made a welfare
judgment of the sort "there's  nothing wrong with it".

Although I have been dragged through many side issues,
my central point has always been simple: the pattern
of news coverage and analysis that we observe cannot
be *explained*, in any fundamental sense, by pointing
to the *current* role of advertiser interests.
As I said to Doug, this is like mistaking a symptom for
the disease. Related to this, I have made the simple
point that pointing to *current* availability of
alternative analysis simply *begs the question*.

I have of course focused on showing that media coverage
must reflect consumer interests. That is because all
participants (including myself) agree that the
news and entertainment media
(along with many other influences, of course)
form consumer interests, so there is no point in arguing
that. Perhaps this emphasis in my arguments led to the
misunderstanding. But I do think that the bulk of my
posts include qualifications indicating clearly that
I see the outcome as an *equilibrium* in which consumer
interests are both formed and reflected.

>
>Isaac is right to point out that "there is no demand" for
>publications such as LBO, in the same sense that in
>a tribe that scars its young men there is no demand
>for cosmetic surgery to remove scars.  The others are
>right to point out that this does have the characteristics
>of an ideologically hegemonic system.  But it is wrong
>to think that this system derives its power merely from
>its ability to suppress alternatives; that is really
>to misread it.  *NO effort is put into suppressing
>alternatives*--or, precious little.

I am in basic agreement with this, although I think it
is important to pin down what is meant by "effort".
The important point, in any case, is that the system is
not sustaining itself by actively suppressing a large,
currently existing, unmet demand for alternative analysis.
I have allowed that this is an empirical claim
deserving research, and that the evidence I have
offered for it (beyond its basic plausibility) is largely
anecdotal. One piece of evidence I have offered beyond
the anecdotal is the subscription level of non-mainstream
(e.g., left or right oriented) periodicals---I think this
is strongly suggestive, but I do not claim it is conclusive.

Finally, I feel I should clarify one last point.
I have argued that the current relationship between
advertisers, the media, consumers, and the state is
an equilibrium. Given its persistence, it appears to
be a fairly stable equilibrium, although there is
clearly some modest evolution. But this does not imply
uniqueness.

--Alan G. Isaac