[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

Phil Do we really want scientists telling us .... what is good propaganda and what is bad propaganda? No, I much prefer the give and take involved in all the debates surrounding political news coverage, which leaves most of the decisions up to citizens.

In our democratic republic, the issue is clouded by money. Money takes the decisions away from citizens, It's one of the most common complaints that elections are money-matches, that free speech is only purchased TV-time, and that the electoral agon is about who can best please special interests rather than who has the brightest ideas and visions of polity.

Scientists, assuming they are not scientists-for-hire, would at least offer a counterpoise to the money game, which is its own form of disenfranchisement.

At Columbia Journalism Review, for example, they have a who-owns-what-media page, to help media scientists track which conglomerates control which media outlets.

So I look forward to scientists getting in the mix, not as philosopher-kings, but as truth tellers in a world that's perpetually up for sale.


Other related posts: