Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!nwnexus!beauty!rwing!pat From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Overreacting (was Re: Once tapped, your code is no good any more) Message-ID: <2124@rwing.UUCP> Date: 28 Apr 93 02:07:17 GMT References: <116530@bu.edu> <2109@rwing.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Totally Unorganized Lines: 84 In article dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In <2109@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > >>How come the media is not telling about the provisions of the Clipper >>decision? ... > >>How can the bulk of the people be informed, when the media refuses to >>do it? > >The answer to your second question lies in the way you phrased the >first one: 'the media is...'. > >The medis isn't 'is'. The media 'are'. 'Media' means 'more than one >medium.' There are thousands of publications. Some say this, some say >that. > > How can the bulk of the people be informed, when they won't read > informative publications? Because much of the public aren't even aware of the NAMES of informative publications. Look at the 'wealth' of material on the typical newsstand. Unless the person is working in some kind of technical environment, with the usual trade journals, all they ever see is the media (note: media in this context is the popular media - TV, radio, daily newspapers, and such publications as Time, Newsweek, and all that). And they all say pretty much the same thing. I see most of them being in the range of center-left to far Left, and generally supportive of pie-in-sky we-will-take- care-of-you-think-for-you-cradle-to-grave. There seems to be an air of arrogance that the individual is not capable of understanding major issues so the media doesn't bother to inform them (as with Clipper, for example) or tells the people how to interpret events in others. What is lost sight of is that the people are not good at understanding things because they are not TOLD accurate information about them. It is a lot to expect of the people for them to be clarirvoyant. For example, I would have been unaware of Clipper had I not picked it up on USENET. How much of the population has USENET, let alone Internet access? For access to better publications, the person has to spend time digging. Many folks, especially who work long hours, have families, etc., do not have TIME to go digging, and many are not (yet) aware things are wrong, so are not motivated to dig. Not saying its right, just saying that is the way things are. People aren't upset about things when they aren't TOLD. And the less than objective media is a major contributer to the problem. And then compound that with an attitude of arrogance in the civil service (bureaucrats, politicians) that act as if the person without political connections, or deep pockets (potential contributer) should have few if any rights, being a resource to be used by those in control for their polticial or financial gain. Some Law Enforcement agencies act as if they regard the common person with a rather intense degree of contempt, peons that are supposed to do what they are TOLD, and get very nasty when someone questions them. The media pundits/editors, etc tend to fall into those with privilege, and tend to not be upset by the current state of affairs. The fellow in DC, who shot the swimmer in his Jacuzzi for daring to swim in it, with an ILLEGALLY owned gun (violating the law he pushed to be foisted on everyone else), ends up walking where a less well-connected person would have been crucified. A typical example of one standard for 'us', a much more restrictive standard for 'other folk'. Perhaps I am not real eloquent in expressing this, but the solution sure as hell is NOT to make it HARDER for people to find out what is going on, or dismiss their concerns because one happens to be in a position where one feels they are exempt or insulated. Such as that hypocrite of a journalist in DC described above. One notices that these less-than complimentary points about that double-standard was NOT covered in the media. I feel the reason was it dovetailed with their political views on the subject, and it involved a 'brother' journalist. Isn't it time for our 'objective' media, the MAIN SOURCE of info for the average person, to start being what they claim to be, instead of spin doctors for the Statist elements? >-- >Rahul Dhesi >also: dhesi@cirrus.com -- pat@rwing.uucp [Without prejudice UCC 1-207] (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA If all else fails, try: ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." - Albert Einstien