|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <warlord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Robert Howe <rehhrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew; TASAC Editorship
>At 05:18 PM 1999-06-17 -0400, Robert Howe wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew <warlord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: Mark Brown <markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>><omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Sweeney S&C <JSweeney@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 4:37 PM
>>Subject: Re: TASAC Editorship
>>
>>>Media is the platform for ads since they pay more than subs.
>>>Flaw of the free markets that gets corrected with regulation.
>>>
>>Flaw?
>>I think not. Is influence as an implicit free market media
characteristic?
>>Yes, depending upon the degree of objective intent in editorial staff and
>>magazine ownership.
>>
>>The value of a free press is often wasted on those unwilling to make
>>discerning judgements. While regulation has merit in certain situations
and
>>social activities, a free press is generally not one where regulation
should
>>be a primary source of "correction". A free market is a better source.
>
>Regulated free markets is a better choice.
>1. How can one making discerning judgements if most the most prominent
sources
>of information are tainted?
>2. Like it or not, a lie repeated often enough will be become truth.
>Fragility of the
>human cognitive system.
>snip<
regulation, smegulation. P.T.Barnum said it best. ain't no regulation ever
gonna fully protect dunces from their own stupidity.
|