to my way of thinking, yes to all. if terrorist were dumb enough to buy time on u.s. television to show them being inhuman it would hurt them greatly and perhaps allow many people to realize just how barbaric people can be. sort of like the "open casket" idea at funerals, apparently/allegedly it helps some people realize the person in the box actually is dead, it can help to break through denial. as far as advertising that would hurt media's popularity, media people aren't usually very good at figuring that out, and if all media run similar ads there is nothing to single out one media company. what i'm saying is that during the "red scare" of the 50's this type of logic was used to great determent of companies, individuals, and the audience. based on wild claims and the fact that people new each other sponsors were allowed to demand people be blacklisted. companies were also black listed. every one went around trying not to offend any one and wound up greatly diluting the talent pool, unfairly punishing companies, and unreasonably destroying careers. as you say, corporations exist to make money, at the very least they should strive to sell advertising, corporations have no business making moral decisions and little ability to determine what the people will and will not like, witness the number of popular shows that get canceled for reasons other than ratings.=20 corporations don't get to have opinions or political views, those who run them have no right to push their views on others by refusing to air opposing viewpoints, it's there job to make money, not decide what people should see and they certainly have no right what so ever to be donating money to politicians or charities. it's not appropriate, it's a corruption of their duties to the share holders. =20 clear channel stopped playing the dixie chics after one of them said she was ashamed of bush, this wasn't based on the general audiences wishes, it came down from corporate people who liked bush and didn't want to help any one who didn't make money, they wanted to punish the dixie chics for what they said. in fact most of the audience still liked the dixie chics but were deprived of the opportunity to hear them on the radio which cost the dixie chics money and likely reduced the number of listeners (it also cost their agents, record companies, and all associated with them, people who weren't remotely involved in one of the 3 making a candid statement). it was not a business decision, it was one group of people forcing their will on the public independent of what it meant to their bottom line. the dixie chics were and are one of the most popular groups in country music circles, the decision was solely based on the desire to punish the dixie chics and prevent people from listening to any possible new songs that might echo a similar attitude towards bush, and to scare other's into not expressing those views for fear they might lose their lively hood or a portion of it.=20 this kind of thing has a chilling effect on music groups, particularly those just becoming popular and really need the money. it legitimizes this sort of decision and to some extent makes listeners refrain from saying the same type of thing where they work etc. or being politically active in a way that some might not approve of. the media play a very important/large role in how people view the issues, things like this distort that view by reducing, sometimes sharply, the ability of the public to hear and understand the view that management doesn't like.=20 it's un-American and unsound business practice to try and tell the audience they can't listen to the new album or old stuff that they want to. it hurts advertisers as many have already negotiated fees for ads well into the future with a good faith expectation that the corporate management won't do things to reduce the size of the audience. as i said, i'm delighted the skin heads and others have web sites, it lets people see that these groups are very real and just how these people think, allowing the individual the opportunity to decide what is right. it's not reasonable for those who sell website space/traffic/servers etc. to refuse to carry certain web sites, it is there job to sell as much service as they can and maximize profit. they actually have a positive incentive to host unpopular websites as they will see less traffic and require less maintenance and other resources relative to the fees charged even with different service levels being ava= ilable. my point is that this is a form of censorship, it's not just the government that can practice sensor ship, any one in a position of power can. in the case of radio and tv stations they can shape people's views to some extent and move the collective opinion in the direction they want to an extent by reducing people exposure to opposing views, and they can do this even when it hurts business which they certainly have no right to. as i said, i once worked in a print shop, i'm delighted that we offered services to the KKK, yes they are reprehensible, but they have just as much right to pay their money and get their media as any other customer d= oes. the stations in question should be obliged to run it because people are willing to give them money to do so and they are in the business of taking people's money and running their ads. even if they are child molesters which would most likely do harm to those represented in the ad and by doing so help society. what if all those who run the discovery channel decide that space exploration or super coliders aren't worth running and push program producers not to cover them? yes, business should be required to provide the services they are in business to supply at a profit to those who can pay and hence make a greater profit. there is never a lack of advertising space for long even when the number of potential advertisers increase, when there is a temporary shortage, if it looks like a pattern developing media companies will raise their rates and starve out the less well funded advertisers in favor of those who can and will pay more. that is what a business is supposed to do rather than refusing paying clients and costing the corporation and stock holders money. if the media executives decided that video games cause violence and are a curse on society do they have the right to refuse to run ads for playstations as christmas approaches? from a purely profit motive standpoint the certainly do not. sorry, i am being a bit repetitive, but i'm trying to provide several examples and factors involved. the problem with censorship is you never know what those with power will find objectionable next, and as a consequence people self censor expanding the powerful's power even further, and consistently making them lose money when as a business it is their job to make money. what if a local tv executive and his pals over at the other tv, and radio stations and the local paper decide that nazi's are good? what if it's like this for decades? children would grow up not realizing that while many that there was another way and other ideas. these children later adult citizens having grown up in ignorance will tend to believe the one true version of the truth they are told without question, they may even tend to not learn how to question the official version of things much less why it's important to do so. that's an extreme case, but one i suspect most on the list are on the same side of. yes, it is a slippery slope, and the tilt has been increased recently.=20 while all reporting is biased and that bias is usually different at different papers a coalition of all of them can form if they take a common position, which they may easily do on some issues while not being together on others. in such a case, the public is kept ignorant on the issue that all those in power happen to agree upon, and even if a few don't agree most people still won't have that information. i'd love to read newspapers all day, but most people just don't have the time to seek out those opposing views if they aren't presented in any of the media channels they commonly use. very few have the time and other necessities to go out and do research on the issues and formulate a decision based on this broad knowledge base. i may disagree with your opinion, but i will fight to the death to defend your' right to say it. Jason S wrote: >=20 ---------- > I don't see the distinction you're making here. >=20 > Anyway, a corporation is a private entity who's reason to exist is to m= ake > profit for its owners. If the people who run it feel that running an a= d > will be bad for business, why should they be obligated to run it? What= if > terrorists wanted to run "ads" showing them murdering people. If they'= re > willing to pay, should NBC be required to air the spots? ---------- --=20 Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.=20 Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.=20 Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.=20 Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.=20 Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niem=F6ller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636. _______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist