DAVID NORTON wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON:

RJ>The phrase "purveyor of propaganda" suggests that they are the
RJ>mechanism and that somebody else is providing the content,  or
RJ>setting the agenda,  or whatever.  This may be the case,  but if so
RJ>I'm not real sure as to where it's coming from and as to how
RJ>whoever's doing it is managing to set that agenda.

DN> Easy, the folks with money (studios, banks, TV networks) who 
DN> finance films and TV pick the films/programs they agree with and 
DN> withhold funds from projects that don't represent their point of 
DN> view.

And those folks,  being who they are,  all support the hierarchal, 
one-to-many approach to things,  because of the nature of the business that
they're in.

DN> Directors who become well known can select the projects that they
DN> want to work on, actors who are well known and have "box office"
DN> potential do the same.

All within the limits of what they consider "reasonable",  no
doubt,  which means within the constraints that they know they have to work
within,  if they want to keep working... 

DN> Thus you have TV programs such as the West Wing, a non-stop dose of 
DN> liberal, anti-gun propaganda so overt it's unwatchable.

I've never watched it.  Though I did see a short snip of the antics of that
asshole of an actor that stars in it when he made the news one evening...

RJ>It also seems like the "news" media have almost the same agenda,  or 
RJ>at least are on the same end of the political spectrum for the most 
RJ>part.

RJ>Makes you wonder...

DN> Not really, in the 1930s through the 1980s the liberals and 
DN> socialists made a concerted effort to take over the media and the 
DN> schools.  Since the conservatives are primarily individuals who 
DN> don't want to get involved and the liberals are primarily herd 
DN> animals who DO want to be involved and to push their agenda, they 
DN> easily succeeded and now we have faculty committees who won't allow 
DN> a conservative to be hired in many schools, publishers who won't 
DN> allow a conservative to be printed or aired, etc..

Well,  yeah,  I can see that up to a point.  Except in talk radio.  

RJ>DN> But television has replaced motion pictures as the medium most 
RJ>DN> people see, IMHO that's a good thing.  TV requires so many hours
RJ>DN> of programming that there's some room for other opinions.

RJ>Hmm.

RJ>DN> Notice I said "some"?

RJ>Seems to me that the bias is still there,  for the most part,  and I
RJ>still wonder where it's coming from.

DN> See above.

Noted.

DN> The above, of course, is just my own opinion but it could also be 
DN> aliens from outer space who wish to take over the planet by 
DN> eliminating our will and ability to fight them, that might explain
DN> William Jefferson Clinton? 

DN> OK, I'll go away now....

Heh.

(Is Dorothy here?  :-)

I guess Arkansas must be a better place without him,  but did they really
have to inflict him on the rest of us?

---