1996-08-25 - Re: Spamming

Header Data

From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4aefeb5a6c7a374a93dee3192445c17b43b708012ec5455c4bf4eb056c9156f3
Message ID: <199605140416.EAA00577@fountainhead.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-25 00:09:54 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:09:54 +0800

Raw message

From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:09:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Spamming
Message-ID: <199605140416.EAA00577@fountainhead.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


>  The advertizers in printed & broadcast media exercise a great deal of control
>  over the content. E.g., a magazine that gets revenues from tobacco ads isn't
>  likely to run a story about tobacco companies trying to addict kids. That's
>  why you see more anti-tobacco content in broadcast media (who can't run
>  tobacco ads) than in printed media. (And there are cross-ownership
>  restrictions.)
 
This can be true to certain extent. But if the mag doesn't maintain 
objectivity, it will kill itself slowly. Same is true of broadcast media.

Vipul






Thread