On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave

Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to
him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be
better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not
televising cases which expose those laws?

So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep
the people in the dark, and media are their instruments?

With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around,
do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices?

I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming
because it is presented on the TV as its forum?


So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions
of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times,
it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is
presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect?

You really are a man full of bias......

Dave