posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:17 AM
I'd agree with that.
I think people who throw about the term 'Corporate Media', do so in the belief that they are controlled by businesses and so push a
True, the MSM in the US are not only controlled by corporations, they ARE corporations. They need to make money, that is their corncern. They will go
for the most shocking story, the one that pulls on the heart strings, the controversial scoops. Why? To make money and boost their ratings. Just
because they are privately owened, doesn't automatically make them biased towards one side. Ratings, awards, profits, respect and reputation are the
What is the alternative. Nobody stops anyone from using 'independant' media on the net, which are usually even more biased than the MSM. But to
deliver 24/7 news coverage, from every corner of the globe, and in every area of interest (politics, weather, sport, business etc) the organistations
need to make profits to keep the thing going. They hire thousands of people to work for them, need satelite top of the range equipment etc etc.
What is the alternative? A public sector service, something which in theory and under the right constitutional arrangments, can effectively be the
mouthpiece of government. A service that can still force out biased or incorrect reporting, whilst being subsidesed and kept afloat by taxation, which
could quite easily go to things more important, like Healthcare.
The private sector provides choice and competition. No-one force anyone to watch Fox. There are several MSM outlets for a reason. And we are, and
should be intelligent enough to take news from several outlets, asses it, analyse it, and make an informed opinion on the current events.