*DAMN R6 Forum

Ok, this one has been bothering me for a while.

Why do so many people here think that the US government has any control over the US press?

Why do so many people here think that CNN is a bad source of information?  Or any other US media?

Where do most of the "bad" or "illegal" things that the US Government do get exposed FIRST?

Now, I'm all for getting multiple points of view.  This usually comes from reading editorials (from all over).  But what makes anyone think that the BBC is less jaded then The Washington Post.  How many presidents (or Prime Ministers) has the BBC brought down?  Or the CBC?  

How many European nations have complete freedom of the press?  Where the government has no legal say in the matter?  I mean 100% complete, not just close enough.  How many?

Wasn't that the very first ammendment to our constitution?  Isn't it at the heart of our beliefs?

Now, I'm not saying that our government doesn't try to hide things.  No, it has it's secrets (some of them dirty little secrets to be sure).  And it has sure as hell tried to keep the media from publishing some information.  Sometimes they were successful, like when they got the New York Times to pull the articles by Yardley (he would be a guy that pretty much was the key code breaker for the US and set up much of the foundation for the NSA).  Sometimes they failed, like with Nixon, for example.

The fact that the US Government isn't even obeying the freedom of information act isn't even at issue.  That has nothing to do with the quality or bias of the media.

So, look at that for a bit.  What really colors our media?  The government?  Not really or often.  Our media doesn't trust our government for the most part, and has shown that consistantly.  No, it's the people that own the media, and the editors.  So, are all these owners and editors conservative?  Liberal?  Republican?  Democrat?  No.

If you look, you can find examples of every extreme and everything in between, all in US News.  

So what's important?  Find sources that present both sides without holding back (you have to investigate to find this).  Find sources that disagree with each other and read why.

This is no different from what you should do if you are reading news from anywhere.

So, why is it some people insult it with implications that the US news media is inferior?  I'd like to hear their point of view.

I certainly wouldn't say the US news sources are goverment controlled.  There are certainly more liberal publications such as CNN and Newsweek (Newsweek being the mag I subscribe to) and the more conservative ones like Time and FoxNews (which is the 24-hour news station I watch).  None of them are completely one way or the other but they do have tiltings as it is fully their right to have.

On the other hand US press is more American in viewpoint than foreign press...that is only natural but certainly could be seen as a flaw since I'd say a majority of people here don't read foreign press.  They may get both liberal and conservative American viewpoints but they lack both American and European and other areas of news.  This is one thing many European news sources do better, they are more worldly.  They tend to report on things that happen all over the world even if it doesn't impact the home country, they also have more diverse nationality in reports.

So the problem with US press is not political bias or goverment control, just that it is a bit limited in scope.  Not a problem if you do read foreign press, but since most don't it makes US press inferior.

i agree with bondo here. the US press generally slants things slightly towards the pro-war angle. just turn on CNN: chances are they are broadcasting a speech by bush or powell on why we should go to war or the latest piece of damning evidence. when i watch the european news, however, i see mostly protests and european leader denouncing the war. it goes both ways.

bucc, i think that, de facto, the european press is just as free as the american, even if there are some archaic laws that limit press freedom during crises. the US military closed off parts of afghanistan to journalists. journalists asking questions to Donald Rumsfeld at the pentagon know not to piss him off or they wont be back for the next conference. in practice, there are some restrictions on the US press as well. also, it seems to me that many US media giants have gone into self-censorship and 'kiss bush-ass' mode since 9/11.

Either I call bullshit, or you have to explain that better.  Because I read all about shit going on in South American, Africa and Asia, from the WORLD section of the news.  Not things that just involve the USA.

I think the facts of the news from over the world is represented just fine in the American press.  I think that the American press has honestly shown the public reaction in Europe.  The only thing I can see is the viewpoint.  The editorials.  Hearing their view on the situation first hand.  

That's good for a well thought out person, that likes to know what others are feeling and thinking.

But is it important to know how the European press feels about South America?  Do they have a better outlook on it then I do?  Then the american press?  Are they more accurate?  Nope.  They are just another source.  If I want to see what they think of Iraq, it's a good place to look.  But are they going to give me a bunch of different facts?

So, I see it as a good place to hear their opinions.  But that doesn't make their opinions any more or less vaild then the editorials I read here.  

Is it good to get more points of view.  YES.  Are they better?  NO.  Not in my opinion.  

I read the BBC often because I like how they have it organized.  It's more style then substance.  But all that information can be found here too.

Bucc, do you ever read the economist?
they make a better case for bush's iraq-policy than most of what ive read in the US press.

Apparently I have to explain it better, I was saying that when US media covers world events, it is from the viewpoint of the US.  Doesn't mean they don't cover everything a foreign media network covers, just in a different perspective.  I think European sources tend to have a wider perspective on the news that is covered.

Better, but I don't agree.  I think any single source is narrow.  I think that the news media in Germany has a slant towards their public opinion just as much as the US's does.  I don't think that any single sources over there gets the job doen any better.

You may agree more with their perspective.  You may relate to it more.  But that doesn't mean it's wider.  

Wider is what you get when you look at many sources.

One other thought I had.  When some of the Europeans here have mentioned CNN, are they talking CNN or CNN HEADLINE.  Because if it's headline news that they are talking about, their point is valid, but they are using the worst possible example next to the tabloids.

I don't think the government controls the media.

I think CNN is an alright source of media, but I think that CNN and a number of other popular news sources could do a much better job of reporting all the news in a fair and balanced manner.

I agree with journalist Mark Hertsgaard, who called our media "a stenographer to power". When it comes to politics, they report basically just what the white house says and what the government does. Its always the white house's side of the story. There is little to no international perspective, and important things that happen in foreign countries often bypass the radar of major US newsmedia.

Another quote regarding the US press that I agree with: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" - AJ Liebling. Today 10 companies control over 50% of all newsmedia. Many Americans don't even have access to smaller vessels of media providing alternate viewpoints from the mainstream ones. Reagan era media deregulation has done a lot to hurt the media in America. When Bucc asked whether or not media owners were all one political bent, he failed to mention that an overwhelming majority of them are conservative. I'd like to hear some examples of "liberal owners".

I can't really say US news is inferior, because I don't know much about foreign news sources. But I know that it could certainly use a lot of improvement. Studies show that the media has been getting increasingly conservative, and there are numerous gaffes in their reporting since September 11. Freedom of press is a good thing, but its time Americans start waking up and demanding better service from their news outlets.

Tasty,

I'll disagree with the "stenographer to power" comment myself.  I mean, sure, there are plenty of those out there, but let us not forget who the first people to publish the bad news too.  Didn't the government file suit against CBS for it's coverage of Viet Nam (and lose)?  Didn't they bring down Nixon?  I mean, where do you hear all the down side of our government if it's not from the news media?

And sure, everybody could do a better job.  But tell me how they can do it much better.  Give me an example of what isn't fair or balanced?

As for the lack of international perspective, I think you need to look at your source.  I mean, there are whole papers just dedicated to international news.  There is so much going on in our country, let alone the world, each and every medium has to pick and chose what it will talk about every day.  We have one TV station here that does 90% local news, because that's what they think people want.  And in many cases, they are right.  Then we have The Detroit Auto News, which only talks about what's hapening in the Automotive Industry world wide.  

Now, this is one great quote by Liebling.  But, don't we all own the press anymore?  Think about it.  How many people here get the majority, or at least a good part of their news from the web?  I know that I do (BBC and CBC are the only forign TV news I can see)  So when I'm looking for perspective, I look to the web.  When I'm looking for more depth, I look to the web.  Now, does it cost much to publish to the web?  Can't new news sources like Slashdot and The Register pop up for other news as well?  I think  you'll be able to find news from the ultra right to the ultra left on the web if you look.  You may be saying, what's your point.  My point is, this is America.  And if there is something that needs to be said, you can be sure that someone is saying it.  It's one of the great things about our country.  You may say what does this have to do with the media.  Well, the web is a medium that we get news from, and there is nothing stopping anyone from publishing your own news right now.  Did I ever say it had to be a traditional news medium?

I do also completely disagree about "many Americans don't even have access to smaller vessels of media providing alternate viewpoints.."  I don't know about the cornfields of Iowa.  But I do know that I can go to Boarders about 2 miles from here and see the selection of hundreds of magazines from all over the world.  Or pick up any one of the 30 papers they carry everyday.  Or, I can swing over to Little Professor's.  They carry over 80 different news papers alone.  I would estimate over 30 are not in english.  I can grab anything from a London Times to the South China Morning Post.  Or the Kalamazoo Gazette if I want to check up on my old stomping grounds.  The papers are a day old in the cases of the international ones, and some of the more exotic papers only come in the Sunday flavor.  But, as you can see, I have a buffet of news medium from all over the world, from the free Metro Times (now, you want to talk about liberal) to something from the Time or Disney empires.  Oh, and perchance that you think this is only because I live in a major metropolatin area, I say nay.  I could find this kind of news in Kalamazoo too.  But, even if you can't find as good of sources out in the sticks, that isn't a vast amount of people.  After all, we are stil concentrated in population centers.  There are more people in NYC alone then in many states.  There are 1million people in the city of Detroit, and another 3 million if you count the whole metro area.  That probably beats some states (I haven't checked, but it would be a good bet).  If you find me a college or university that doesn't have a bookstore where you can find these (or at least one close at hand), I'll show you a school that is probably not worth going to.  

So I don't think the problem is that many people don't have the alternatives.  I think the problem you are talking about is that they don't know / don't care about them.

And yes, there are a few major companies that own a huge amount of media, from radio to print.  But many of these are tainted not by the owners (because, let's face it, they don't have the time.), but by the station managers and editors.  I mean, if Disney (which owns something like 6 radio stations in metro Detroit) knew half of what the DJ's on their talk radio station talk about, I think Walt would wake from the dead.  

But look closer.  You think that the overwhelming majority of them are conservative?  Maybe that just has to do with our country (which is leaning to the right now a days) or maybe with your view (which you admit comes from a way out there on the left).  Or maybe it is both.  What you wont see me agree to is that the news is controlled by the conservatives.  Since the ACLU is pretty liberal, and I think half of it is made up of peolpe in the news industry, I'd say that the majority of people that work in the medium are liberal.  And do you think that all those liberals work for conservative mediums, editors and owners?  I mean, the only profession I know in America that has more liberals in it would be Lawyers.  And then only because we produce so many of them.

Anyway.  I'm getting carried away.  Reports show that the media is getting increasingly conservative.  And reports show that our country has been leaning to the right for a while now.  I don't see why this should surprise anyone.  BTW, moving to the right doesn't make it conservative.  I could just mean it is less liberal.  Couldn't it?

Bucc, the last line there, what's the difference?

I like BBC world a lot more than I like CNN, CNN is just way too centered on American News imo.

1. That's the the job of the press. To report the news, scandalous or not. Your examples are good, but outdated. When I look at what's happening in American news media today, I see a different picture. A very current example that many people are upset about is the TV coverage that the war protests last Saturday got. They were covered, but many not in depth and many people were shocked and insulted that the counter protesters got covered too. When 100,000 people show up to protest, thats news. 100 people counter protesting, that isn't very newsworthy. When 100 people protested for the environment in Des Moines, that didn't make the news. I don't care if they mention counter protesters, but on the broadcasts I saw they got about the same amount of coverage as the anti-war folks.

As far as newspapers, I have few complaints about the editorial sections. I do have complaints about stories that seem to slip under the radar. Such as the Bush administration filing a legal brief to prevent the protesters from marching in New York last Saturday for "security reasons", even after the police released a report saying that no problems were expected. I don't see the Bush administration filing a brief to prevent the far more racous St Patrick's day parade from marching. Yet this story received little to no coverage in the major news media. Studies show even more disturbing trends in the depth of which things were covered. For example, in the 2000 presidential campaign, thousands of stories were written about Al Gore claiming to invent the internet (which he never even said!). Yet the number of stories in major newspapers written investigating the corporate pasts of Bush and Cheney numbered in the 100s.

2. For the stenographer to power comment: most liberal criticism states that rather than simply regurgitating white house briefs in stories that newspapers should attempt to do their own research and report what is happening politically. Instead of reporting only what Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld said about a security concern, why not report what independent defense experts think too? This type of reporting is noticably absent from most political stories. Since the white house obviously has a very distinct political perspective, it isn't really balanced to only report what they said about a particular matter.

3. Yes, there are news sources dedicated completely to international news. But what percentage of people do you think read the Economist, BBC news, or the Christian Science Monitor? My complaint is that the source that a vast majority of Americans rely on as their only source of news (television) doesn't provide that perspective well enough.

4. The internet owns, and it has done wonders for improving access to news. Enough said about that.

5. Many Americans really don't have access to alternative vessels of news though. You live in a big city, and obviously have plenty of access to news. Same with Kalamazoo. I can walk downstairs and pick up the NY Times for free every morning, and if I get in a car I can drive to Borders and buy numerous other publications. But what about the people that do live in small towns, like rural towns with 4000 citizens? People who can't afford or aren't interested in the internet? People who live in economically depressed areas? I don't think that many of these people enjoy the same privileges we do.

6. Yes, the media workers have the most daily influence over what is reported. But when its all said and done, who do they answer to? And who is in charge of hiring them? Ownership isn't always watching, but they are always there. And when news isn't catering to political beliefs, they are catering to a force equally destructive in many forms of media: profit. Media spends more time reporting fluff like celebrity news and embarassing things that political candidates said than they do international news and things political candidates actually did. And as far as those Disney owned radio stations you mentioned, their DJs may have filthy mouths but I'd bet top dollar that their music programming doesn't stray very far from the current corporate top 40.

7. Its true, the country has more conservative. But media needs to realize that they have an important responsibility. They are in charge of what people hear and the manner in which it is presented. If they do not continue to present news in a politically balanced manner, than the public will become socialized into the political mantra that they do lean toward. It's like a cycle. If people become more conservative and the media moves to the right to cater to that, then the media will reinforce what people already thought and cause them to move even further to the right. The news must always remain politically balanced, regardless of the circumstances. That's why the rising popularity of outfits like Fox News Network scare me. It bills itself as "The only fair and balanced news on television", yet it is anything but. When you give major timeslot shows to Bill O'Reilly (independent, my ass), Cal Thomas, and Shawn Hannity and not a single show to a liberal. If people do actually believe that the Fox News Network maintains any sort of balance, there is a problem.

Lol, I especially love how O'Reilly always is saying The No Spin Zone...yet the show is him basically spinning everything to his (independant conservative) view and basically browbeating those he interviews who disagree with him.

I don't buy the fair and balanced...but I do watch Fox News as my main TV source specifically to get the conservative side to balance the liberal side I get from Newsweek.

Now, you came real close to being a dumbass there Tasty.  Good turn at the last minute, but I still disagree with you.  

Both sides should get equal time, both sides have issues.  It is wrong to think that just because more people showed up, they should have more time.  That wouldn't be responsible reporting either.  Give both sides equal time, let them both make their points.  Report the numbers of each and how they behaved.  That's news.  

If it had been the other way around.  10,000 pro war demonstrators and 100 against it, you'd want them to have equal time.  It's all news.

So I call it responsible journalism based on what you said.


Actually, he did say it, but it was taken very far out of context for the purpose of humor.

And I never saw three stories on it.  One about it, one explaining what happened.  I did see countless political cartoons about it, and hear Leno and every other comic overuse that joke for years.  I've also seen countless political cartoons about Bush and Daddy.  

Myself, I saw more articles pointing out Bush and what he'd done to fuck up Texas (ecology specific), and where he was getting his money from, and what that would mean to ecology, then I ever saw about Gore.

But, let me point out, it really has to do with what you bother to read, where you bother to look.  


What do you normally watch?  I'm always seeing the (so called) experts on, talking about what it means, good and bad.  The "crossfire" interview technique is old hat, it's been going on for years, where you take experts from both sides to debate an issue.  Didn't Ted Copple (sp?) do that on Nightline, every night, for years?  I actually don't know if he still does, but I know PBS does that all the time.  I know that Sunday morning (east coast) you can turn on plenty of round table discussions with experts.  It just conflicts with ESPN's pregame  :o  Which takes us to the heart of the problem.


So, people, for the most part, are sheep.  This is nothing new.  Spoon feed it to them in little doses.  That's not the fault of the news media.  It's just the way it is.  And, since news is a business, and TV news is the biggest business, many (not all) TV News broadcasts cater to the sheep.  Show them the flashy shit that catches their attention.  Use tabloid like catch phrases to keep them there through the commercials.  That's the problem with a large portion of one media.  It, being a businees, caters to the masses.  

But nothing is stopping the masses from shedding the sheep suit and learning more.  You mention the Christian Science Monitor.  There are Christian Science Reading Rooms all over the country, but you can't force people to go there.

You just can't use people not looking for it as being a reason it needs to improve.

They don't make up a very large percentage of the population, not even a dent.  And they all have other options.  Public libraries (for print and internet), Radio (a decent source, with many viewpoints).  Is there anywhere in the country you can't get NPR?  The sources are there for people to use.  It's just if they want to , or would rather just catch the news for 30 minutes before Leno.


Ah, the station I was thinking of is a talk radio station.  They don't do music at all.  80% of their topics and hosts are pretty liberal.  It wasn't filthy mouths I was talking about, I should have been more clear.

But yes, profit enters the picture.  For most.  Like anything else in the world, you have to look at who's paying the bill, and weigh what you are hearing.  But there are also islands in the news were profit is not an issue (PBS, NPR to name a couple).  

And like I said, some news broadcasts do cater to the shit stories for ratings.  I'll even go so far as to say the majority of TV news (over half, but not close to all) has adopted a tabloid style and depth.  It doesn't change the good news that exists.  Doesn't stop anyone from seeking out better coverage.  

I'll skip the rest and just say, no, they don't have a duty to the public.  That is a very childish (in my opinion) attitude.  It's the public's responsibility to think for itself.  To seek out the information and the good sources of it.  I'm a firm believer in personal accountability.  And in capitalism.  I send a message with my dollar.  I don't spend money on news media I think is fluff, but support what I consider good.  It's up to me to figure out what that is.

There are plenty of quality news sources in America, giving all points of view.  But it's easy to produce media, so you have to sort through the shit to find a diamond.  I can live with that.  

I said I thought that just about any protest is newsworthy, and I never said that the counter protesters shouldn't have received coverage. But how can it be right to treat them with the same importance when one was immensely better attended. Explain why you think that a tiny protest is as important as a humongous one. you also failed to quote the following part in my post where I mention that smaller protests (of comparable size to the pro-war protesters) I've been to rarely received news coverage. That's part of the reason I was annoyed in this instance.

this seems like a copout to me. i saw this fact on crossfire just a couple of weeks ago. also, i misquoted it, rather than stories written about that subject I meant to say stories that mention that subject. And for the record, all Al Gore said was he took the initiative necessary for the creation of the internet. Meaning, he introduced the legislation. He never used the word invented.


I should have specified. I meant for that comment to refer specifically to newspapers, not television.

And although I do seek improvement in our news media, a large portion of my complaining about things in general has to do with my annoyance that more people are ignorant and don't follow the news.

well, I can be less liberal then Bondo, but still be a liberal.  That's the point.  Just because it's moving right, doesn't mean it's crossed the line from liberal to conservative.

Which is why you didn't earn (or get) that Dumbass comment.


How can it NOT BE RIGHT?  Since when does popularity make it more news worthy?  Or more right?  Treading very close to the hypicitical line now, young jedi.  Both sides of an important issue deserve equal coverage.  Yes, it should be noted how many showed up, and how each behaved.  But to give time to one side, and then mention that people also showed up in support of current policy does a disservice to the public too.  Like you said, each side should be heard.  Why should any one side have less voice because of less numbers?  And I'll turn it around.  If this was a pro-war demonstration, of thousands, and only 10 people showed up to protest it, they should be given equal time on the news as well.  

If they only reported the popular side, or any one side, they would be doing what you are saying they shouldn't with the rest of your post.  You say they are supposed to balance, but you are saying that they shouldn't have this time.  What aren't you getting about that?  What is the difference?


I didn't quote it, but I was trying to point out a part of it.  I just didn't do it well.  My point was if the smaller protest made the news, then both sides should be able to speak on it.  I don't know what you were protesting, and it actually makes no difference at all.  The first thing I'd say is, if you were protesting a local store, because they used horse meat, and it made the news, the store owner should have just as much time to give his side as the protesters.  Doesn't matter if they were 10,000 and he one.  Both sides have to be represented equally well, or at least given the oppertunity.

But, what I didn't touch is why they didn't get coverage.  I couldn't begin to answer that on, as I know nothing about your protests.  Did anyone protesting actually call the news (which is why they usually show up)?  Was it a big news day, so that issue just wasn't as big of deal (I imagine that there were protests somewhere on the day that Columbia blew up, but I bet nobody would have paid attention to them that day either).  That's not right or wrong.  It's just bad timing.  But I'm not going to guess why yours didn't.  It could be any number of honest reasons or any number of shaddy reasons (like the tv station owner is buddies with whomever you protested).  You'd have to tell us why.  You'd have to tell us what media you contacted about the protest.  Most scheduled protests come with press releases.  What was yours?

I saw a transcript where, in a summary, he said something along the lines of: "so, in a sense, I was one of the many people responsible for the creation of the internet".  Yes, it was in complete reference to some of the legislation he was part of.  And yes, like I said, it was taken out of context, that "in a sense", and "many people" change things, but nobody cared.  I don't think that changed one vote, because they do that to everyone in politics.

But that's going off topic.

And how is it a copout when I keep saying that having a glut of both good and bad coverage makes no difference.  That people have the responsibility to look for themselves.  How is that a copout, it's not like I didn't rant on it for a while?


Exactly one of my points.  People tend to be sheep.  Not just Americans either.  They want you to give it to them, in bite sized,  pre packaged, fun shapes and colors.  That doesn't change the quality of our media at all.  Just the quality of the audience.  And if the audience was more interested as a whole, then the number of "tabloid" and just poor quality reporting would go down too.  The public gets what the public wants.  

I'm just glad that with the freedom of the press, and the ease of getting the stories out there,  we have a nation where it's still not hard to find, if you take the time to look.

The difference is that I think those people got news coverage for their protest because what they were protesting for intersects with popular opinion. I know many members of more radical groups like socialists and anarchists that do not get news coverage for anything they do, including protests and running candidates for office both local and national. You are right, everyone does deserve to be heard. But newsmedia has a predelection for the more socially accepted points of view, and that is what gets me. These counter-protests were smaller than many of these radical groups, yet received far more press coverage on Saturday than any radical group could ever hope to.


I used to work for Iowa PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) and we would sponsor protests all of the time, mostly relating to the two campaigns we were running that summer, a cleaner energy campaign and a gay rights campaign. My favorite action of the summer was when we booked Nollen Plaza (a big concrete plaza in the middle of Des Moines' downtown with fountains and street vendors and whatnot) and we put together a protest featuring about 75 environmental activists and the big draw of the day, a man who travelled the country with a 50 foot high moving inflatable oil derrick to protest the influence big oil had on the white house. We called all the local television stations and the Des Moines newspaper, the Register. We had a press release and our group that summer was fronted by a poli sci PhD from U of Virginia that was to run the public relations stuff. Two of the four major local stations showed up, and the Register (whose offices were two blocks away I might add!) did not. Although we were interviewed and footage was taken, it never made it on to the news. I can't put my finger on the circumstances why, but it was August in the summer of 2001 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a big news day. So there's anecdotal evidence if you want it :).

Well, if you are right, it's a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason then, isn't it?  You can't fault them for doing the right thing, even when you don't like their reason.  You have to fault them for doing the wrong thing, then thorw this examples in their faces  :o

Otherwise, you are being just as bad, only wanting one side heard.  You don't get to equal by tipping the scale way back to one side, just because it got tipped to the other.  It only perpetuates the problem, doesn't it?  It's like revenge.  You killed my son, now I'll kill yours to get even, oh, now you'll kill my other son to get even again, and so on, and so on, and so on.  (yes, an over the top example, but it fits).

nay, have you actually spent a good deal of time in europe? during my extended stay there, I read the papers... and they're aren't any ore worldly than the US. Many are actually less worldly and more critical based on the european perspective.


more to come later.

I didn't get into it too much, but I think that the reason for this is when Americans look for news from Europe (or other countries), we only go to the top shelf, and don't even see the crap (ok, except for the occasional peek at a page 3 girl).  

But yep, they have their slants too.  And their share of shitty journalism.  And some can still be censored.

Got to this thread a little bit late, didn't feel like reading ALL the back in forth between tasty and bucc so if this point has been covered, sorry.

When people talk about freedom and censorship of the press in America I only think of one thing. Corporations. They have the final say over everything, there are very few independant papers and tv stations left in this country and even those are influenced via advertising revenue. It's like the old saying: "With assitance comes dependance."

News had become big business in this country, it's about the bottom line now. Media won't report on stuff that will hurt their profits.

Alaric, while profits are important to most, you are missing out on things like NPR and PBS.  And even though they accept corporate money, they don't let it effect their reporting.

Even with the private broadcasters, there are some that don't cater to the advertisers.  Ratings equal profits, for good and bad.  So, you have some news that's like the top 40 radio staions, giving you the same pop garbaged with no depth, and you have some that are the Howard Stern version of the news, making the public happy, but not bowing to anyone (right or wrong).  

So again, the quality and depth of the media is much related to what the public wants.  There will always be good and bad, and the percentages will swing from one end to the other with public opinoin.