shakran

No, hold on. You saw something that WAS unbalanced. You then ASKED if it was racism. Cyn and I explained how things work and you went away having learned something.

dublhelix saw two unbalanced photographs in an OLD news story, and didn't bother asking if it was racism - he just assumed it was and proceeded to accuse the media of being racist. There's a big difference, and that's why there's a very big difference in the tone of my reply to you and the tone of my reply to dublhelix.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for.


And I don't think you're looking to blast the press. In fact I think you're looking to make sure the press stays honest and balanced, because that's vital to the preservation of the 4th estate.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Deregulation of the media is the biggest threat to democracy we have ever seen. Used to be your ownership of TV/radio stations was SEVERELY limited. There'd be no way to have megaconglomerants owning dozens of stations across the country.

Now that big corporations are allowed to own basically all the stations they want, independent voice in the media is becoming a very rare thing. And it creates an inherent conflict of interest. Look at it this way: GE owns NBC. GE is a large corporation that benefits from tax breaks granted to them by a certain political party. There is now a conflict of interest - the news teams could be encouraged (or ordered) to cover that party more favorably than the other. It hasnt' happened to a huge extent yet (by which I mean the favoritism isn't obvious) but that day is coming. Or, even putting politics aside, what if a GE manufactured refridgerator tended to catch fire and GE didn't want that info to get out. NBC might be pressured to sit on the information.

Frankly the only reason this stuff hasn't happened on a large scale yet is because they haven't managed to get rid of the "old-fashioned" real journalists who would scream the scandal to every corner of the world should someone tell them to slant their coverage.



You're not, but I hope you will eventually be wrong.



(edit) what HAS happened with megaconglomerants owning media outlets is that the corporate "profit above all else" mentality has taken over. Used to be in the 70's and 80's if there was a story in East Jahupastan and it would cost 2 million to get it, but it was important that the viewers know about it, it was by-god gotten, and damn the cost.

Now with the profit motive having taken over the journalism motive, getting the story even one state over can be tough unless you can prove it will bring in RATINGS, whether or not it brings vital information to the viewers.

The example I always use is the media's coverage of Clinton. Whether you like him or hate him you have to agree that one of the most important events in his presidency was when bin Laden bombed the trade center in 1993. Clinton did next to nothing about it. He lobbed a few ineffective cruise missiles over, but didn't make any effort to go after bin Laden. He just closed his eyes and hoped it'd go away.

But did the media hold his feet to the fire for that? Hell no! Who wants to hear about Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and all those other strange names that are thousands of miles away. That won't sell advertisements! But sex by god will, so we'll cover the president getting a blowjob!

Now, of the two stories, the one that the media failed to cover was the one that ended up killing so many people on 9/11 and the one that ended up being the excuse Bush needed to go to war with Iraq. In short, this is something the American people should have been told about back then. It's something that should have been taken care of back then. And it's something that the public should have been enraged that Clinton wasn't taking care of it.

But because the people were not properly informed about the issue, they had nothing to get mad at. But boy that story about what Clinton did to Lewinsky with a cigar sure did sell ads!