|
Racnad, this is a great topic and I hope you will start more of the same in "Politics."
The issue of most importance, as I see it, is the change in how 'News' is now being reported given the corporate ownership dictate of profitability. In the past, news departments were considered the "public service" required of the media using public owned airwaves. The consolidation of corporate ownership of the public airways has led to the "infotainment" that currently exists among the so-called news programs of today. I first saw the effect of corporate ownership with commercial interests at stake, when GE quashed a 60 Minutes report covering a tobacco whistle blower. (You might be familiar with the film).
I am a subscriber of TIME magazine and to include that publication as an honest source of unbiased information suggests to me that you haven't given sufficient research into the publications on your lists. TIME has a different front cover story for the US than other countries when the topic is "sensitive" for whatever reason. We are not privy to topics that might rock the boat at home.
Yes, news websites may overcome some of these problems but they also create another source of misinformation, and agreement for those seeking support of their ideology. I am a fiscal conservative and a social progressive and I seek out websites that closely correspond to my political beliefs. By doing so, I circumscribe my exposure and see little of a differing ideology as a result. I suggest to you that we selectively "shrink" our exposure to diverse voices via this media, rather than expand it.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
|