Thread: A serious conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by JMS

Rupert Murdoch does not wield the power of the US government.

No, true, but he owns a big share of US media and therefore he has a lot of power in shaping public opinion. AND he actually pushes his personal vision.

edit: I'm naturally distrustful of ANYONE or ANY ORGANISATION that wields too much power. Be it powerful individuals, governments, churches ... Can't help it really, something in my genetic make-up I guess

Originally Posted by decraew

No, true, but he owns a big share of US media and therefore he has a lot of power in shaping public opinion. AND he actually pushes his personal vision.

edit: I'm naturally distrustful of ANYONE or ANY ORGANISATION that wields too much power. Be it powerful individuals, governments, churches ... Can't help it really, something in my genetic make-up I guess

In that case you should be a US citizen!

Originally Posted by JMS

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

I'm not sure given the all out blitz of coordinated conservative media outlets that all tow the same talking points that it's any different.

I think there is a larger danger of conservative media becoming the only source of coverage given it's naked slant toward to it's own confirmation bias. So in that respect, keeping other sources of news coverage afloat, be it government subsidy or not, is better than having too few voices in the game.

Originally Posted by joscobo

I'm not sure given the all out blitz of coordinated conservative media outlets that all tow the same talking points that it's any different.

I think there is a larger danger of conservative media becoming the only source of coverage given it's naked slant toward to it's own confirmation bias. So in that respect, keeping other sources of news coverage afloat, be it government subsidy or not, is better than having too few voices in the game.

With radio talk shows this is true but they do not recognize themselves as News outlets, only opinion outlets. Its the news outlets that are extremely biased that you have to watch out for. The Government on the other hand has the power to regulate these shows out of business while supporting their own brand of news.

Originally Posted by JMS

In that case you should be a US citizen!

Hm, seems to me that although in the US there is a healthy mistrust of US government, there is NO such mistrust where it concerns the (organised) churches & media (unless of the so-called leftist media - which if we put in European context would be centre or centre-right).

Originally Posted by JMS

With radio talk shows this is true but they do not recognize themselves as News outlets, only opinion outlets. Its the news outlets that are extremely biased that you have to watch out for. The Government on the other hand has the power to regulate these shows out of business while supporting their own brand of news.

I don't see an ideal solution to the problem of our press become less than free. Radio talk shows certainly do set them selves as legitimate news sources. Fox News certainly espouses their legitimacy, while delivering nothing more than tabloid tactics and it's brand of the truth.

But CNN, Fox, the government loaning money to news papers in the hope of buying them time to make a new model for delivering content, all of these are symptoms of a bigger issue in this nation today. Namely Republican and Democrat are just too corrupt and the system is starting to sag under the weight of their transgressions.

I think if George Washington somehow came back to life and got educated on the state of politics in the government today, he would walk into the white house and the capitol building and start throwing over desks and ripping apart the place like jesus did the merchants in the temple.

I polled that I didnt vote, but want to see the results.

I agree with Bruno and JMS about the bail out. I do think theres a conflict of interest there.

But in terms of state sponsored papers, the Mirror here in the UK used to be a total Pravda sheet for the Labour Party, though it isnt any more.

And there are a fair few people on both sides of the political spectrum who believe that the BBC are under the governments thumb, on some stories anyway!

You're always going to get political control over the news, as the people who run the newscasters will be schmoozed by the politicians or will use their paper or whatever to publish their own political opinion.

But a great thread that raises some important issues about political control and conflict of interest!

Serious conflict of interest? Nahh. I mean, look at Italy. The main man, Silvio, runs the state media AND owns the private media. He has it all! I'm told it gets him a lot of young ladies.

Seriously though, a bailout of any industry could be seen as potential conflict of interest, no? I presume bailouts are reserved for industries of national importance to economic stability -- any organisation falling into that category would therefore be 'useful' if it owes its continuing existence to the state then.

Put it this way. Was it a potential conflict of interest to bail out the banks?

Hell yeah!

Conflict of Interest? For sure, But you won't see me going into shock over this. After all NBC news is owned by GE, the same company that makes lightbulbs and missiles and other war toys. Do you think that's a conflict of interest? Well if it is, and it does, Then maybe it will inspire (at least a dozen would be great) Americans to begin to "critically think" and obtain their news elsewhere. I don't regret Voting For Obama at all. When Conservative/Republican people slander, berate, and turn into Joseph McCarthy,for anything Obama does or doesn't do, I then love my decision even more.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with voting for Obama? It's an opinion article written without any real evidence of legislation and Obama's name/administration is never mentioned. The closest thing I can find is this:

A proposal in Pennsylvania to have the state bail out the Philadelphia Inquirer raised the obvious question: Once Gov. Ed Rendell rides like a knight to its rescue, who in the state would ever rely on the Inquirer again for tough scrutiny of Rendell?

If anything happens, it will probably be done at the state level at which point you should ask if you regret voting for your state's representatives. I'm very much against giving money to failing companies and the print industry needs to realize that times are changing. There are several suggestions about tax breaks, which I would probably support under the right arrangement. There is a paragraph explaining that somebody proposed letting newspapers operate as non-profits, which I disagree with.

I voted no.

EDIT: Johnny, NBC was actually just sold by GE to Comcast, which is even more scary and a completely different thread altogether.

EDIT2: Obama has only said that he'd be happy to look at any proposals. That's kind of his job.