Thread: A serious conflict of interest.

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 agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

Originally Posted by decraew

I agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

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

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

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 decraew

But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

Murdoch does not have a police force. Not even an unarmed one!

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Murdoch does not have a police force. Not even an unarmed one!

People way underestimate the influence the news media has. You don't need a police force any more than you have to go into a bank with a gun to rob people. Many do it with a computer and a calculator.

many people have been utterly destroyed by exposees accussing them of all kinds of outrageous things splashed across the front pages and the writer hides behind freedom of the press and when the lies are revealed to be just that months later the paper prints a retraction on page 68 under the cell phone ad. Many people read their favorite paper and accept what the read as gospel.

As far as this post is concerned I have heard nothing about news media being bailed out.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

People way underestimate the influence the news media has.

And I am not one of them. It is BECAUSE of the influence the media has that it should not be a function of government.

That is why we have the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom from what you might ask -- Freedom from Government control is the answer. And why is this important? Because the government is permitted to back its actions with force, to the point of death.

I just want to say first off that I said no, just to get that out of the way.

That being said, I'm not at all pleased with the apparent lack of change. I realize that there is a lot on the plate and that change takes time, but I also know that were he to focus on any one issue he might have better luck. Things would have to get a lot worse for me to regret voting for him over McCain (whose son I went to high school with), but I do feel very let down.

Drew

Originally Posted by TexasBob

And I am not one of them. It is BECAUSE of the influence the media has that it should not be a function of government.

I fully agree with this. I also fear that it may be too late.
Clear Channel has over 1000 radio stations throughout the US. That doesn't include print media or television.

If the conglomerate has any kind of special interest... such as, the CEO or someone on the board owns or has interest in something like... lets just say Eastern Airlines... are we to believe that these 1000 outlets are going to give unbiased reports on issues regarding Eastern?

Unwritten rules apply, but lead editors are not going to bite the hands that feed them... they would not run a story about shearing bolts or other faulty equipment that might hurt an interest of one of their top superiors. Thats just self-preservation.
And we know that publicly elected officials have private interests.

Here is an article about how Michael Powell (Gen. Colin Powell's son and appointed head of the FCC till 2005) worked out an unwritten deal with Clear Channel that benefitted both parties at the expense of the American public's access to independent, unbiased sources of news.

As long as that sort of corruption continues to happen, Americans will continue to sink further and further into a quagmire of ignorance and misinformation, the likes of which has 99% of American men shaving with overpriced plastic garbage razors. I realize that razors have little to do with government, but its a good example of why media is not to be trusted. Do you think any major news source would ever do an article on how great it is to shave with a DE or a straight razor?
Not as long as the threat of losing Gillette's advertising revenue looms over that prospect. But I digress.

The last line of defense for an informed nation is independent research.

In other words, we're screwed.