So, you don’t see how a corporation would have trouble covering itself without bias? Well, not only do they consistently show problems in this area, the corporations will get in bed with other corporations, influencing their coverage of those corporations, also.
(This quote here admittedly has just one unnamed insider source. It alludes to the need for corporations to protect capitalism.)
Anyway, I can find some more cites, but I think this proves that corporate media can be affected by the corporations that own them. To me, it’s just self-evident, but there’s been plenty of documented instances.
I worked for a smaller market newspaper, and it happened all the time. It was an eye opener, since I thought that people in the business of journalism were supposed to be above “biased” reporting. Turns out, though, they’re just regular people, and there’s no way they can avoid biases.
So, you don’t see how a corporation would have trouble covering itself without bias? Well, not only do they consistently show problems in this area, the corporations will get in bed with other corporations, influencing their coverage of those corporations, also.
(This quote here admittedly has just one unnamed insider source. It alludes to the need for corporations to protect capitalism.)
Anyway, I can find some more cites, but I think this proves that corporate media can be affected by the corporations that own them. To me, it’s just self-evident, but there’s been plenty of documented instances.
I worked for a smaller market newspaper, and it happened all the time. It was an eye opener, since I thought that people in the business of journalism were supposed to be above “biased” reporting. Turns out, though, they’re just regular people, and there’s no way they can avoid biases.
Good point. However, with all the ‘corporate media’ bashing that was going on I would be surprised if all here feel as you do.
My problem with this is that I am forced to pay for this with my tax dollars. If the women on the view are promoting Cambells soup and you don’t like it you can choose not to watch. If enough people do this then they will change the behavior pr go off the air.
However, if a publicly funded media like PBS leans to heavily to one side or the other, not only is there no control but we all have to pay for these biased views.
This is true. You make a good point. However, two examples does not mean that’s the way it always would be. Especially if the government owned media was the only one available.
Clucky has come up with some good examples. However, I don’t see the problem as being that significant if we are only talking about Cambels soup and Starbucks having a newpaper in the coffee shop.
I simply cannot resist. Cite x 200 ?
AKAIK many if not most newspapers were against the war. However, I cannot recall seeing an analysis that broke it down in a list format.
While you may not see a problem with hucksterism for the Campbell’s and Starbucks of the world, it’s alarming to me because it shows that the media have no problem crossing over from the advertising to the journalism side. That line between the two is hard to see these days. If they’re crossing the line for revenue gain, don’t you think they’d have no problem crossing the line for their pet political issues/stances?
Btw, I challenge the notion that most newspapers were against the war. I might do some research about this issue later. Feel free to support your viewpoint.
“I will remind you that prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, every single News Ltd newspaper in the world (over 200, I believe) carried an editorial supporting the war.”
It’s up to him/her to prove it.
If I had to guess, I would say that over 50% of US newspapers were against the war. However, I wouldn’t know where to find figures on such a thing.
Dunno how it works in your neck of the woods, but all the major newspapers I’ve read tend to carry editorials supporting all sides of whatever the issue du jour is. Most of the time, these editorials are simply syndicated copies of other outlets’ writers.
So, given how loosy-goosy of a definition “carried an editorial” is, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that all major newspapers in the US carried at least one editorial supporting the war during the months prior.
What would be more interesting is to see the ratio of pro-war/anti-war editorials carried by the papers, as well as the papers’ own editorial stance on the matter.
I follow a more narrow definition of “newspaper editorial”: An unsigned opinion piece crafted and approved by the editorial board of that particular newspaper. All other opinion pieces are “guest editorials”, “[syndicated] columnists”, “letters to the editor”, or “op-ed pieces”.
The answer is that we need, and have, many different viewpoints. The “corporate” media is not monolithic, there is plenty of diversity.
And then you have the internet, which enables a single individual to post their own takes on the news and get thousands of views a day if they are any good.
