Quote:
Originally posted by Stamm321
- should we believe the hippie crackhead theories about the major press outlets being controlled by a few corporations, and those corps are in bed with bush... that does seem a bit too "goverment conspiracy"...and it also gives little bush more credit than he deserves....
|
Those "hippie crackhead" theories are pretty easy to check. Look up ownership details of the 10-20 largest newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, and you will see that most of them are in fact being controlled by a few multinationals, and it's a relatively easy thing to get personal profiles on the major investors in those companies, most of which stand to make millions through tax cuts etc. thanks to Bush.
And some, like Rupert Murdoch, are infamous for directly interfering in the journalism of the media outlets they own - in Murdoch's case down to the level of refusing to run stories and firing journalists and editors who have presented views he doesn't like. It's worth reading a couple of Rupert Murdoch biographies.
It has nothing to do with government conspiracies, and everything to do with the fact that most major media outlets are owned by corporations with a duty to follow the wishes of their board and shareholders, who have very high likelihood of having personal or economical reasons to stay behind Bush. At least until he becomes unpopular enough that he's a liability in the fight for viewers, listeners and readers - at that point they'll be on him like vultures.
Media is giving people two things: What people will buy, and (secondarily) what will influence society in ways preferred by their major shareholders, who tend to be conservative middle aged rich white men.