These extremists media services, such as the Murdock empire and CNN which is portraying itself as the 'insider service to DC.' (We have C-Span I, II and III; we don't need Time-Warner's aspirations to be the 'official' government station. I suppose they are a BBC wannabe, but, they could never be that successful as their bias is too obvious.)
These extremist stations 'grew up' when cable was a commercail free enterprise. It was affordable for the huge number of subscribers that desired 'adult' access to the video world. But, over the past six years since September 11, 2001 their viewership has grown limited while people turn to internet for accuracy and pier feedback. The internet is a healthier environment for people. It allows 'processing' of information in many venues.
Those venues depend on 'reputable' news sources, such as the 'major papers' of any country, including the USA. To prove how invasive the corruption of these extremist services continue to be, they are frequently referred to in 'breaking news' episodes because 'during their hay days' they were able to develop this capacity and it serves as a commercial commodity to traditional newspapers. The 'economics' of news production at all venues incorporates the ability of these extremist media services as a matter of 'access' to enhance their presentation of the news. So therefore, through economic interdependency, formerly unbiased news media are contaminated by these extremists. That interdependency is exploited by the extremist media and more and more contamination of news media is exponential.
There needs to be a reining in of these cable news networks whom simply don't share the values of average citizens seeking benevolent government. They have an agenda and in all honesty could be litigated as 'anti-trust.' One of the reasons that doesn't happen to date is due to this spiralling corruption. In other words, if traditional, unbiased media services litigate 'anti-trust' they run the risk of losing their 'edge' and hence would result in detrimental outcomes in the face of potential but not likely decisions in their favor. Unlikely because of the intermingling of government in the media through FCC is corrupt as noted with appointees by a Neocon Executive Branch.
The traditional media services attempt to 'waterdown' this interdependency that lends itself to legitimacy through editors and their columns maintaining a focus of long standing democracy, freedom, human rights and citizens' rights.
This struggle however is being met with frustrated citizens seeking to be autonomous and uncorrpt and hence the birth of the highly coveted "You Tube" and similar 'off takes' of this including a new Russian media service through their state website now offering a 'You Tube' environment without the civilian participation, but, their citizens can interact through the internet except for the language barrier.
Traditional media has many competitors. Cable. Internet. All these competitors are striving to 'control' information and in the case of 'You Tube' produce it. In all honesty, the independent contributors through 'the net' will become a method of acquiring news and eventually a fee system may become a manner of income to such internet services, no different than royalities currently paid to traditional media today.
It would be better for any nation to maintain a well balanced media service while eliminating those too corrupted by their own competitive nature to deliver information well and honestly. The interdependency of the extremist news providing sensatinoalized presentations to the tune of 'godly content' has provided venues of propaganda and not news gathering. I believe traditional and legitimate news media is facing endangered status if they can't muster the resources to stop a run away Neocon administration and the propaganda media affilated with it.
Americans in particular are seeking a return to 'honest media' wherever they can find it even if they have to produce it themselves.
posted by The Revolt and Revolting at 4:00 PM
<< Home