As always TT,thanks for a thorough response.The dictums of good journalism
proscribe impartiality,mentioning of sources when wise,research,perhaps peer review,editorial review,and control of the language involved.I can't agree with you on methodological grounds that comparing different journalistic efforts will almost automatically lead to the truth.On philosophical,ethical and even political grounds I argue that the media everywhere
shouldn't be entrepreneurial,shouldn't have a corporate structure.A EU study has in fact recommended that "opinion-makers" should be financially independent.
- In view of the democratic, social and cultural significance of the media, merger control and other competition policy instruments are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee media pluralism. Therefore, merger control at the European, as well as national level, should be complemented, where appropriate, with specific measures to protect and promote media pluralism.
May I point out that Google censors sites with "content not compliant with local laws".If you're not familiar with those local laws,how are you to know
censorship has taken place?
Don't forget that censorship,be it repressive or oppresssive,can be cloaked in other terms.A hypothetical example:
A violently anti-Putin piece is censored by the Russian media for containing pornographic,offensive language,that is deemed "unworthy of basic journalistic principles in Russia".Can anyone tell with certainty what the censor actually is doing?????
I wouldn't call Western "consumers" of news "sick".
PS Perhaps the increasing role of the Internet in journalism already point so a certain discontent regarding the "conventional" media.I guess some people feel that their voice is not heard via the "conventional" media,or not heard regularly enough....