[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

On philosophical, ethical and even political grounds I argue that the media everywhere shouldn't be entrepreneurial; shouldn't have a corporate structure. An EU study has in fact recommended that "opinion-makers" should be financially independent.

Again there is no such thing as financially independent, merely a difference in who one is financially dependent on. Production of mass media costs resources. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” If the media source is not financially dependent on individual or corporate resources, then it is dependent on government resources. I don’t see how this can PROMOTE journalistic integrity or objectivity.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

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.

These kinds of vague statements concern me. It is exactly competition policy and merger control that assures media pluralism. In what western country are there not healthy examples of media plurality? What does “where appropriate” mean? What does “specific measures” mean?

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

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?

In short, by educating yourself on what laws the media outlet is subject to. While not exclusively, I do use Google regularly, and don’t run into this “content not compliant”. What information is it that you are seeking that you cannot gain access too? If it is outside your national standards act, you can review and debate those standards. I’m sorry, but you’re going to need to convince enough like minded individuals in your community that access to that information is required…you’re going to need to affect change to your laws.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

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 discussed at length in my last post what western media and western countries are doing to help promote independence of media in non-western countries. If you’re specifically interested in these efforts in Russia, I can give you numerous links. This is one country in which western influence has had some marginal success, and media outlets have much greater independence today, then say 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I wouldn't call Western "consumers" of news "sick".

Oh, but we are! Far too many individuals accept opinion as fact, without practicing any form of objective scrutiny. From our state of relative stability, relative security, and relative freedom, so many have become complacent, and abdicated their personal responsibilities. This affects the behaviour and attitude of the individual, and in turn the society we live in, and in turn our governments.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

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....

The internet is a great tool, however it also promotes that disturbing trend I mentioned of individuals in our society absorbing opinion as fact. “Conventional media” as you refer to it, at least is subjected to much scrutiny and is forced to operate within defined laws and ethical boundaries. This cannot be said of many independent “news” outlets on-line. It is a great service to us all to be exposed to so many individuals’ opinions…as long as we recognize them as that…opinions. Too often these editorials are disguised as factorials, and the reader does not exercise his responsibility, and accepts them as such.

I ask you though, with the plethora of opinion articles already flooding our traditional media outlets…what opinions are you not seeing or reading that you wish you could? What does your "voice" crave that is not getting heard? I would argue that in Western media there is a vast amount of material available that voices virtually any opinion on virtually any topic.


If you are talking about some non-verifiable opinions that have growing popularity, such as: we have never stepped foot on the moon; that 911 was a CIA plot; your next door neighbour was abducted by an alien; that George Bush and Tony Blair get together for secret cult meetings and wring their hands plotting how to destroy the world; etc...due to the ethical codes of our mass media, these types of opinions are not publishable as factorials. This is because they don't stand up to scrutiny...they are opinion, and in many cases even puposeful fiction, and again, too many individuals openly accept these as fact because "they read it somewhere". The DaVinci code is a perfect example of this. Brown weaves an interesting story, the "conspiracy" nature of the story intrigues, or at least intrigued me to the point where I started searching out verification of certains assertions. Unfortunately for my excitement level, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Incredibly, there are many that would accept his fictional opinion as fact, with no further scrutiny whatsoever. The unregulated internet will provide you with plenty of these though. We are free to review these opinions as much as we like.


Might it be that your opinions ARE being heard, but you are frustrated that the stated opinions won't stand up to scrutiny, or that they do not resonate with as many people as you might like?