Why would some local bloggers who report on some of what most mainstream media won’t, often criticized or ignored by some well-established for-profit news organizations who receive political and business advertising revenues from the local 1% via campaign war chests?
Why would some local media criticize policy positions of some, while swapping undisclosed and/or indirect compensation from others interested in non-attributed dissention?
If there were thousands of relatively independent media companies in the mid 1900’s, ~50 by the 1980’s, and less than 10 after 2000, mostly owned by conglomerates with conflicting interests dependent on legislative initiatives for regulatory concerns and commercial advertisers, political campaigns and government for profit, is most “mainstream” information relatively more objective or less?
1 comment:
Maybe it's not a matter of volume so much as coherence.
Post a Comment