so you're making the assumption that "journalism" = the tv channels we watch?
these channels employ some journalists, but they also employ all sorts of political and corporate shills. They have their own agendas. White houses ship daily marching orders to these stations at times.
This is where people get so upset - they believe there's a magical directive on the wall someplace that says "privately owned tv studios that talk about current events must employ journalistic standards & integrity".
I accept fox, cnn, msn for what they are: current events entertainment stations, strongly influenced by political & corporate interests. To believe otherwise is to live in some past mythical paradise that I'm not sure ever existed for journalism. I suspect the earliest writers would shave details/slant info for a few bucks too.
Yes, true. But you can't deny they try to pretend exactly that. Look at the vomit-inducing claims they make about their bullshit masquerading as news.
Generally it shouldn't be a problem, though, if there are sufficiently numerous interests in legitimate competition. It would take care of itself imo. Having as many possible individuals and groups as media owners is best, to keep a sense of balance and accuracy (unlike what we have).
The idea is to prevent a single interest from becoming "the" voice on any scale. That's incredibly dangerous, but it is unfortunately similar to our situation. No matter how you look at it, it is wrong.
Thing is, though, soon enough we'll be getting 100% of "TV" through the internet. So you can be sure the effort is frantic behind the scenes to find a way to keep their 'corner of lies' as the strongest voice. They certainly have the $$$.
And nothing stops the web from having hundreds of copycat sites spreading misinfo, anyway, as I believe is the case with the subject of 9/11.
