20469:(Chamberlain) 20455: Esser: Re: 20387 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

[Corbett notes:  Here the discussion begins to veer away from the issue of
jounalism in Haiti and the discussion begins to be more about journalism
in general.  This may well be an interesting topic, but it's not one for
this list.  I will have to ask those interested to carry of the rest of it
privately.]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>


"Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States
are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are
obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other
considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict
with the practice of responsible journalism. Not only are most major
media owned by corporations, these companies are becoming larger and
fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This
concentration of ownership tends to reduce the diversity of media
voices and puts great power in the hands of a few companies. As news
outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in
many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with news
gathering."


This is all the delicious, comforting, comfortable theory.  But look at
what actually happens.  It doesn't follow the theory, except in a few cases
which quickly become falsely elevated to being representative of the whole
media.

You might as well argue that people holding US passports are war criminals
because the government that issued them invaded Iraq, since if you issue a
passport, it means you control the life and thoughts and actions of the
holder.

Or you could say that all Haitians who failed to go into exile under the
Duvalier regime were collaborators with the regime.

Or that if you don't salute the flag, you're a terrorist or a dirty commie.

Theory and practice -- oldest conflict known to man.  Why pretend it
doesn't exist?   It's the fraud of saying "democratically-elected by 90%"
without explaining what that really amounted to.  Pure opportunism.

It's failure to recognise this conflict that's preventing "any meaningful
discussion on the subject," not any failure to understand the triumphalist
slogan of "corporate media."



        Greg Chamberlain