I've been giving this consideration all morning. And here is the short
of it.
I expect them to be interested in education and balance if it is
demanded of them. I am not a student of journalism history so I can't
speak on the origins of the "free press" in our country. There
certainly seemed to be a turning point with Hearst.
However, many of the media conglomerates are publicly owned. Take
AOL-Time Warner for example. If I own one share of AOL-Time Warner
stock or if I own a single share in a mutual fund which owns AOL-TW
(leaving out for a moment if I have a right because my taxes inevitably
subsidize their business) I have the right to say something about their
policies at CNN, Time magazine, or NY1 News. And perhaps a movement to
change the media would have to be a grass roots approach, levied by
shareholders. I don't know that it is likely to happen or yield a
result but it is at least possible.
I'm just looking for ideas...
Thanks for taking up the debate.
(Check this out for more of who owns what:
http://www.cjr.org/owners/index.asp )
Brenda
n.p.: KCRW - The World
On 21 Sep 2001, at 10:17, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>>What can we do to demand that the media report more responsibly and
work
harder to actually educate the nation about a balanced slate of things
that
matter? (This is not a rhetorical question.)<<
Given that almost since its inception the media has too-frequently been
used
by powerful individuals and powerful corporations to further their own
ends,
why should you expect it/them to be interested in 'education' and
'balance'
now? (This is not a flippant answer).
