Jim Devine wrote: how is Murdoch worse than William Randolph Hearst or Colonel McCormick or the many reactionary media barons of previous generations? I don't remember the US press doing very well during previous imperial wars.
On 8/9/07, Ralph Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258 -------------------------- Hi, Jim. You talkin to me? My old grandfather Fred Banister from London used to come home each night with Bertie McCormick's right-wing Anglophobe Chicago Tribune. I have often wondered what he got as an Englishman from what he read there. But there was also available the Chicago Sun-Times, which at the time was published by Ralph Ingersoll and was considered then to be a liberal paper, not hostile to Brits, and which to my knowledge he never read. I would say simply that there is a difference from reactionary media moguls in our past. With the level of concentration and centralization in media constantly increasing, it matters that much more who's skewing the news, as well as how many remain in the game. Especially with the stakes for US capital rising all the time and the range of options on the table more ominous. But of course, I realize when all major media are operated exclusively for profit and operating as part of an oligopoly, there is never much hope for maintenance of any significant level of investigative journalism or objectivity on any vital topic. And what that does for people's level of information and defense of their own interests is truly frightening. Which is why, with its level of specificity I thought Pilger's talk worth sending. I agree with his first paragraph: "Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship. This is an historic shift, and the media must not be allowed to be its façade, but itself made into a popular, burning issue, and subjected to direct action." Ralph
