GH wrote: > The concept of a "free press" as we enjoy it today is a much more recent > concept than you might imagine. The following ran in the SF Chronicle the > other day, relative to the behaviour of papers in California politics in a > not-too-distant past.
I would add, though, that the difference is that with modern huge, multinational corporate media, a very few people control large segments of the information that the general public gets. The decisions on news reflect positions of the entire corporation -- which usually has many other divisions than simply news. (Often, this tends toward, bland, don't rock the boat positions.) A century and a half ago, it was common for a city of a thousand people to have several newspapers which engaged in vociferous support of their individual politics and vitriolic attacks on each other. Even 50 years ago, big cities had several independent newspapers. Chicago had five, not counting the many ethnic newspapers.) Now there are two. One is owned by the same group that owns the Jerusalem Post and other foreign newspapers; the other is "home owned" (unless I forgot some transaction) and also owns a TV station and other things, so that the newspaper business is a relatively minor part of its empire. This consolidation is a more serious threat to a "free press" than was many independently biased newspapers. In the present example of the NYT, who determined the editorial position on the Augusta National: editors of a newspaper, or corporate marketing executives -- and is there a difference? Pat Palmer
