[Abood]

Listen to Robert Greenwald, the maker of the documentary entitled Outfoxed.

What kind of company issues memos telling people what to and what not to say? This isn't journalism; it's propaganda; it's acting.

For those who don't already know, Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, is a great supporter of the Republican Party and the 'war on terror'.

This Guardian article also shows that all 175 of Murdoch's editors are pro-war.

From the article:

How lucky can Murdoch get! He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen as his own.

There's something very worrying about this. A pro-war, pro-Republican media mogul owns so many newspapers, and coincedently, they all agree with him.

To see a list of companies that News Corporation, the media conglomerates whose CEO is Murdoch, owns, click here.

[Muck]

What kind of company issues memos telling people what to and what not to say? This isn't journalism; it's propaganda; it's acting.

Thats where your discretion comes into play. Although this thread is directed at Fox, I think that the same could be said for all the news outlets, regardless of where they lie in the political spectrum. There is very little impartiality, on either side, its just that Fox appear to have been exposed this time. As far as I know, not all media outlets claim that neutrality to be one of their objectives, well, not with any great conviction anyway, but both the BBC and the Guardian, who youve cited here, have come under criticism for displaying bias. Do they really achieve perfect neutrality? Can The Guardian really be neutral while being affiliated with Project Syndicate, who get funding from George Soros? To me, it looks like their agenda is set. Every media outlet has associations or attachments that are going to influence the quality of the output.

I think that the choices are slim. If you want to detach yourself from propaganda, but news=propaganda, which it is to an extent, you have no choice but to be selective and aware, or stick your head in the sand and ignore the news. I think the best thing to do is to take a little from column A and a little from column B, and make your own mind up. Ultimately, most of these organisations exist to create profit for someone.

[Dan]

There's something very worrying about this. A pro-war, pro-Republican media mogul owns so many newspapers, and coincedently, they all agree with him.

Not really.

I bet if he was an anti-war, pro-Socialist media mogul, you wouldn't mind at all.

You seem to have no trouble bringing in sources from leftist news sources.

[Abood]

I bet if he was an anti-war, pro-Socialist media mogul, you wouldn't mind at all.

I am an Anarchist, and I do not support authoritarian/centralised socialist news sources. For example, I tend to not believe Granma--The Cuban Communist Party's official newspaper. Whenever an article cites Granma, I would need strong evidence to believe it.

I support independent news outlets, such as IndyMedia and Alternative Radio.

Those sources are decentralised and anyone can say anything in them. I can just go to the IndyMedia website and post an article, for example.

Here's the publishing page.

Also, if a media mogul was anti-war and based his bias on lies and a set agenda, where he had what to say and what not to say on a memo, then no, I wouldn't like him. I'd believe that he's damaging the reputation of the left and is very authoritarian.

You seem to have no trouble bringing in sources from leftist news sources.

I have no problem with bias. In fact, I believe that there's no such thing as unbiased, imparial news. The difference is between having bias based on centralism and a set agenda, and bias based on showing the truth in a different perspective. If the bias is based on the truth, then I don't see anything wrong with it. For example, is there anything wrong with an article that's opposed to the war in Iraq if all it talks about is truth--it mentions that there's been found no WMD's in Iraq, etc.? I believe not. I don't believe it's the journalist's job to show both sides of the argument. His/her job is to show his/her argument in a concise and logical manner.

Do they really achieve perfect neutrality? Can The Guardian really be neutral while being affiliated with Project Syndicate, who get funding from George Soros? To me, it looks like their agenda is set. Every media outlet has associations or attachments that are going to influence the quality of the output.

Like I said, I have no problem with bias. BBC articles I tend not to like, because they only make claims and leave it at that. The Guardian's articles, on the other hand, always have well argued points.

[Muck]

I support independent news outlets, such as IndyMedia

Indymedia is nothing more than a blog collective, not a news outlet.

I thought this thread was about the neturality of reporting, which is something that blogs, by their very nature, generally dont achieve.

BBC articles I tend not to like, because they only make claims and leave it at that

Its in their mandate to do so in the news section; report the news and nothing else. Personally I think they sometimes fail in doing that though. However, many of their reporters also have articles in the blog section.

[Abood]

Indymedia is nothing more than a blog collective, not a news outlet.

Aren't blogs news outlets? They report news, don't they?

I thought this thread was about the neturality of reporting

This thread is about some people controlling a huge portion of the media and what is being broadcasted/published.

If each reporter was biased towards different things, then overall, the media would be balanced out, and people would have access to the truth wherever it lied. But if one person with so many companies is not just biased, but in fact has people telling reporters what to say and what not to say, then of course there's a problem. It's basically a centralised system, much like an authoritarian country's news agency.

You know what Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, did? He gave out daily briefings to "journalists" about what to and what not to talk about.

See the similarity?

Journalists should be free to talk about whatever the hell they want, and it'd be up to the people to decide what is true and what isn't. Eventually, trusted reporters would have better ratings and therefore the others would need to have better arguments in their reportings or they'd just lose support.

When someone controls so many news outlets, on the other hand, it doesn't matter whether what is said is true or not; whether it's backed with evidence or not. He has a monopoly over information.

[Muck]

Aren't blogs news outlets?

Thats a matter of opinion I suppose. Personally Id say no, as they dont have any standards to adhere to, and to be honest, Im not really interested in reading the opinion of each and every tosser with a PC on the internet. If the information they the publish isnt factual, which appears to be the case with some Indymedia sites, then I think you could rightly question if its worthy of being called 'news'.

But if one person with so many companies is not just biased, but in fact has people telling reporters what to say and what not to say, then of course there's a problem. It's basically a centralised system, much like an authoritarian country's news agency.

Murdoch doesnt have the luxury of having a monopoly, in fact I feel that his holdings, at least in Bratain, are somewhat exaggerated. He owns two newspapers and one television news channel. The Sun is generally accepted to be comical, and Sky News doesnt have anywhere near the credibility of any of the news services offered by the four terrestrial TV services. While I dont particularly like the power that the Murdochs wield, I dont really think its as dangerous as you, and others, portray it to be. The reason The Sun, Britain's best selling paper by far, is so popular is because people like trash. Remove it, and they will still read trash, probably The Mirror, thus placing Trinity Mirror open to similar criticism. Im not all that familiar with his influence in other countries, but certainly in the UK I dont think that his power is quite as strong as some see it. Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that. Having said that, I think that our media laws should be very different to how they are now.

You know what Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, did? He gave out daily briefings to "journalists" about what to and what not to talk about.

But we are not in a monopolised situation. I recieve about half a dozen news channels, ironically through Sky TV, but he has no control over their content, save Sky News. Ive no doubt that many newspapers hand out frameworks for their staff to work within. The concept of having a free hand while working for a multinational just doesnt fit. You dont think that we didnt have reporting restrictions in the UK during WW2 do you?

Journalists should be free to talk about whatever the hell they want, and it'd be up to the people to decide what is true and what isn't. Eventually, trusted reporters would have better ratings and therefore the others would need to have better arguments in their reportings or they'd just lose support.

Given that the subject in hand is Murdoch, and his top selling publication, and the UKs, is a rag, I dont believe that the best rise to the top. In a utopian way, I agree with you that natural selction process would be preferable, but in reality it just doesnt work like that.

[Abood]

Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that.

What you think isn't necessarily right. You need to prove it with some statistics.

Ive no doubt that many newspapers hand out frameworks for their staff to work within.

I've presented evidence and you're presented "I've no doubt".

The concept of having a free hand while working for a multinational just doesnt fit.

I dunno about that, but I disagree with multinationals anyway.

In a utopian way, I agree with you that natural selction process would be preferable, but in reality it just doesnt work like that.

Is it really utopian? Or does it just require some sort of journalist revolution?

[Muck]

What you think isn't necessarily right. You need to prove it with some statistics.

I dont really Abood, to say something is shit is obviously an opinion. Anyway, The Sun accounts for the vast majority of their printed sales at about 3m a day. The Times has about 1/6th. the sales of The Sun. You really would be very hard pushed to find anyone who gives The Sun much credence, hence "Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish".

Dont forget to sign the Queens birthday card.

I've presented evidence and you're presented "I've no doubt".

So you do believe that most journalists have a free hand? Newspapers cater to a target audience. Without some guidance, newspapers would become contradictory and, hence, lose their audience.

Is it really utopian? Or does it just require some sort of journalist revolution?

Not if they currently have free reign like youve just suggested.

Yes, it is utopian. I dont believe that the majority of the population would recognise journalistic quality, and most if the papers have an agenda anyway. The idea of journalists being free spirits is very utopian.


Heres an opinion that addresses the Murdoch situation.

"Personally, I think the Murdoch factor is exaggerated and that there is still plenty of pluralism and choice out there. I also think he has created some rather good and varied news products. Sky News for example is a vital competitor to keep BBC News 24 honest and efficient. But as the media landscape shifts and the very nature of what is a news organisation changes, the issues about ownership and politics will once again test government and the regulators."

[Abood]

I dont really Abood, to say something is shit is obviously an opinion.

Saying something is shit is an opinion, but saying that many people think its shit is a statistic.

You really would be very hard pushed to find anyone who gives The Sun much credence, hence "Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish".

Again, you need evidence.

So you do believe that most journalists have a free hand?

I didn't say that. I made no claim whatsoever about journalists having "a free hand".

Not if they currently have free reign like youve just suggested.

Firstly, I didn't suggest that. Secondly, even if they do have a free reign, a journalist revolution needs to take place to take journalism out of the corporate powers' hands.

Yes, it is utopian. I dont believe that the majority of the population would recognise journalistic quality, and most if the papers have an agenda anyway. The idea of journalists being free spirits is very utopian.

Humanity is capable of whatever it wants to achieve. If enough people wanted to change journalism, it would change.

Saying that not enough people want it to change just shows the level of despair in some people. So what if not enough people want to change it? Does that mean there will never be?

"Personally, I think the Murdoch factor is exaggerated and that there is still plenty of pluralism and choice out there. I also think he has created some rather good and varied news products. Sky News for example is a vital competitor to keep BBC News 24 honest and efficient. But as the media landscape shifts and the very nature of what is a news organisation changes, the issues about ownership and politics will once again test government and the regulators."

He can think as much as he likes, but he needs to provide evidence.

I do not see how a news company can make another news company more honest.

[Muck]

Saying something is shit is an opinion, but saying that many people think its shit is a statistic.

Again, you need evidence.

Abood, just ask people here what they think of The Sun. What exactly do I need to convince you? Some sort of shit-o-meter? A UN report? The Times is News Internationals only 'quality' printed output, and its not even our best selling 'broadsheet'. Murdochs influence is overestimated in my opinion, and its a theory that is perpetuated by the left in an attempt to discredit him, as his companies to tend to the right. Having said that, The Sun backed Labour both in the '97 and '05 elections, so its wrong to think of it as being unquestionably 'right'.

Firstly, I didn't suggest that. Secondly, even if they do have a free reign, a journalist revolution needs to take place to take journalism out of the corporate powers' hands.

Why? Whos going to print the 20m odd papers we read? We have choice, and few restrictions. As far as Im concerned, its fine as it is. So much for choice...

Humanity is capable of whatever it wants to achieve. If enough people wanted to change journalism, it would change.

Exactly. And I dont see the majority calling for it to change, in fact Ive seen very few people claim that our media needs any drastic reform.

Saying that not enough people want it to change just shows the level of despair in some people. So what if not enough people want to change it? Does that mean there will never be?

No, it means that at the moment its fine. "Lets change it in case it gets fucked up in the future"? Crazy argument.

He can think as much as he likes, but he needs to provide evidence.

Christ Abood, I thought that this was a debate about opinions, and youve reduced it to a fact finding mission on something that isnt really quantifiable. Ok, I'll give you this fact. News International, prior to the investment into ITV, were not, to my knowledge, being investigated by the Competition Commission. If Murdochs power really does become
overwhelming, they will step in. Until then, there is little to be concerned about.

I do not see how a news company can make another news company more honest.

Its called competition. Become complacent, and your competitors get the edge.

Anyway, Viva La Revolution!

[Abood]

Abood, just ask people here what they think of The Sun. What exactly do I need to convince you? Some sort of shit-o-meter? A UN report? The Times is News Internationals only 'quality' printed output, and its not even our best selling 'broadsheet'. Murdochs influence is overestimated in my opinion, and its a theory that is perpetuated by the left in an attempt to discredit him, as his companies to tend to the right. Having said that, The Sun backed Labour both in the '97 and '05 elections, so its wrong to think of it as being unquestionably 'right'.

You said, "Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that." You need some sort of statistic proving that most people know that News Corp's info is rubbish.

Why? Whos going to print the 20m odd papers we read? We have choice, and few restrictions. As far as Im concerned, its fine as it is.

Who prints independent papers?

So much for choice...

What's choice got to do with anything?

No, it means that at the moment its fine.

Says who? Ever thought about the people who just don't think about it? You know, the apathetic? What if we get them to think about it; what if they want it to change?

Christ Abood, I thought that this was a debate about opinions, and youve reduced it to a fact finding mission on something that isnt really quantifiable.

Opinionsn eed to be based on facts. Thinking that something is exaggurated needs evidence that that thing is less signifant than it actually made to be.

News International, prior to the investment into ITV, were not, to my knowledge, being investigated by the Competition Commission.

Which has nothing to do with America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Of course, why would countries like America put Murdoch under investigation? Murdoch gives their governments great support.

Its called competition. Become complacent, and your competitors get the edge.

Doesn't mean it makes you more truthful. You might need to lie to get more profit.

[Muck]

You said, "Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that." You need some sort of statistic proving that most people know that News Corp's info is rubbish.

"Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that."

No, I dont.

Who prints independent papers?

What? People, Id guess.

What's choice got to do with anything?

"Secondly, even if they do have a free reign, a journalist revolution needs to take place to take journalism out of the corporate powers' hands."

We have the choice to by 'independent' papers, corporate papers, and openly biased papers. Hence, its a choice. To deny multinationals the right to publish newspapers is denying people the choice.

Says who? Ever thought about the people who just don't think about it? You know, the apathetic? What if we get them to think about it; what if they want it to change?

What if the apathetic want it to change?! WTF?!

Opinionsn eed to be based on facts. Thinking that something is exaggurated needs evidence that that thing is less signifant than it actually made to be.

False. If you read the papers in question, you develop an awareness of their agenda. All I can suggest is that you come over to the UK and start reading Murdochs papers and watch his TV. Quoting one of his competitors is no real foundation for either a discussion, or a genuine opinion.

Which has nothing to do with America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Ive said that I dont have enough knowledge of the media there to voice an opinion. I'll leave that to them, but Im sure that they are flattered by your concern.


All I was trying to do Abood is give you a UK based opinion on an article from one of Murdochs main competitors. Im not trying to prove you right or wrong.

Im finding this very strange. You are trying to tell people who live in countries with a free press that we are being duped, but in reality, I believe that most people are aware of Murdochs political allegiance. Wouldnt it be better to concentrate on the Kuwait's media, which only has a status of 'Partly Free', instead of trying to construct some conspiracy theory about Murdochs main sphere of influence in the US, UK and Oz, all of which are regarded as Free?



27 United Kingdom 6,50
35 Australia 9,00
53 United States of America 13,00
73 Kuwait 17,00
http://www.rsf.org

[Abood]

"Most of the stuff that News International put out is rubbish, and I think that most people know that."

No, I dont.

Muck, I just quoted what you said.

What? People, Id guess.

Then people would print newspapers if corporations didn't exist.

"Secondly, even if they do have a free reign, a journalist revolution needs to take place to take journalism out of the corporate powers' hands."

We have the choice to by 'independent' papers, corporate papers, and openly biased papers. Hence, its a choice. To deny multinationals the right to publish newspapers is denying people the choice.

There'd still be a choice of all sorts of journalism (left, right, etc.) if corporations didn't exist. In fact, there'd be much more choice.

What if the apathetic want it to change?! WTF?!

Don't twist my words; I never said that.

I said that the people who are currently apathetic can be more concerned, and then they might want to change the situation.

False. If you read the papers in question, you develop an awareness of their agenda. All I can suggest is that you come over to the UK and start reading Murdochs papers and watch his TV. Quoting one of his competitors is no real foundation for either a discussion, or a genuine opinion.

Firstly, who quoted one of his competitors? Secondly, what the hell are you on about? What's that got to do with opinions needing or not needing to be based on facts?

You are trying to tell people who live in countries with a free press that we are being duped

I never said anything about the freedom of the press.

I believe that most people are aware of Murdochs political allegiance.

Again, your "belief" is based on nothing.

Wouldnt it be better to concentrate on the Kuwait's media

First of all, we all agree that Kuwait's media isn't free--not like I said anything about freedom. Second, no one is willing to debate issues about Kuwait with me. I've brought up Kuwait in many threads, and they end up with no replies.

[Muck]

Muck, I just quoted what you said.

And I told you what I believe, and then you asked for an undeniable source.

Then people would print newspapers if corporations didn't exist.

And do, even thought they do exist. Whats the advantage?

There'd still be a choice of all sorts of journalism (left, right, etc.) if corporations didn't exist.

Yes, but why eliminate one aspect of journalism that provides both valid opinion and employment for many? Should we really be limited to reading the mouthpiece of some sort of local communal non-profit making enterprise? I think that your political tendencies are getting the better of you on this one Abood.

In fact, there'd be much more choice.

As there is nothing to limit output now, at least in the UK, thats simply not true. As you said earlier, it would be nice if those who excelled gained popularity. Well, thats happened. We have The Times, The Sun, and a whole host of others. Other papers like Today didnt make the journey. So be it.

Don't twist my words; I never said that.

No twisting needed. Go back and read it.

I said that the people who are currently apathetic can be more concerned, and then they might want to change the situation.

The apathetic are not concerned, by definition.

Firstly, who quoted one of his competitors?

Ah, youre on a wind up. Ill play.

"This Guardian article also shows that all 175 of Murdoch's editors are pro-war."

In your OP. You are aware that The Guardian and The Times are in competition, no?

Secondly, what the hell are you on about? What's that got to do with opinions needing or not needing to be based on facts?

So daily contact has no value of opinion? Meh, I feel dumb now.

I never said anything about the freedom of the press.

Thats what this thread is about, isnt it? Journalistic freedom and a variation of opinion? I thought that the suggestion was that there was too much corporate control and restrictive practices?

Again, your "belief" is based on nothing.

Fine. Find me one person who thinks that The Sun, Murdochs best selling, is worthy of comment. I'll give you a headstart; PoFo wont be a good starting place. Theres an Ipod on offer if you can! Its a comic, and while it does hold some influence, in that some will be swayed by almost anything, remove Murdoch and all his publications, and you hand that power to someone else. Where do you stop? When your politically comfortable? Doesnt seem very democratic to me.

First of all, we all agree that Kuwait's media isn't free--not like I said anything about freedom.

'Partly Free' is doing better than many.

Second, no one is willing to debate issues about Kuwait with me. I've brought up Kuwait in many threads, and they end up with no replies.

Ive never seen any, sorry. I know nothing about your country, so I wont pretend to be a contributor if you did, but Id have a read if you started a thread in, perhaps, the ME section? You do appear to be quite critical of western culture, yet offer little commentary of yours. Do it.

It was a bit low of me to bring up Kuwait, but this idea of Murdoch being some sort of monopolising media baron with thought control capabilities is a complete fallacy, as people do know the agenda of his publications, like they know those of any other newspaper. To suggest that the public are completely blind to it is a bit of an injustice.

What would you really like to see happen with the media Abood? You appear to be discontent with the current setup, but advocate the abolition of multinationals, which is clearly essential, especially given the financial clout that is needed to expose some stories. Im sure that many corrupt government type stories would have never emerged if the only press we had was your organic, man and his dog, garden shed press. The multinationals are not all bad. While you may object to Murdochs output, you also have to remember that we have both the Guardian and Independent who offer opposing, and corporate institutional, views. Sometimes you need financial clout. Its a heavy weight contest.

We appear to have drifted off Murdoch, so why not start a thread on how you think the press should be, as we now have this new sub-forum?

[Abood]

And I told you what I believe, and then you asked for an undeniable source.

I didn't ask for an undeniable source; I asked for something that supports your belief.

When you believe in something, you need some evidence... don't you?

Yes, but why eliminate one aspect of journalism that provides both valid opinion and employment for many?

Eliminating corporations isn't like eliminating an aspect of journalism.

If we eliminate corporations the journalists of the corporations would continue to be journalists, just not under the control of Murdoch and other CEO's, etc.

Should we really be limited to reading the mouthpiece of some sort of local communal non-profit making enterprise?

Who's talking about being limited to one source?

I think that your political tendencies are getting the better of you on this one Abood.

There's no such thing. My politics reflect my beliefs. Obviously my view on the media are gonna be very similar to my politics.

I think if I talk about how I want the media to be (which I will, in another thread), you'll understand.

As there is nothing to limit output now

No one is talking about output.

As you said earlier, it would be nice if those who excelled gained popularity. Well, thats happened. We have The Times, The Sun, and a whole host of others.

Whoa, whoa... wait a second... you just said people know The Sun is a joke... how did that change? How did it suddendly be popular?

Secondly, you've forgot a whole aspect of capitalist economics.

Newspapers like The Sun have an advantage over many others, because they're under the ownership of Murdoch, who already has large amounts of profit. It could've started large and had large supply, which gave it low prices, and thus high demand.

Not to mention the economies of scale, etc.

Economics for beginners.

The apathetic are not concerned, by definition.

I'm talking about potential change in the future.

I was apathetic at one point, and now I'm not.

People can change.

"This Guardian article also shows that all 175 of Murdoch's editors are pro-war."

My bad.

Thats what this thread is about, isnt it? Journalistic freedom and a variation of opinion?

It's not about journalistic freedom. Anyone can write something and publish it online, but that doesn't mean he/she'll be read by many, or bring many audience.

I thought that the suggestion was that there was too much corporate control and restrictive practices?

It is. But corporate restriction doesn't mean no freedom. The corporate restriction exists within the corporates. Outside of the corporates, people can do whatever they want. However, corporates prevent small, independent newspapers from increasing popularity... lower prices, merging with publishers, etc.

Fine. Find me one person who thinks that The Sun, Murdochs best selling, is worthy of comment. I'll give you a headstart; PoFo wont be a good starting place. Theres an Ipod on offer if you can! Its a comic, and while it does hold some influence, in that some will be swayed by almost anything, remove Murdoch and all his publications, and you hand that power to someone else. Where do you stop? When your politically comfortable? Doesnt seem very democratic to me.

You're the one who made a claim: that many people know that The Sun is a joke. You're the one obliged to provide some evidence. All I did was say that you need evidence.

You cannot say that because people in PoFo know The Sun is a joke, it means many people do...

The general population isn't as political as the membership of PoFo--it's a political forum! Apolitical people tend to believe whatever they hear.

[Muck]

Whoa, whoa... wait a second... you just said people know The Sun is a joke... how did that change? How did it suddendly be popular?

Its both. I dont want to sound patronising, but I dont think that you understand the British media. All the top selling papers are comics. There isnt a serious paper with sales exceeeding 1m.


News of the World 3,179,039 A.K.A. The Sun on Sunday. Trash.
The Sun 2,327,586 Trash
The Mail on Sunday 2,043,138 Trash
The Daily Mail 2,013,225 Trash
Daily Mirror / Daily Record 1,851,268 Trash
Daily Mirror 1,454,112 Trash
Sunday Mirror 1,322,076 Trash
The Sunday Times 989,185
Sunday Express 741,089
The People 710,798
Daily Express 640,770
Sunday Mail 492,425
Daily Star 464,779
The Times 452,597
The Daily Telegraph 431,501
Sunday Post 427,361
Daily Record 397,156
The Observer 386,580
Daily Star - Sunday 368,651
The Guardian 302,030
The Sunday Telegraph 228,683
Evening Standard 203,699
The Independent 164,152
Independent on Sunday 152,898
Sunday Sport 100,901
Financial Times 89,892
Racing Post 79,540
The Herald 71,180
Scotland on Sunday 68,816
Sunday Herald 55,067
The Scotsman 52,857

ABC

People dont want serious news. If you take the 4 main broadsheets, The Times/Telegraph/Independent/Guardian, their combined sales of about 1.5m dont come anywhere close to the sales of comics like the Sun/Mirror. The fact that people are happy by being fed shit is nothing to be proud of, but thats how it is.

Newspapers like The Sun have an advantage over many others, because they're under the ownership of Murdoch, who already has large amounts of profit. It could've started large and had large supply, which gave it low prices, and thus high demand.

Not to mention the economies of scale, etc.

Economics for beginners.

Yeah, well its not an even playing field. Such is life. Thanks for the lesson though.

However, corporates prevent small, independent newspapers from increasing popularity... lower prices, merging with publishers, etc.

Leave it to market forces. There are plenty of UK papers, and any of them can rise to the top.

[Abood]

As Al Gore once said, "If denial ain't just a river in Egypt, despair ain't just a tyre in the trunk".

It seems that you know there's something wrong with the media, yet you're like, "that's life".

For me, I try to make people more aware that their news sources are shit; I try to make people aware that they need serious news; and I try to change stuff.

[Muck]

It seems that you know there's something wrong with the media, yet you're like, "that's life".

There is nothing wrong with it. There is choice, freedom and competition. Just because it doesnt match up to your socalist ideas doesnt mean that its wrong.

For me, I try to make people more aware that their news sources are shit; I try to make people aware that they need serious news; and I try to change stuff.

They know, trust me.

[Abood]

There is nothing wrong with it. There is choice, freedom and competition. Just because it doesnt match up to your socalist ideas doesnt mean that its wrong.

How is there competition if some newspapers start big, such as the ones owned by Murdoch, and others very small?

They know, trust me.

Wow, awesome argument.