I mean, you're saying that these companies make no money off their paper news and so they're cutting back, then throw in that if there was no real difference between the two parties they'd have to keep each other in power, and then say that the prospect of blowing open these types of stories would sell more and make them more money.... but these are really 3 seperate situations.
a) There are several reasons why newspapers are not making money. They are closing papers because there are fewer people reading, or they get their news from the internet, more people are seeing that the media isn't telling the whole story most of the time, etc... so we could debate all the facets of why these situations are occuring on their own merits.
This does NOT despute that the controling power of the media, ALL MEDIA by market share, is concentrated withing VERY FEW individuals.
B) The two party system... in north america there exists so many duopolies. You want something to drink, it's coke or pepse. You want a computer, it's windows or apple. You want fast food, it's Mcdonalds or BK. You want a political party, it's republican or democrat.
It's like if communist russia had a 'two party' system, people would vote for the hammer or the sickle... meanwhile both remain overlayed on the flag. Between the two parties, they may have disagreeements on petty issues, but when it comes to REAL issues they are more alike then you would expect.
C) Don't bite the hand that feeds seems to be an adequate sentiment going on... if the newspapers going to sell 20 thousand newspapers because of a particular story that jeopordizes a multimillion dollar advertising contract with a major sponsor.... what would take precedence if it came down to YOUR decision?
It's not that black and white. Do editors kill stories or give them a lack of an editorial response... OF COURSE. Are these people ALL knowingly part of this overarching media control, OF COURSE NOT.So your stance is that every editor is killing stories?
You'd have to ask them... I can't speak for all individuals nearly as much as I can speak for trends that I've seen and can demonstrate.I'm curious...Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw (just to name a few) no longer work for any major media corporation. What is keeping them from investigating? All are financially comfortable beyond any compelling measure to argue otherwise. Why are these men not investigating or leading an investigation?
Really, if they've retired, there's a good chance that they feel they've done their jobs and want to enjoy their golden years... I wouldn't blame them.
Are all those companies reliant on advertisement revenue??What about Frontline? Nova? Any one of the dozens of cable news channels? Reputable foreign news papers? Reuters?
All of these people are on the take?
Everyone of those news agencies you just mentioned fall under the umbrella of 'the big 6' anyway... so yes.
Does that mean that every individual working for them is a bad person??? NO, of course not... the vast majority of them are just people doing their jobs because they want to keep their jobs, or because they like their jobs.
To get back to my point, your "good question" blast above deserves an answer.
My answer is that there is no "untold story" of any consequence to tell.[/quote]
Here's a couple that seem tobe of consequence that didn't make it far in the newspapers :
- # 21 NATO Considers ?First Strike? Nuclear Option | Project Censored
- # 19 Indigenous Herders and Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction | Project Censored
- # 14 Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste | Project Censored (That's right, radioactive waste gets dumped in regular landfills)
- # 13 Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq | Project Censored