Re: sarge and the Wall Street Journal
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
Tinfoil-hat? It's not as if I'm the only one questioning who owns
the media these days. http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.mediatrademonitor.org/ http://www.openairwaves.org/ and so on.
I thought the "page views" bit was obvious. The ownership and ad-base
means they don't care if they outrage us. It's legitimate to point out
their well-documented influences.
It's not really relevant. MSNBC despite their even stronger links, have
published pro-Linux or critical of Microsoft pieces before. As for ZDnet,
you might have a point if their hatchet jobs were aimed solely at the
Rebel Alliance but they publish lots of "EXPERTS SAY DEATH STAR CONTAINS
EXPLOITABLE REACTOR SHAFT FLAW" type stories too. Really, the "obvious"
is all there is to it.
And I have to disagree, despite ownership and ad-base public reputation
does matter to any outfit that purports to practice journalism. We need
to call them out on bad journalism but in a way that cannot be simply
dismissed as the raving of kooks.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/