Do you believe corporate media conglomeration to have a positive or negative affect

[ehrnst]

17. Couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge your own use of said media for citation?

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2019, 08:00 AM - Edit history (3)

As for the poll, I'm not fully confident of the intent and premise of the question, based on previous statements/positions that were not clear, or changed weekly, and inconsistent definitions applied to "corporate" owned media.



I feel that media conglomeration is definitely not a good thing, and my own 'countless posts' here on DU confirm that, however I don't agree with you that any media source that doesn't confirm your bias is "toeing the line of their corporate masters," nor does a publication calling itself "radical" eliminate misogyny, anti-semitism, homophobia and racism from it's editorial staff and content, any more than a media source calling itself "fair and balanced" make it so.

There are orgs on both the left and right that cater to those with the binary worldview that needs absolutes - 'black or white,' 'pure or utterly corrupt,' 'ethical or market driven,' 'manifesto or shill' - and real journalism doesn't do that. Real research doesn't do that. Real analysis doesn't do that.

There are good and bad journalists - there are good journalists who make mistakes and do bad reporting and research, and let their biases guide a piece that is not an opinion piece. Ideally a good editor steps in and catches that.

The belief that one never, ever needs to change their mind on anything, that dissent is corrupt and suspect, that bias = fact, doesn't allow one to understand what good research or journalism is.