Amazon.com Widgets

Should major news media be independently dominated (yes) or controlled by several large corporations (no)?

  • Yes, major news outlets should be independently owned

    It should be illegal for large corporations to control our major news media outlets. This would allow them to hide and/or skew information that might negatively reflect on their company or interests. While it is almost impossible for there to be no bias at all, if news outlets are independently owned there is a much better chance that viewers will be given the whole story.

  • I completely agree:

    When a single source controls all the wealth we call it a monopoly. When a single source controls all the knowledge we call it brainwashing. The reality is that we need a lot of sources, a lot of witnesses, and a lot of accounts to figure out what really is and is not true. The quality of news is not defined by few large sources but by small and many accounts; the greater the number of consecutive and agreeing bodies the better off we are.

    It's how you get entire stations that question "Global Warming" such as Fox News did (http://www.Theguardian.Com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/08/global-warming-denial-fox-news) despite there being a 97% consensus by (get this) actual scientists that it was real.

    What's worse? People actually bought it. Not a few people either; millions of people even now don't believe in global warming (http://www.Motherjones.Com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion) with the trend showing an increase!

    Misinformation is the only consequence of large for-profit networks.

  • I think that they should be independently dominated.

    I feel that if the media is independently dominated then it still retains some of it's integrity - whereas, if several large corporations controlled everything then there would be this uniform blanket of information that we could get from any number of news sources. I want variety and I want to hear a difference of perspective.

  • What would it really achieve?

    There are a lot of people that get their news from comedy shows not the actual news programs and that is probably a greater issue than who runs what and releases what information. People just don't care or are not interested enough in the news.

    When stories like celebrities not wearing underwear or ducks crossing a road makes the news {always at the expense of other stories} who should be blamed? Is it the corporations or are people getting what they are interested in?

    The internet has resulted in a lot more information being accessible to people but does this mean people will have a better picture of each issue or are people with their pre-set views of the world just going to gravitate towards the news programs that tell them what they want to hear and dismiss anything the other side says.

    The independent entity may not have the money needed to bank-roll good but expensive journalism.

  • More control is needed for the quality of news.

    With so many small news companies out there, the quality of journalism has gone down. We need to have news agencies regulated to make sure they have sound practices. With only a few large corporations, it makes it a lot easier to keep track of quality standards of each company.

  • Absolutely should not!

    That is how we are misinformed! They tell us what they are told to tell us when a large corporation controls them. The news media needs to be held accountable to not telling us truthful information, just like companies that sell products that are not what they say they are.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.