yeah it's owned by the de-facto oligarchs.. but i'd say it's probably better than being owned by some autocratic form of government that gets to control every little detail that gets out there. at least we can bitch about how corrupt and fucked up our government is, unlike china and russia.
a big issue, also, is that our media outlets are not so much concerned about informing the public, but more like raking in cash for the big billionaires standing behind them.
Topic: Is the US press really that free? - page 4. (Read 3289 times)
Persecution and prosecution of journalists in the US over the past few years has gone beyond anything in my lifetime, but Obama's a lame duck. Since they're largely administrative (DoJ, admin lapdog) decisions, it's kind of pointless to talk about it except maybe to bring awareness to it and see what 2016 pres. candidates say.
It's not state owned, but large outlets are owned by same oligarchs who pay off the elected officials... What difference that makes, I do not comment on...
I hear people say over and over that the US press/journalism is nothing like in authoritarian states like Russia and China where journalists can't write anything negative about the government. But is this really the case? Mainstream media in the US ignores the corruption of the US government, while reporters that try to break the silence by releasing important stories get harassed and silenced. Just recently I read about the story of James Risen, a New York Times journalist who is about to go to jail for refusing to give up a source he used to write his anti-government book "State of War".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html
What do you guys think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html
What do you guys think?
Jump to: