Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (593)	11/19/2002 6:02:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Just looking at your general statements I would have to say I disagree with you. Even if for example Rush is a toadie to the CIA (and I think its a silly idea) there is a lot of other media outlets that would not be. Yes ownership is more concentrated then it used to be but most news decisions do not go to the ownership. The one way a lot of media becomes an echo chamber for the government is when other sources of information are lacking and the media can only get the info from the government. Even then they may spin it a different way then the government agency that they get it from would like, but the actual facts are those that are given but the government. But of course the government is not monolithic. Leaks happen left and right, different people with different agendas try to spin the press in different directions. The problem is that the concentration of media, and contamination by covert means serve to gut and punish any real investigation of the foxes in charge of the chickencoop. I view the concentration of the media to be a potential problem but I don't view it as being as bad of one as you seem to think it is. As for "contamination by cover means", unless by that you mean carefully planed links I don't think it is happening, at least not on a large enough scale to make a serious difference. Tim