Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > The real problem is a media
> > system based on competitive profit maximization, which is what
> > produces lowest common denominator programming. But that starts
> > getting into dangerous territory for liberals, so best to get
> > nostalgic for those great old days when Hearst ruled the
> > mediascape and the LA Times was a crap paper run by the
> > original Chandler.
>
> I think serious critics concerned with media concentration, like Bob
> McChesney, hold up US media before late-19th century as a better
> example, when there was greater competition (presumably before
> technology increased barriers to entry).
>
But (as Upton Sinclair so magnificently established) all that
competition did _not_ contribute one whit to either the
comprehensiveness or the accuracy of the news offered. Fox News is
probably more honest than 9 out of 10 newspapers in the late 19th
century.
Spend some time reading the celebrity rags today. There is lots of competition between People, National Inquirer, etc: and every one of them is identical to the others. That's what those "competing" newspapers of the 19th c. were like. All competing, but all dishing out the same horseshit.
Carrol
Carrol