What I'd like all these libs to address is why State-media is supposed to be any worse or any more biased than privately owned media. Instead of a mouthpiece for the state, you simply have a mouthpiece for whatever rich person owns the outlet.
in addition to what you said, privately owned media gets subsidies from the state anyway, so they have a strong financial incentive to not badmouth the state, or their owners. Then you have the editorial board scrubbing iconoclastic articles of whatever little class consciousness managed to make its way in.
Then there's the entire revolving door of private sector -> state -> private sector. A job like white house press secretary is expected to have media experience, and to know how to deal with loaded questions, etc., so you know there's bootlickers in the media gunning to get in a room like that, and that curbs their instinct to ask pointed question. Again. the financial incentive overrides the instinct to truly challenge power.
Then finally there's just the trickle down nature of information with respect to foreign policy. Sure you might have a handful of reporters willing to fly out to a war zone and wear a helmet, etc. But that's expensive. Most of the time you're just gonna take state department press releases, edit them down to be less TL;DR and then release them with some bourgeois commentary as "news." Even if you do fly a journalist out to a war zone, you're not gonna get any information that challenges power, because the news corporation and the state will work together to keep you in a little journalistic pig pen deep inside a safe zone, far behind front lines. So at the end of the day your "coverage" will still be limited.
What I'd like all these libs to address is why State-media is supposed to be any worse or any more biased than privately owned media. Instead of a mouthpiece for the state, you simply have a mouthpiece for whatever rich person owns the outlet.
in addition to what you said, privately owned media gets subsidies from the state anyway, so they have a strong financial incentive to not badmouth the state, or their owners. Then you have the editorial board scrubbing iconoclastic articles of whatever little class consciousness managed to make its way in.
Then there's the entire revolving door of private sector -> state -> private sector. A job like white house press secretary is expected to have media experience, and to know how to deal with loaded questions, etc., so you know there's bootlickers in the media gunning to get in a room like that, and that curbs their instinct to ask pointed question. Again. the financial incentive overrides the instinct to truly challenge power.
Then finally there's just the trickle down nature of information with respect to foreign policy. Sure you might have a handful of reporters willing to fly out to a war zone and wear a helmet, etc. But that's expensive. Most of the time you're just gonna take state department press releases, edit them down to be less TL;DR and then release them with some bourgeois commentary as "news." Even if you do fly a journalist out to a war zone, you're not gonna get any information that challenges power, because the news corporation and the state will work together to keep you in a little journalistic pig pen deep inside a safe zone, far behind front lines. So at the end of the day your "coverage" will still be limited.