This section will cover the problem with the press. This discussion is not extensive, mainly because the phenomenon is well documented and can be read of compellingly in the work of Noam Chomsky. The problem is simply that any publisher of "news" and opinion will serve the interests of its owners. So, in a capitalistic, free-press system, the corporations and special interests that control the dissemination of facts will choose them and spin them to their liking. Is a state-run solution better? State-run information sources are notoriously unreliable and generally serve only to propagandize and pacify. A free press is thus theoretically more attractive, but when coupled with capitalism, the problems are inevitable. In particular, the firm with the most capital (i.e., the "loudest voice") will be the most able to spread whatever message is to its own benefit far wider than a completely disinterested and objective news source. The latter will tend to be thinly read, because issues are complex, and the people generally prefer simplistic summaries with convenient pigeonholes, a "good guy" and a "bad guy". Complexity never markets well, ever. This compounds the handicap of capital with a second problem, which is that to report on real issues thoroughly is to produce a product suitable only for academics. As it is, the media tends to put forth information that serves to keep the populace ignorant or misinformed on most international issues, economic or otherwise. Whose interests this policy of smoke screening serves is unclear in specific. There are anti-Semitic theorists who would point to the Jewish ownership of much of the news media, but this author prefers to think of the beneficiaries as being the powerful and wealthy irrespective of all else, because the media serves very loyally and effectively to lull citizens into inaction and apathy, thus preserving the status quo.
back to other rants
home to hellhed