3 ms·
So yes, US journalism's objectivity is often horrible, but the owners of The Guardian are overseeing an enterprise with revenues of £254.4 million a year, accor
by brown9-2 13y ago
So yes, US journalism's objectivity is often horrible, but the owners of The Guardian are overseeing an enterprise with revenues of £254.4 million a year, according to Wikipedia. That still seems like a corporate enterprise the owners of whom would want to protect. I believe it is still be possible to be a muckraker (or employ those who are like Greenwald) and have a sizable "corporate"-ness.
- makomk 13y agoThe Guardian is entirely owned by the Scott Trust, which is a trust set up specifically to safeguard their editorial independence. It doesn't have owners in the usual corporate sense of the word.
- tptacek 13y agoDoesn't Thompson Reuters have a similar thing in place?
- specialist 13y agoThe difference is editorial independence. You know this. The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, a few others, are in no way comparable to properties owned by media conglomerates. You know this. If not "corporate", how would you refer to likes of News Corp, Clear Channel, Time Warner, Disney, etc? "Purveyors of propaganda for the power elite?" "Anti-democratic radical right wing noise echo chambers?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media "Corporate media" is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. It is sometimes used as a term of derision to indicate a media system which does not serve the public interest in place of the mainstream media or "MSM," which tends to be used by both the political left and the right as a derisive term.