Do You Believe The Corporate Media Has A Conflict of Interest in Covering the Health Care Debate?

[Uncle Joe]

Poll question: Do You Believe The Corporate Media Has A Conflict of Interest in Covering the Health Care Debate?

I ask this because the prime source of their revenue is selling commercials to "health" insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, etc. and if we had universal single payer coverage that covered every American from the cradle to the grave like the rest of the civilized world, the corporate media wouldn't be selling those commercials anymore.

[plcdude]

1. first one

na na

[Echo In Light]

2. Obviously. Plus there's a MAJOR C.O.I. re coverage of WAR$

[90-percent]

3. EZ

I did not even have to call upon my brain to know the right answer for this one!!

-90% jimmy

[tosh]

4. No doubt.

[SteppingRazor]

5. I suppose talking about the journalistic wall between editorial and advertising...

would do no good here?

I can't speak to broadcast news, but whether or not somebody's an advertiser has no bearing on whether print media does a story -- nor should it. (Although, I will admit, I've gotten screamed at by a sales rep or two, but that's as far as it goes.)

But, one other problem with this idea -- if you maintain that the media can't cover healthcare because of the advertising dollars, you're also saying there's many, many other areas the media can't cover. Or is it just healthcare because of the amount of advertising dollars spent? And if that's the case, where do you draw the line?

[Uncle Joe]

8. Can the owner of the paper climb over or go through the wall?

When it comes to major advertising, maybe a line shouldn't be drawn at the very least when it comes to full disclosure.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Beats me. As with most people...

I've never met the CEO of the company that owns my paper. He's just some dude 1,000 miles away.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Who hires the editors, or publisher, authorizes raises?

You may not see the CEO, but I can't imagine he/she doesn't keep some track of the paper; of which the dude owns.

Murdoch for example own papers thousands of miles from where he lives but I don't believe his publications put out a liberal or progressive point of view, they know what he wants.

[DutchLiberal]

6. I miss the option "DUH!"

[zipplewrath]

7. The rope to hang them

The observation was true. Corporations will "sell you the rope with which to hang them". The only "problem" the corporate media has covering health care reform is that they are more interested in reporting the emotions and conflicts than in the actual legislation. They want the eyeballs watching commercials. Anything to get them to watch.

[SoCalDem]

11. 99.9999999% of the media IS a conflict of interest, in every way & shape

They "choose" our politicians...no one can convince me that the ones without much ad $ to spend, get a lot of positive (any?) attention.

Any candidate who is the least anti-corporate, gets called a goofball, a kook, a nut, a fringe candidate.

How often are Disney-related issues ever reported on? GE? etc. on ANY channel?

They all know where the bodies are buried, and have probably all worked within the same inner circle, so it's a m.a.d. plan for all of them

the recent flap over Fox & GE & Bill-O & Keith shows how "sensitive" they can be.

This is why news should never be "sponsored" and should be strictly walled off from the rest of the network.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

12. They also have conflicts dealing with hospitals' monopoly power

A lot of advertising seems to come from the big doctors' groups. Now these groups started growing in the past decade. Amazingly, though, hardly anyone in the general public seems to have paid attention. Big doctors' groups arrived on the scene, then got larger, and yet people seemed to believe that the groups had always been there. This is important because evidence shows (surprise, surprise) that the more market power the groups have in a region, the higher is the price for health care there. But the unions don't notice. The Democrats don't seem to notice.

Why don't people know more about this? Is it because the media is influenced by revenues from the groups? Is it because the gradual growth of monopoly power makes for a dull story? Or is it just because of a social bias in the media and in the Democratic Party?

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked for the night crowd and thanks to everyone;

that has posted or voted.

[LaPera]

14. Corporate media are one in the same-They all have stocks in their "portfolios" of each others Corps.

Corporations stick together for monopolies and profits...fuck being civic mined, fuck caring about society, fuck helping those less fortunate or America in general....

corporations are ALL shooting for multinational monopoly status....control & profits are all they care about...Corporations are one in the same republicans and they back each other because indirectly because it could affect their future earnings as well!

Status quo, deregulation, no unions, while paying no taxes and getting government subsidies instead, are ALL corporations wet dream!

Which translates directly into fuck the people, fuck the tax payers and fuck the workers.