Observe, if you please, the media bias

Remember the Chandra Levy business? How one Democratic Senator was widely discredited for his reticence about their relationship when she went missing? One person missing/dead, wall-to-wall coverage and examination of the case, the players, and the possibility of wrongdoing. Here are two more interesting cases for the media:

2. The 9/11 investigation. Bush Administration strangely reticent about releasing relevant documents. The Commission's leader Kean says the disaster "could have been prevented", and goes on to say if he were in charge he would be removing some of those in power who presided over the disaster. Result: scarcely a word from the media. People dead--3,000.

3. The Niger incident. Bush Administration touts Italian intelligence that uncovered a document purportedly from the Niger government authorizing sale of yellow-cake to Iraq. The IAEA demostrates the document is false in November of 2002, showing that it is an obvious forgery with markedly different signatures from retired officials, and a letterhead based on the old Constitution. All this without mentioning that all the yellow-cake produced by the facility in question is pre-sold, and none of that to Iraq. Result: no coverage until *after* "major combat operations" in Iraq are complete. People dead-by some reports upwards of 30,000.

In other words *give up* on assuming Bush will be held accountable for any of this business--he will at least be safe until after the election. Bush's administration is profitable for the corporations that own media outlets. Basic business sense dictates that all divisions of business work towards a profit. Even if a Democrat gets into office, the tide will *not* turn much unless we also carry the House and Senate. Even if we carry both houses, the Republicans will have the advantage of more profitable stances from a corporate standpoint. If we actually achieve an advantage or parity in government power, reducing the opportunity for the media to be so blatantly biased will be the primary objective for all responsible leaders.

The corporations have one overriding objective, written into each and every one of their corporate charters...to make money for the corporation and the shareholders. Nothing cynical here, no accusations. That is simply what being a for-profit corporation is all about.

So, for General Electric, which is also a defense contractor as well as a media conglomerate, would actually be in breach of fiduciary responsibility if it came out an lambasted Bush, because it would cost their shareholders money, which would be in violation of their corporate charter, which could conceiveably open them up to shareholder lawsuits.

It is just business. Just like Bush promised us.

and very accurate. Once people understand the profit motive, they understand why Bush is not being held accountable.

I totally agree. Corporations in and of themselves are not the problem, but the system in which they operate has become too deregulated and too filled with the opportunity for graft to give ordinary citizens say in wha they watch or what they listen to. If you don't like what Clear Channel puts out on the radio, adn you're in one of the areas where they dominate, too bad for you. Five companies have an inordinate amount of control over what music , fashions and ideas get exposure, and therefore get mainstream penetration. Therefore Rush pulls 20 million listeners without a real liberal competitor because there *is* no liberal with a comparable broadcast area.