that increased scrutiny of media control issues is one of the major policy lessons of the Iraq war [see my recent post]. In addition, his current NYTimes column, „The China Syndrome„, adds an interesting analysis of corporate regulative bargaining with governments. Whatever your opinion regarding the „biased BBC“ – or for that matter, biased German tv – discussion, there is only one possible stand concerning the biased „Fox News“ debate. And that alone is quite telling in my book.
The issue is of utmost general importance, but today’s Krugman column has been triggered by yesterday’s presentation by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission of a US bill to relax regulations on media ownership –
„… that will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people…“.
So if Krugman is indeed right in his assessment that
„[w]e don’t have censorship in [the USA]; it’s still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.“
Well, if Krugman is right here, and if it weren’t for the Internet, I guess Gleichschaltung could become a concept more and more people might not just identify with partisan news reporting in the Third Reich.
Seems like the „Land Of The Free“ could need some more brave publicists these days when even a Larry Flynt is wasting his time chasing an obscure skin-flick allegedly featuring Barbara Bush (the daughter – not the mother…).