Much as i appreciate your analysis of the Murdoch effect on US media, i would be significantly more "nuanced" on your analysis of the UK scene. Firstly, i had offices just off Fleet Street in the middle 80s and the only think that stank was the diesil fumes of the taxis...no sign of a newspaper in the Street. But that's an aside.
The UK media in part didn't wait for Murdoch to often fulfill what could otherwise be considered fantasies of gutter press. However there are exceptions and some belong to the "monster" ..Sky News Uk is not rabid and neither is the Times. Both probably tend towards the centre right but are never "monolithic" in their positioning. Others such as the Guardian are as guilty as the Times may be and follows somewhat slavishly sometimes the local Socialist Party but contributes to the intelligent diversity oy opinion championed.
The question is, what will replace it (if it in fact goes away)? Fox unfortunately established that there is a huge market for right wing disinformation. Will it be replaced by something even more sinister and odious (OANN? Newsmax?)? These are scary questions, but ones that are necessary to answer.
So sorry, I read your piece on the Canadian PM and their cabinet and was very impressed with your writing . Unfortunately I totally disagree with you about Fox News. We need to have a balancing point of view to the mainstream media which is in bed with the Democratic Party. They don’t venture to give any objective views of the Biden Administration. Yes they have their editorial anchors but they also have Mike Wallace who I dare say is a middle of the road Democrat. Also Brett Baier plays the news very straight and or gives opposing views. Most of their programs offer opposing views that are real not milk toast like the mainstream media. The weekend daytime hosts Eric and Michelle I don’t know their last names are not conservative one bit. So I think you need to look past Tucker, Hannity and Ingram if you want to be objective.
I’d say Good Riddance if I thought some other, probably worse, right-wing screaming meanie wouldn’t spring up fully formed in order to fulfill the wet dreams of of all who are still enamored of a soiled and besmirched, treasonous tyrant wannabe. As you noted, since Reagan and the 24 hour newscycle(thank you CNN)the quality of sober, smart news broadcasting has gone to the Devil. Add to all that, the consolidation of newspapers into a few giant corporations and no one knows what is happening at the local level. I’m almost certain that Madison Cawthorn got elected for lack of solid reporting all around his district. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that other useless legislators got elected simply because of lack of information along with a penchant of voting for the party plus a healthy dose of sheer ignorance.
the guillotine is a good line, I agree!
Much as i appreciate your analysis of the Murdoch effect on US media, i would be significantly more "nuanced" on your analysis of the UK scene. Firstly, i had offices just off Fleet Street in the middle 80s and the only think that stank was the diesil fumes of the taxis...no sign of a newspaper in the Street. But that's an aside.
The UK media in part didn't wait for Murdoch to often fulfill what could otherwise be considered fantasies of gutter press. However there are exceptions and some belong to the "monster" ..Sky News Uk is not rabid and neither is the Times. Both probably tend towards the centre right but are never "monolithic" in their positioning. Others such as the Guardian are as guilty as the Times may be and follows somewhat slavishly sometimes the local Socialist Party but contributes to the intelligent diversity oy opinion championed.
The question is, what will replace it (if it in fact goes away)? Fox unfortunately established that there is a huge market for right wing disinformation. Will it be replaced by something even more sinister and odious (OANN? Newsmax?)? These are scary questions, but ones that are necessary to answer.
So sorry, I read your piece on the Canadian PM and their cabinet and was very impressed with your writing . Unfortunately I totally disagree with you about Fox News. We need to have a balancing point of view to the mainstream media which is in bed with the Democratic Party. They don’t venture to give any objective views of the Biden Administration. Yes they have their editorial anchors but they also have Mike Wallace who I dare say is a middle of the road Democrat. Also Brett Baier plays the news very straight and or gives opposing views. Most of their programs offer opposing views that are real not milk toast like the mainstream media. The weekend daytime hosts Eric and Michelle I don’t know their last names are not conservative one bit. So I think you need to look past Tucker, Hannity and Ingram if you want to be objective.
I’d say Good Riddance if I thought some other, probably worse, right-wing screaming meanie wouldn’t spring up fully formed in order to fulfill the wet dreams of of all who are still enamored of a soiled and besmirched, treasonous tyrant wannabe. As you noted, since Reagan and the 24 hour newscycle(thank you CNN)the quality of sober, smart news broadcasting has gone to the Devil. Add to all that, the consolidation of newspapers into a few giant corporations and no one knows what is happening at the local level. I’m almost certain that Madison Cawthorn got elected for lack of solid reporting all around his district. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that other useless legislators got elected simply because of lack of information along with a penchant of voting for the party plus a healthy dose of sheer ignorance.
Well. The Guillotine worked just fine for the French. Just sayin'