Media intervention

I had a very interesting conversation with my boss today. I was talking about media insitutions, and my fears that business has too much influence over what doesn't get printed/broadcast. He expressed similar concerns, but articulated that their must be some concessions made, or business will take out their ad funding and bankrupt papers. He cited that if GM has a part that might cause problems, is it really worth trying to make people aware if the paper might subsequently have to shut down?

Yes, because it's our fucking media, NOT their fucking media.

First, I don't think that any newspaper gets the predominance of their funds from one advertiser. Second, in an ideal world where information was free and prioritized in accordance of risk of injury/death, need to know, civic duty, etc. (order as you like), I am fairly confident that the risk of 1,000 people dying is more important to society than is the need for GM to make a bit more profit. What's more, I feel that GM should go out of their way to make it known that their vehicle has a defective part, and could cause serious injury. It reminds me of the formula used in Fight Club - if the amount of deaths x average settlement costs less than a full recall, they just don't do one. Sick.

Moreover, I think if media would grow a set of balls (this is assuming they weren't just appendages of business in the first place), they could fight back. If an advertiser took away funds because I ran a factually based story about them, I CONSIDER THAT BIG NEWS, and if I were a managing editor I would gloat about this on the next day's front page. Media institutions belong to society. They lend businesses the right to advertise on them. They exist to serve me information, not for business to serve me hook line and sinker.

They'll play by our rules, or we'll go somewhere else.