| OK, my 2 cents.
If I owned a newspaper, and that newspaper/TV station (or whatever media outlet) that said something which adversely affected my interests, I would probably find a way to remove the editor. Thats just basic self interest.
All large media outlets are owned by shareholders and controlled by boards of directors. Thus the controlling interests of even the most left leaning media still have to answer to directors and shareholders. Any competent board will be primarily interested in the profitability of the enterprise and not it's political leanings. However, if a story is being run which has some crossover affecting other interests directors may have, then pressure will be exerted (for example, ever wondered why Fox News never runs stories about Rupert Murdoch's enormous amount of editorial influence? - simple: because he owns a controlling interest in the shares of News Corp.). Thus our economic structure has a built in leaning toward 'not rocking the economic boat'. If we can describe the interests of large corporations as aligning better with the right, then we have a built in rightward leaning of almost all large media. This can be seen very clearly when analyzing reported media. It's not so much what is reported, but what is not reported that makes the difference. Terrorism is news, but the causes of terrorism are not. Immigration is news, but the fact that US agriculture would not run without hordes of illegal Mexicans is not. Abortion rights are news, but the economic imperatives behind most abortions (as in: "I am pregnant but I don't have a job") are not. All in all - a strong right wing bias. |