| (related to the unrelated part) what if the media is corrupt? I mean, independently on current events (I really don't want to enter that here) we do live in a world where very few amoral corporations own most of the media industry. If we (correctly) rely on the media to bring to public attentions relevant facts (both criminal and non-criminal) and keep a watchful eye on the nation who then keeps a watchful eye on the media? is the model entirely based on always being there enough good journalist to spot the bad ones? how is this affected by the very precarious economics of current internet ads-based venture-funded media enterprises? I just blurted too many questions... what I am trying to say is that similarly with the police there is not as easy answer in shoud-trust should-not-trust (in the US a supreme Court judge advised to "not talk to the police"). in that case I guess part of the problem is that the job of the police can be miscontrued as "arresting people". in the same way the job of a journalist can be miscontrued as "getting clicks" overall I don't think we can pass an a priori moral judgement on that term, as essentially represent a statement that the default safety measures have failed. (I want to reiterate that here I try not to intermingle my point with whether I believe or not that the current use is warranted, I am just trying to say that as a concept it needs to be part of an healthy democracy, the same as some distrust in electoral promises) |