No, the media has evolved to become advertising. News corporations definitely should have the responsibility of education, despite what the Murdoch empire would have you believe.
> No, the media has evolved to become advertising.
If true, it was quite a long time ago -- advertising has been the dominant source of revenue, and media has served that revenue source for a long time. Even in the days when print newspapers were strong, their "paid circulation" wasn't important because it brought in a lot of revenue, it was important because advertisers viewed it as the best indicator of engaged audience.
For-profit businesses serve their owners and generally act to maximize profits; there are exceptions, but expecting something different to be the norm without any structurally-imposed constraints mandating is naïve.
If you want a media whose mission is educating the public, You aren't going to get it from privately-owned, for-profit, media corporations because "educating the public" isn't something they can monetize as well as providing a combination of both a source of distress and the appearance of a salve for that distress for a targeted demographic to get them dependent, and then selling advertising access targeted to that demographic.
This is nothing new, and my comment was made with all of this in mind.
Here's a thought experiment however, ask someone why they watch the news, buy a news paper or visit sites like the new york times. Then re-read your comment and see where the differences are. :)
What should be is of really no significance in analyzing causes. What should be is ideology and that has no empirical bearing.
I could also state, that people are dumb for not demanding to be informed truthfully about real important issues. But then at least the following question arises:
Who gets to decide, what is important?
Is it American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or is it TSA not working properly?
Most people would root for entertainment I believe yes I know I am a misanthrope).
If true, it was quite a long time ago -- advertising has been the dominant source of revenue, and media has served that revenue source for a long time. Even in the days when print newspapers were strong, their "paid circulation" wasn't important because it brought in a lot of revenue, it was important because advertisers viewed it as the best indicator of engaged audience.
For-profit businesses serve their owners and generally act to maximize profits; there are exceptions, but expecting something different to be the norm without any structurally-imposed constraints mandating is naïve.
If you want a media whose mission is educating the public, You aren't going to get it from privately-owned, for-profit, media corporations because "educating the public" isn't something they can monetize as well as providing a combination of both a source of distress and the appearance of a salve for that distress for a targeted demographic to get them dependent, and then selling advertising access targeted to that demographic.