Effects of Media Ownership
Just as a farmer who raised cattle to be consumed wouldn’t likely invest in a restaurant that served only vegan and vegetarian-geared meals and whose menus educated diners on the dangers of eating red meat, it is highly unlikely that any large corporation would invest in or support a media source that could possibly harm their profitability in another venture. Obviously, media ownership does matter. It dictates not only how and what a media source will report, but is responsible for favoritism and blackballing in the political arena and the blatant lack of diversity in today’s media.
Who owns a media source is directly linked to how that source will report the news, if they report it at all. Amy and David Goodman of the Seattle Times reported that.
"George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network — notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies."
The media has become such a powerful device of political propaganda not because of government influence, but because of corporations watering down and censoring news sources for private gain. Their concern is not with accurately reporting the news, but with manipulating the media consumers in their favor.