The demise of media objectivity

Why would media ever have been objective? Human nature is about motivation toward some reward be it filling an empty belly, the gratification of recognition, wealth, ego, physical comfort.

The media sells advertising. The media manufactures demand for advertising. What sells? The stability and social order we seek doesn´t sell so the media has a vested interest in strife and disorder. This should surprise no one.

There is a natural alliance between revolutionaries and the media. Revolution sells. In 1765 the revolt against the Stamp Act (bundle of intolerable acts) sold. In the 1940´s patriotism sold due to world events, and today the communist revolution sells.

When I first started paying attention to the contents of newspapers other than the comic strips it was during the 1960s and the democrat bias was already dominant. They may have been fair once or twice such as in supporting George H. W. Bush for driving Saddam out of Kuwait but that´s about it. The theme was always that if you were Conservative you were wrong. Today it´s their mantra.

The media seems to have reached a point of being a prostitute on a street corner, continually hooking up with dems and Leftists yet claiming she still is a virgin. NO ONE believes it.

"If these giant agencies of communication are irresponsible, not even the First Amendment will protect their freedom from government control. The Amendment will be amended."

Technology has rendered such control unnecessary and obsolete. Besides that, as we repeatedly see, government control brings with it government corruption and abuse. If at all possible, it is best to have NO government involvement.

What government should do is reiterate and extend freedom of expression and communication. They should address the Googles and Facebooks and REQUIRE that censorship of the exchange of ideas is NOT allowed, no matter how offensive. Such organizations could easily create a "Blunt discussion" area where anyone entering it would have to deal with whatever goes on. The only exception might be incitement or execution of illegal activity. Organizations could NOT be blocked. At most, they might flag groups as fervent and perhaps for mature audiences only. People adverse to such intense discussion could choose to avoid them.

Consider that the courts have long established that marches by offensive organizations, like neo Nazis, can not be suppressed. ALL may speak.

Why should that be any different for digital communication? Or other forms of public discourse?

It also limits the power of government to abuse things because it is a rule of "hands off". Government serves it by doing NOTHING.

The classic media obviously cannot serve its role any longer. But there are LOTS of groups that CAN and do, as long as they are not obstructed.