Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Also "free press" in no way implies that the press is unbiased. While
> >   some
> > very small newspapers may be more willing to publish even more "taboo"
> > points of view, it's rather common that the big ones tend to be rather
> > biased on how they approach certain "taboo" subjects. In extreme cases the
> > press at large may engage in open witch-hunting against certain movements
> > or even individuals (it *has* happened, even here).

> I'd say free press means the press can be unbiased, or it can be biased to
> any thing it wants; instead of being forced by the govt to be biased in
> favor of the govt, forced by the govt to hide things, etc.

  But my point is that in many countries the free press is consistently
biased towards certain things, which *effectively* makes them not so free
after all. People are still getting biased information, sometimes to the
point that they are truely deceived.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message