🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15APR199207111237@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Charles Packer (cp) writes:

cp> It's of the greatest interest, for example, that the NY Times, the
cp> most influential news medium in the U.S., has been controlled by a
cp> single family since 1896.

Why is that of interest? You can read it or not. You can believe it or
not. Who owns it is irrelevent to anyone but the stock market and the
satire writers.

Most British (national) newspapers are owned by a couple of companies,
one owned by a strange Ausie, one used to be owned by a currently dead
fraudster. This doesn't bother people because people wouldn't trust
them no matter who owns them.

Niel Kinnock was (rightly) peeved at the very biased coverrage of
Labour and him in particular in the tabloids. However, while I think
it is irritating that they can get away with such bias, I don't think
it is worrying. Even Sun readers aren't daft enough to believe a word
of it.

I presume you don't believe what the NYT tells you without
documentation. People who do probably also believe in bombers on the
moon and are too worried about Elvis eating their children to pay much
attention to slight bias in the NYT.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<