Welcome social workers, we have a case: It seems as if no journalism is as good as we like to belive ("shocker"), but main stream journalism is incompetent, which is proven in the last decade.



Mixed-run journalism enviorment: Many have a reasonable reputation & status in every-day journalism and is less likley to be biased in such, since they are one constant project. However, I've seen state-run journalism failing miserable when the state is the aggrevator of situations, like wars and such. BBC accoring to t
he study of Professor Justin Lewis of the School of Journalism at Cardiff University and later confirmed by a seperate study by
the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are good examples of BBC being the most pro-government mainstram views, in UK politics. You maight have experiences with other state-run media, but then again, I ask you if this state-media has been in a heavy internal coverage? To me, these state-run houses are one of top 4 or fairly dominant in most mainstream market.
Free market journalism enviorment: Well, it's "free" which gives the de jure statue of no strings attatched. But "free" of secure fundings leave the journalism extremly fragile. Each house
must play ball with soft core questions inorder to get access to importent people. Another terrible example of this is the leading up to the Iraq war and the firing of anti war profiles like Ashleigh Banfield, Jesse Ventura, Phil Donahue, etc. It also seem to me as if some of these news houses use fair amount of time on promoting ideology and setting the border straight with other houses.
So our case is:
I'm sure there are tons of political views, but on a general note, is hard-nosed, rugged and less biased mainstream journalism an utopia?
(Adopted/true)?
(Denied/untrue)?
(Exposed/undecided)?