[UGAalum94]

I tend to think the marketplace usually works okay, and that we might not need more PBS, as much as I love watching it sometimes. I certainly don't think we need more taxpayer supported news channels. I mentioned PBS because I think we very much have an expectation that they aren't beholden to advertisers (although ADM used to be (maybe still is) a big sponsor which probably should creep us out if the topic at hand is how agricultural companies influenced FOX)

If we're really outraged that advertisers influence the news, they we'd ought to watch and support the advertisers of channels and shows that reflect our attitudes about investigative journalism or the press as a watchdog. And if one doesn't exist, then there'd be a gap in the market from someone, just as FOXnews has successfully exploited a perceived gap in right wing news sources.

It seems like it works for print journalism okay, and there ought to be a way to make it work for TV news as well.

If you think about news or even general interest magazines, which might be a dying market share unfortunately, or online magazines like Slate or Salon, the problem doesn't seem to be as pronounced, does it? What's the difference? Is it that TV news audiences are already so passive that it doesn't really bug them?

ETA: or maybe it's that the cost and rates of advertisements keep any one advertiser from being crucial to print or online media sources.