>>To me, there's no difference between ignoring a hefty scandal because the person involved is a big honcho in The Party, A Party or The Corporation - you didn't publish the article, you're saving a butt which isn't worth saving, at the price of your reporters' virginity. From there, you can choose to go down or down.
>
>And of course, the best media do publish about their own in-house foibles and make it clear that they are financially related. We have an all-news radio station here in Philly that's quite good about that kind of stuff--when there's a story about something in the media, they'll often include the "XXX and this station are both owned by YYY" to make it clear that they may not be properly impartial.

I hear that from time to time even on the local NPR member station, and that's the right way to, at least, warn the listeners.

I somehow prefer the way BBC is set up - it's a public thing, state funded, but still independent, pretty much the way the legal system is independent. The parliament can replace the top rank officials there, but has to do that in public, I think. Of course, BBC is still biased (I remember they were beating the same war drums in 2003, and had the same war presstitute mentality), but at least you get some news straight (i.e. bias doesn't apply to everything across the board) and without a feeling that this intrusion into the ads can be cleaned up any second.

BTW, where does this colonial thing come from? Why is there, in the eyes of PBS/NPR, only one other country in the world capable (*) of manufacturing TV/radio fit for consumption here?

----
Actually, not quite capable. They can't do a thing by themselves - it's quite impossible for them to find where to plug the mike. But it's all then made possible by...