Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Many citizens don't like to fund political parties with the result that in most countries, they are mostly privately funded by donations or party fund-raising activities.  This also means that the political process is wide open to bribery and corruption private influences to the detriment of the common good.

Is there a valid comparison with content publishing?  If readers refuse to pay for (subscribe) for content directly, is there a danger that those volume producers of content which remain will have their content increasingly determined by the agendas of their owner/advertisers/corporate partners to the detriment of good disinterested public discourse?

Of course advertisers/owners have always had a strong influence, but with the decline of the subscription model, will this influence become all consuming?  Or is there a fundamental dis-functionality in relying on commercial entities to do the job of public information dissemination that can only be addressed through state broadcasters such as the BBC and more "official" publications, gazettes, websites etc. and of course through civil society foundations?

How can the dominating influences of "special interests": commercial, political, the MIC ETC. be reduced? Or is that what the internet is all about - the democratisation of information through direct peer to peer communications and with intermediary organisations increasingly being cut out of the loop?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:51:06 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series