I don't think that there is a huge problem with the photo-media, Blansky, but yes, the photo-material should be un-manipulated.
- However, there are people responsible for selecting the "proper" photo to go along with an article, and as you know, two different photos can tell two very different stories.
I think the media, and in later years, especially in democracies in the west, have had a tendency to have a very political angle.
- Now days, most large media organizations are shamelessly full of propaganda, they don't even care.
My BS-detector goes off the chart these days of all the incredible crap the news tend to spew out.
Everyone sees a terrorist on every street-corner and if you see "a brown man who looks like an arab" on the plane......then that's it, call the cops!
Where are the critical questions to presidents, prime-ministers and other deciding parties?
- 60-minutes isn't it!
I often see in my own country's national media, that the journalists rarely ask the tough questions. If they do, the politician never answers the question and are allowed to ramble on and throw out a lie or three - and the reporters let them get away with it! They don't stop the interview, smack the mike over the politicians head and tell them to answer the friggin question. (they really should start doing that)
The media go along with whatever political climate it is, -and even participate in pure propaganda: Embedded journalists, alert level green - yellow - red - whatever, beforehand cleared questions to presidents, prime-ministers and generals etc and they even give one side of a conflict air-time to show a g*ddamn powerpoint presentation, fresh from the propaganda-still.
So, generally most big news networks participate in shifting the news to whatever political "wind" there is at the moment.
There was no difference watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC or Euro News when it came to the Iraq war and the all-famous "war on terror". Even smaller countries media participate in the "party-line" reporting and angle. Al-Jazeera is the middle-east equivalent of CNN, how come their reportages and angles are so different than CNN and the others, if they all, Al-jazeera included, seemingly "tell the truth" ?
Smaller news-networks tend to have even stronger ties to what political agenda the owners possess, so they too are skewed and unreliable.
They all tell the story THEY want YOU to believe in, as long as that involve earning money, pleasing the owners and pleasing whatever (democratic or not) hawks ruling the land.
So in-effect the media had been seized and controlled already, in our "free world" as well as in your average dictatorship-nation.
- The difference is more in how they lie to you, I suppose.