Robert McChesneys argument may apply in America (though I don't think it does), but as a general model of global media is falls woefully short.
The notion that non-profit equals independent/quality on which his whole argument rests has been comprehensively blown by the multiple examples of state-owned media kowtowing to power.
Three examples from the UK:
In the long history of ITV v BBC (until very recently), it has been no contest journalistically. Recently, we have had the dismal spectacle of BBC TV News devoting 8 solid minutes to the Queen Mum, 3 days after her death, at the head of its main bulletin, whilst the Middle East is in flames, because the Palace criticised the tone of presenter Peter Sissons first post-death presentation. Interestingly, the main BBC radio bulletin, broadcast at exactly the same time, but much less exposed, led with the Middle East.
If the war on terrorism has been immune from media criticism because of supine commercial ownership and the military-industrial complex, as McChesney argues, why did the two state-owned TV broadcasters - the BBC and Channel 4 - caption all their reporting of post-11 September for weeks afterwards as the war on terrorism?
He mentions political campaigns based on moronic and insulting TV ads? - who has argued for the last four years to ban political advertising on TV because it is demeaning and corrupting (however profitable)? Believe it or not its Murdoch!
Secondly McChesney argues that de-regulation has led to giving away billions' worth of spectrum to a handful of corporations? - Tell that to ITV Digital, or to the UMTS auction winners who have spent £23 billion destroying their businesses.
Then there's the catch-22: it's not the owners; it's the professional journalists, who are spoon-fed by those in power! Yes, of course there's a tendency to accept at face value what democratically-accountable governments tell you, and then check it when you can. Look at how brilliantly Israel manages news coverage - plenty of footage of buses destroyed by suicide bombers, no journalistic access at all to full-scale military assaults on civilian targets. The notion that state-owned broadcasters will question official press releases more rigorously than professional journalists is particularly quaint.
As for Ralph Nader, who McChesney argued was done in by the corporate media, his candidacy was widely attacked by pro-Gore publications well to the left of the New York Times, for risking a Bush presidency as considerably the greater of two evils.
Enron? It was a company barely covered outside the City and business pages until the scandal broke. 99% of newspaper readers would never have heard of it. That the City pages closely follow the City analysts in their reporting means that go-go stocks get disproportionate coverage, usually favourable, until the bubble is about to burst. Why single out Enron? The Merrill Lynch story tells you that a whole raft of dotcoms were boosted by analysts whose banking arms were making money on the side from commissions on deals. Once the tide turned, there was a plethora of hostile and critical reporting see Aprils Vanity Fair for another devastating piece on Enron (presumably Conde Nast's taste for investigative reporting has passed McChesney by).
Then there's the American election. I can't remember any political story getting as much coverage as the challenge to the Florida result. Yes, of course theres an issue as to why Greg Palast's report was not followed up (not that it could have made any difference) - but there's an even bigger question, which is why the semi-public campaign to purge the electoral rolls over a lengthy period did not elicit coverage long before the election? McChesney admits that it was the massive press coverage that exposed the dubious quality of Bushs victory. He then asks: if the free press cannot guarantee the integrity of elections, what good is it?! It was the Supreme Court that halted the re-counts, and used its built-in Republican majority (now to be reinforced by Bush, courtesy of Nader) to block any further challenge. It was the media - at their own expense - who carried on counting ballots afterwards: but if anyone stole the election, it was the Supreme Court. And the main reason that coverage of the story thereafter diminished was that Gore himself abandoned any further challenge and accepted Bush's legitimacy (even if his motivation was to avoid bad loser accusations if he wanted to run in 2004).
And where was McChesney - and, indeed, the media - in 1960, when another incumbent Vice-President (Nixon) had the election stolen from him in Illinois by a pretty-boy challenger backed by oodles of dubiously-acquired family cash (Kennedy)? It doesn't look to me as if the pre-globalisation press did a significantly better job than its equivalent 40 years later. Indeed, media indulgence of Camelot and Kennedy's lies and vices - at least as well known as Clinton's - helps explain the subsequent paranoia of Nixon and Agnew.
Ben Compaine's piece is low-key, but a polite and thoughtful response to the debate, which subtly attempts to win by acknowledging the weight of contributions against him but suggesting that the split decision supports his contention that ownership is not the biggest issue.
If Compaine needed any justification for labelling McChesney extremist, this argument is it.
