I really enjoy looking at these sort of topics, but I really should be going to bed...
Originally Posted by sledger
The question is pretty simple, basically, should there exist a fundamental right for an individual to receive a plurality of content (i.e. content which is as unbiased as possible, so to allow individuals to make up their own mind about events etc...) in the media? Put alternatively, given the wealth of new media services and sources, can/should market forces be relied upon to provide members of the public with an adequate diversity of information and ideas for liberal democratic purposes? Or should there be a positive obligation on the state to ensure this happens?
Don't really agree with this as a definition. There will always be biased pieces, it's ensuring that a wide variety of views are provided, not that they are all neutral.
It's a much more complicated topic with new media involved. On one hand, you look at major metropolitan cities in Australia with only one daily newspaper, and provided by the same company; I don't think that's a good thing. Now there are a plethora of sources online to find your news, framed through many different perspectives, so the issue is not as drastic as what it may have been 15 years ago.
But people become attached to someone expressing something resembling their own views and sentiment in public, it's a feeling of representation and association which can't be replicated online nearly as effectively as in daily newspapers.
It helps political participation, especially at this time where physical newspapers set agendas. We are still some time away from the internet news driving daily issues.