Samsung being a large advertiser would mean something (maybe) to an ad based media company but that's not the BBC.
On the surface it may seem like government or sponsored media is protected by such influences, but unfortunately that's not the case as journalists will avoid career-stunting reporting that will damage their future prospects with other networks.
In the USA in particular we see networks like FOX news attacking journalists and pieces from other networks who have reported unsavoury things about their major ad sponsors/supporters. Being a "rogue" reporter is also not fancied in the media for profit industry. (See also, the death of journalism.)
Now, since I'm using Samsung as an example, we can also talk about how Samsung's extended influence(read: control/corruption) of South Korea has lead to other unexpected results: from judicial sway in their homeland to diplomatic influence in the region (China/Japan) and the USA.
It's important not to be ignorant or naive to media and how it's used.
<div class="quote-container">Quote:<div class="quote-block"><div>Samsung being a large advertiser would mean something (maybe) to an ad based media company but that's not the BBC.</div></div></div><p>On the surface it may seem like government or sponsored media is protected by such influences, but unfortunately that's not the case as journalists will avoid career-stunting reporting that will damage their future prospects with other networks.</p><p> </p><p>In the USA in particular we see networks like FOX news attacking journalists and pieces from other networks who have reported unsavoury things about their major ad sponsors/supporters. Being a "rogue" reporter is also not fancied in the media for profit industry. (See also, the death of journalism.)</p><p> </p><p>Now, since I'm using Samsung as an example, we can also talk about how Samsung's extended influence(read: control/corruption) of South Korea has lead to other unexpected results: from judicial sway in their homeland to diplomatic influence in the region (China/Japan) and the USA.</p><p> </p><p>It's important not to be ignorant or naive to media and how it's used.</p>
The BBC is not located either in the USA or South Korea and thankfully doesn't suffer the same issues as the media in both the examples you gave.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider"We know of no other company doing as much as Apple does to ensure fair and safe working conditions, to discover and investigate problems, to fix and follow through when issues arise, and to provide transparency into the operations of our suppliers," Williams wrote.
That's pretty scary.
Who knows what is going on in the Samsung factories? The BBC should take an undercover look ...
Comments
On the surface it may seem like government or sponsored media is protected by such influences, but unfortunately that's not the case as journalists will avoid career-stunting reporting that will damage their future prospects with other networks.
In the USA in particular we see networks like FOX news attacking journalists and pieces from other networks who have reported unsavoury things about their major ad sponsors/supporters. Being a "rogue" reporter is also not fancied in the media for profit industry. (See also, the death of journalism.)
Now, since I'm using Samsung as an example, we can also talk about how Samsung's extended influence(read: control/corruption) of South Korea has lead to other unexpected results: from judicial sway in their homeland to diplomatic influence in the region (China/Japan) and the USA.
It's important not to be ignorant or naive to media and how it's used.
That's pretty scary.
Who knows what is going on in the Samsung factories? The BBC should take an undercover look ...