Because media is the mouthpiece between the population and all those information that cannot be obtained by first-hand research.This applies in particular to political events.
Wouldn’t it be logistically easy if everyone had to walk around with a camera and a microphone in the Bundestag, wouldn’t it?
Accordingly, media institutions are involuntarily emerging that meet the demand of the broad masses for such information that goes beyond their own road block.
The media necessarily never report “neutral” or as much as it suits you, because there is no such thing as “neutral” politics.Objective criticism can only be directed at things such as lack of consistency, integrity, transparency and blunt misinformation.
But having no media to report on politics is hardly an alternative.Anyone who has ever lived in a country with harsh media censorship can certainly best confirm that.
The continuous discourse between population and politics through the media as an interface is an essential part of any democracy that wants to call itself democracy.Because no flow of information – no insight for the population – no targeted feedback from the population – no reason for politicians to represent the people who elected them – no democracy.
Perhaps the question is not directed at political reporting per se, but specifically at the social form that media institutions take – that they are, for example, too centralised or too secluded from the population.
The question is whether a more decentralized form of reporting is necessarily better.Suppose that there are not the handful of established media publishers, but only an amorphous plethora of small media portals on the net, all of which do not come across quite seriously, since one did not have in-depth long-term experience with them, let alone see which organizational structure that portals have among themselves. Or worse, countless message boards where you can just ask anonynome users for information…
Treasure that already exists.And certainly they also have their rightful place in the media world (in an extended sense), but I would be reluctant to rely on them alone, as this would quickly reduce the media landscape to silent mail.
The centralized structure of established media publishers also has the advantage of knowing where to direct your criticism if you think you have one.For example, if you believe that misinformation has been spread, it’s easier to figure out where it comes from. The media channels concerned may then suffer the concentrated setback, which in turn corresponds to a certain public correction mechanism.
In the vast depths of the Internet world, however, rarely does anyone feel compelled to take responsibility for false statements.Accordingly, there is little that assures you of integrity.
There is probably no solution that will ever be satisfactory, but as far as I know, no one has demonstrated an alternative media structure that is necessarily more trustworthy.