Embedded journalism...

When journalists take their watch-dog role so seriously that they themselves are in harm's way, what happens then to their world when the nation's largest unrestricted media market, such that of Rupert Murdoch's unlimited acquisitiveness particularly the latest acquisition has all lined up? What will happen to our journalists' presentation of assumed facts when Murdoch has acquired all of the suburban gems of free press and starts controlling journalism (well, that's exactly what he is doing now) in a way that he used before he hit it big? We are all aware that he is a media mogul whose journalism style summons the prurient arousal of his readers.

The acquisition is still in the making, and maybe we should all strongly write the FCC that we are against this (much like I am so against the war in Iraq and the possible nuking or invasion of Iran), that I started writing letters to the Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Bob Filner, and many other representatives that I can reach in Congress. I want them know how I feel as a tax-paying citizen that they have an ethical responsibility to accurately represent me! Murdoch once cheaply bought a tired liberal paper, the Sun, and he transformed it into a sensationalistic tabloid that displays topless girls. He should be banned from doing business anywhere, because his gospel of greed has poisoned free discussion all over the globe. We should get rid of his world-wide lie machine and unjust propaganda in order to have free press and good honest journalism going!

Does anyone want to know whether this would truly benefit the viewers and the readers? Does anyone care? Will there be better journalism? More news coverage when the merger or acquisition is finished? Increased awareness and insight? Somehow, I think I know the answer.