Media, neutral? Palin for President!

'Perhaps the seeds of the "objective" media's demise were sown in its very creation. Professionalism and a quest for objectivity made journalism a more attractive profession even as record profits made it a better paying one. The upshot was a generation of college educated reporters and editors, along with a set of cultural and political attitudes they brought with them from the nation's elite institutions of higher learning. In time, another technological innovation – broadcast – changed the historic role of newspapers and magazines. No longer deliverers of the news, print journalists became interpreters of events. That proved a slippery slope. As the elite denizens of newsrooms began to analyze the news instead of merely chronicling it, the confidence their audience had in the journalists' fairness and ideological balance began to wane.'

Objectivity doesn't exist. Perceptions about its existence exist. That is why Publicity scores over Advertising. Advertising brings with it no credibility as it emanates from the mouth of the marketer. Publicity on other hand is supposed to be piloted by 'neutral' media vehicles.

Main stream media around the world are as opinionated as we individuals are. Though they profess objectivity, people who give us news stories angle it in a manner that suits them. There's nothing we can do about it, except listen or refuse to, again, depending on our own personal slants.

It makes good sense for brands to have the media on their side. Brand attitudes which are closest to dictating sales can be contrived with the help of 'neutral' news media. If a brand can't have the media in its pocket (the way Barack Obama did), its even wise for it to get into the media business. A brand that's taken a lot of flak from media sources and yet has managed to thrive, because it uses its own media vehicles, is the Silvio Berlusconi brand.

The Silvio Berlusconi brand still survives the presidency. All thanks to the media. His media.