I don't think it was necessarily an anti-european argument, more anti-european press. From there, he tried to connect them to an apologist faction of the American press, which he does with varying degrees of success. I agree that the style hindered his argument. There are a lot of well-meaning, intelligent people who make important arguments, but then leave it open to attack because of its style.
On the whole, though, I thought some good points were made. It would have been nice to make the connection that media control by the few (as in the cases he cites) is a Bad Thing, and that American media rules are leading us down a similar path.
Long articles on the web have the same effect on me. I used to think the NYT broke up it's articles into seperate web pages just to get more click-through revenue (and no doubt, this must be one of the reasons it does so), but for readability some of the longer articles are best read in sections.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
On the whole, though, I thought some good points were made. It would have been nice to make the connection that media control by the few (as in the cases he cites) is a Bad Thing, and that American media rules are leading us down a similar path.
Long articles on the web have the same effect on me. I used to think the NYT broke up it's articles into seperate web pages just to get more click-through revenue (and no doubt, this must be one of the reasons it does so), but for readability some of the longer articles are best read in sections.