Satyn wrote:i know who richard branson is but have no idea who the other one is.
Which is probably the scariest part about it - a lot of people don't know who he is. He owns a lot of the world major media outlets, such as newspapers, TV channels as well as having his fingers quite deeply into the film industry and internet franchises too. He owns 175 different newspapers, he owns various Cable and Sky TV operators, on the internet he owns major sites such as IGN and MySpace.
The problem is that when one person owns so much of the worlds media, they can twist the worlds view of things, this is what is argued happened in the US elections in 2000. Bush had actually received a lower amount of votes, however Fox news (owned by Murdoch) declared him the winner and so it became true. Even ignoring this, Fox news, a major US news outlet has been known to give heavy bias to Bush and his party leading up to elections, such as giving him more time on air than the opposing candidates.
Owning the things he does means he has more control over world views than one person should. Some countries such as Canada have laws to ensure that certain proportions of their TV is a) Canadian produced and b) Produced independently to protect the possibility of this kind of thing. In England we have the BBC, which whilst in itself can be biased in some areas it's at least accountable to the public license payers at the end of the day whilst Murdoch is accountable to no one.