What I'm getting at is whether much needs to be added to who or what a news media provider is anyway.
The current law suggests to me that those in the news media field, collect the news and publish the news.
And obviously, per above, the news provider is in business.
If we are targeting a group that provides news and are considering giving them concessions and privileges, but imposing responsibilities and accountabilities, I don't think it really matters what format that the news is being provided, rather, whether the provider is in the business of supplying news.
So, if the provider is not in the business of providing news, why should they be entitled to any concessions, protections, etc?
The online advertisement that lead me to this blog is a bit misleading...
It states "Online discussion - Who needs the news media? - join the debate.."
I see from this page that the current discussion isn't about needing the media at all, and assumes I've read the DD, which I'm yet to do.
On the question: "Who needs the news media?"
News media is merely the other side of that great propaganda machine we call ADVERTISING. The two go hand in hand and cannot exist without each other. Even if the news is unpaid, there's advertisement funding going on somewhere nearby.
And I would suggest that we need the news as much as we need advertising...
On the question: "Who are the news media?"
I would suggest, connect the dots... is 'news' being provided? is there advertising funding behind it? does it look like a duck? taste like a duck? smell like a duck? quack like a duck?