But the UK press has had this power since at least the early 1800s. When they were directly responsible for delaying the UK abolition of slavery. By outright lying to the UK population about the life of slaves.
Access to the internet has definitely reduced the influence in the last 20 years. But the same spending is effecting social media.
The daily mail has the worst reputation. Given, it was set up intentionally by a wealthy Mongol in the 1930s to influence commoner ideals. (commoner being the political term at the time, House of Lords vs commons). But the UK freedom of the press ideal truly distorts how wealth can be used to influence UK press.
Not OP.
But the UK press has had this power since at least the early 1800s. When they were directly responsible for delaying the UK abolition of slavery. By outright lying to the UK population about the life of slaves.
Access to the internet has definitely reduced the influence in the last 20 years. But the same spending is effecting social media.
The daily mail has the worst reputation. Given, it was set up intentionally by a wealthy Mongol in the 1930s to influence commoner ideals. (commoner being the political term at the time, House of Lords vs commons). But the UK freedom of the press ideal truly distorts how wealth can be used to influence UK press.