The internet is no longer just an informational source for the public; it has developed in to a 24-hour a day machine, with each corporate cog independently vying for the attention of consumers (the public) and investors (corporate advertisers).
Such power can not be left alone for much longer. There are laws of libel and privacy in place to stop the media from doing damage to individuals but where are the laws protecting the masses?
The news has transformed in to a product and must be treated as such. Products like food, alcohol, clothes etc. are all legally obliged to provide information about how they came to exist, where they came from, what they are made up of in order to inform consumers, enabling them to make choices based and more informed opinions.
A question I would like to moot is why can’t the media have some sort of regulation to make it harder to sensationalise situations to the public? While keeping in mind the ideals of free speech means that it would be almost impossible to regulate headlines, or quotes and figures used for a story it doesn’t mean backing them up sufficiently would be impossible.
Why with the infinite space of the internet do journalists not have to provide proper sources of figures, with other figures which would contextualise them, full interviews amongst other relevant information? Simply inserting a webpage address at the end of a story if people decide they want to know more is not outside the realms of possibility.