Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

its not wrong though ?

I think AI doing your thinking for you is a bigger problem than the billionaires.

Even the murdoch papers famously allowed a range of views, even if the editorial maintained Tory support.

From google : Media control is highly concentrated, with a small number of corporations and billionaires owning most major outlets. In the UK,90% of national newspapers are owned by just three companies (DMG Media, News UK, Reach), while tech companies like Meta, Alphabet, and X Corp dominate digital news. Major figures like Lachlan Murdoch play a massive role, influencing public opinion and political agendas.

Key Entities Controlling the Media:

• Media Moguls and Billionaires: Individuals like Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp, Fox) have historically held, and transferred to their heirs, vast influence over global news, including The Sun and Sunday Times.
• Big Tech Platforms: Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google/YouTube), and X Corp dominate how content is accessed, with Google handling 93% of UK search usage.
• Corporate Conglomerates: In the U.S. and globally, television and entertainment are dominated by conglomerates like Disney, Comcast (NBCUniversal), Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount.
• Local News Chains: In the UK, firms like Newsquest and National World dominate, often prioritizing profit and cutting local staff.

Impact of Ownership on Content:

• Agenda Setting: Owners often direct editorial stances, creating a right-wing slant in many newspapers that sets the "Overton Window" of acceptable political debate.
• Profit Over Journalism: Many owners treat news as a business aimed at profit rather than public service, often reducing staff to increase margins.
• Self-Censorship: Management directives and owner influence can lead to journalists engaging in self-censorship to align with the company's political agenda.

A handful of right wing billionaires don't seem to control the media very well. A Wiki article for you.

I would add the I to this list which although it is from the same stable as the right wing Mail often has a distinct left wing slant, particularly Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_publications_in_the_United_Kingdom

When you @EveyHammond first posted that the media should be run by university professors, I didn’t believe you were being serious.

Is what you are advocating for the same media structures as of countries such as Russia, N. Korea, China? Are you in support of suppression of media outlets because they are owned by billionaires?

Do you only receive your news from the BBC?

Are you being serious?

You are actually serious about this arent you? Can I suggest you go and live in North Korea or the Uslamic Republic of Iran for a bit. Then come back and let us know which system is better.

Which billionaires are controlling the BBC, Channel 4, The Guardian just for starters? Is it really a 'handful' of billionaires or actually quite a lot of different ones, all with competing agendas and varying degrees of editorial control?

Did you mean to quote the other poster? I agree anyway.

No evidence for that. Look at the offcom report I posted. Lots of people using social media.

i do believe many would be happy social media was banned at present

@EasternStandard Communist countries control the media. No one in their right mind actually wants this. Who will go unheard?

and yet the handful of billionaires that control the media instead is better how exactly ?

As would constraining people so they can’t leave a country. It takes a lot of control by a powerful few to keep people in line.

Which does all rather point to why people view socialism negatively. Im left wing but people don't want to be constrained by uniformity. The idea of one state funded broadcaster run by academics would fill most people with horror.

They try - but you know what happens? People devise their own ways of disseminating news and content to bypass the state controlled media.

Only one state controlled outlet?

Sounds very restrictive. Some socialist countries probably do this.

Would you also ban social media do no other information gets in?

Says who, Putin? A healthy democracy requires multiple news outlets. You could say the BBC is the UK's main news outlet as its the single provider that reaches the most people but it is only one news provider in a crowded field and very few people (possibly nobody) consumes only BBC produced news.
And the media is more than news.

www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/attitudes-to-news/top-trends-from-our-latest-look-at-the-uks-news-habits

@EveyHammond “a country only need…..”
and what would I do? I don’t watch or read BBC news. Would I be forced to?

a country only needs one main news outlet eg the bbc.

That's one broadcaster - not 'the media' and it is funded by the licence fee so is not 'free' to users (thoughbit is in my view very good value). And it very much operates in a diverse market place.

To answer your first question the BBC

i seem to be like the rest of society think of an idea first before considering all other points

Ones you probably should have considered before proposing the idea?

they are all very good questions to consider

Show me where a government/charity funded media has worked. How would universities fund it when they can't even fund themselves? Who is teaching students while the professors are all running the media? Presumably they would all prioritise publishing their own research rather than what the public wants? How would you know what the public wants with no market?
do you mean ALL media, no private enterprise at all? No independent magazines, podcasts, websites? Sounds completely stultifying.