US Media vs. Others

During the late 1700s and into the early years of the United States the media took a very active role to ensure the elimination of tyranny. Media outlets performed this task by calling out certain groups and raising support for US based interest through the opinions of all. The media also published facts, either direct quotes from important politicians or excerpts from articles and books. The culmination of all of these sources and facts allowed Americans to be well informed and have an understanding of the policies of the United States, policies of other nations and policies of political figures. Over the past few decades the media has adapted itself as a tool of government, more specifically a tool of the Executive Branch, and a tool of industry by shifting towards the raising support for US based interests and detached itself from objectivity and fact-reporting. The media has done this through selection of the stories they cover and spins they decide to put on these stories due to the responsibility put on journalists by higher level officials and industrial leaders who own the media outlets. Evidence of this is clear as with the coverage of presidential candidates; the media focuses on the laugh of Hilary Clinton to attack her character and say that she will therefore be a bad president and also with the attack on Howard Dean's yell and attacking his character stating that he has mental problems. Although the active media of the US has been a good thing in the past, its new roles and coverage it provides has severely impacted the perception of Americans. And I was wondering if other nations have similar problems with their media or does US media shy away from this issue so as to eliminate the possibility of being uncovered themselves?