For the good of the channel

The term «entangled interests» has always seemed deceptive to me, for two reasons. First, because its negative connotations overshadow the neutral meaning of the word entangled (in the sense of a dense web) and presumes that honest, as it were, interests operate in an untangled way. Secondly, using the term to refer to nearly every symptom of corruption unfairly lumps small offenses and major machinations together. The only positive aspect of the debate is that it has shown how important the media are in promoting political and business interests. Bearing the above in mind, we are currently witnessing an interesting case of entangled interests regarding the Mega television channel. It is literally entangled, with regard to the links between two of the major shareholders (who are apparently in favor of installing a «directorate» at the channel) and other, unrelated interests and the political alliances they serve. The public is observing the conflict, resulting from the reaction of the two other major shareholders to this pressure, certain that the debate is primarily about how far left or right the channel will lean during the election campaign, and therefore to what extent any supposed objectivity will be violated. Smaller shareholders, who are perhaps less concerned about journalistic principles, have every right to wonder what the fighting is all about; the good of the channel or other interests, in which they have no part. What does the recent rise in the company’s share price mean for the future, if it is chiefly due to pressure? How is the Capital Market Commission dealing with the hypothetical sentence: «The price is rising because I am buying. I am buying to turn the channel toward, for example, PASOK; I want PASOK to win, so I can win contract X.» Entanglement is an attractive concept in its literal meaning. One simply has to sell at the right moment.