As Cromwell points out, by definition, these people have done well under the current system. How likely is it, then that they will criticise it? (And this ignores media magnates like Rupert Murdoch who openly influence their newspaper's (and TV channels cf Fox news) values and news coverage.

But there is another level of pressure.

'Newspapers have to attract and maintain a high proportion of advertising in order to cover the costs of production; without it, the price of any newspaper would be many times what it is now, which would soon spell its demise in the marketplace. There is fierce competition throughout the media to attract advertisers; a newspaper which gets less advertising than its competitors is put at a serious disadvantage. Lack of success in raising advertising revenue was another factor in the demise of 'people's newspapers' in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is clear, therefore, that for any publication or commercial radio or TV station to survive, it has to hone itself into an advertiser-friendly medium. In other words, the media has to be sympathetic to business interests, such as the travel, automobile and petrochemical industries. Even the threat of withdrawal of advertising can affect editorial content. A letter sent to the editorial offices of a hundred magazines by a major car producer stated: 'In an effort to avoid potential conflicts, it is required that Chrysler corporation be alerted in advance of any and all editorial content that encompasses sexual, political, social issues or any editorial content that could be construed as provocative or offensive.' In 1999, British Telecom threatened to withdraw advertising from The Daily Telegraph following a number of critical articles. The journalist responsible was suspended.

A 1992 US study of 150 news editors found that 90 per cent said that advertisers tried to interfere with newspaper content, and 70 per cent tried to stop news stories altogether. 40 per cent admitted that advertisers had in fact influenced a story. In the UK, £3.2 billion is spent on newspaper ads annually and another £2.6 billion on TV and radio commercials, out of a total advertising budget of £9.2 billion. In the US, the figure is tens of billions of dollars a year on TV advertising alone. An advertising-based system makes survival extremely difficult for radical publications that depend on revenue from sales alone. Even if such publications survive, they are relegated to the margins of society, receiving little notice from the public at large. Advertising, just like media ownership, therefore acts as a news filter.'

But there is a third level of influence:

'Robert McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, points out that 'Professional journalism relies heavily on official sources. Reporters have to talk to the PM's official spokesperson, the White House press secretary, the business association, the army general. What those people say is news. Their perspectives are automatically legitimate.' Whereas, according to McChesney, 'if you talk to prisoners, strikers, the homeless, or protesters, you have to paint their perspectives as unreliable, or else you've become an advocate and are no longer a "neutral" professional journalist.' Such reliance on official sources gives the news an inherently conservative cast and gives those in power tremendous influence over defining what is or isn't 'news'. McChesney, author of Rich Media, Poor Democracy, warns: 'This is precisely the opposite of what a functioning democracy needs, which is a ruthless accounting of the powers that be.''

There are numerous other influences at work as well, not least, cultural and social. For example as a quick look at the photographs of those who run these 'big corporations' and, for that matter, the newspapers and TV channels who run them, overwhelmingly they are run by white males who frequently went to 'elite' schools and whose social and family life, therefore, is orientated around that of other rich white males. Is it any wonder that their values reflect this? If you never meet anyone who challenges your values it is likely that you will take it for granted that 'everyone' agrees with you.

Moreover there are also more concrete threats that can be be brought to bear: you can be sacked (as Greg Dyke and Piers Morgan were) for challenging the 'party line'. And this does not even begin to discuss the direct influence security services increasingly have with newspapers (and news channels generally).

I think, taking all this into account, this will help to explain why Iraq has simply dropped off the front pages recently and has vanished from public discourse.

And now, some other facts you may be unaware of .

'A new study by Harvard Medical School found that millions of veterans and their families have no access to health care. They can't get care in veterans hospitals or clinics, and they can't afford health insurance to get care privately. The American Journal of Public Health, which published the study, estimates that nearly 2 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care.

• That's bad enough, but it suggests a potential widescale crisis given a new study by the Journal of the American Medical Association. That study found that the number of soldiers coming home with mental injuries from Iraq will be much higher than predicted, because mental trauma often takes months to manifest. Many veterans will seem fine when they return, but will be in a slow decline in terms of their mental condition.

• Another new study from the National Alliance to End Homelessness found that a quarter of the homeless population are veterans and that more than 1,000 are Iraq veterans. Scarily, but not surprisingly, we can expect many more homeless Iraq vets, as more soldiers come home.

• An Army report of a few months ago found that the suicide rate among Army vets is at its highest rate in more than 25 years, with many of those taking their own lives being veterans of Iraq. The report found a direct correlation between extended deployments in Iraq - now up to 15 months at a time - and the suicide rate.'

Why?

And more importantly, why, in the midst of a dreadful war (which is still continuing), and which 'we' are largely to blame for, are the 'popular' media studiously ignoring it, preferring, instead, to concentrate on 'news' about Britney Spears, 'reality' TV shows, 'soap' stars and so on?