Aaron Okin Columnist

In the aftermath of perhaps the greatest terrorist tragedy in Russian history, the government has issued a very rare mea culpa, admitting that it lied to its citizens and the world about the number of people that hostages took in School Number One in Beslan, a town in the province adjacent to Chechnya.

By the end of the Russian special force's storming of the school, over 300 people were dead, and scores are still unaccounted for. But initial reports released by the Russian government claimed that somewhere between 350 and 400 people were being held inside - numbers that the international media were widely using until near the end of the standoff.

This isn't the first time Russian President Vladimir Putin covered up the true magnitude of a crisis situation. When the submarine Kursk sank in 2000 and when Chechen terrorists took over a Moscow theater almost two years ago, the government also felt it necessary to mislead Russian citizens, but no such admissions of guilt followed.

The major problem here is not the fact that the government lies, but rather that there is no real freedom of the press to speak of.

There are times when it is beneficial for the government to hide things from its citizenry - both for the government's own interests and in the interest of the public - but one such time is not when more than 1,000 people, many of them children, are being kept in a school without food and limited access to water for days. Covering up the magnitude of the situation served no real purpose, and even political analysts linked to the Kremlin were stating after the fact that the lies were fairly obvious during the standoff.

This, of course, was said with the permission of the Russian executive branch, like the other news. While it's no surprise that such approval was necessary, the fact that this public questioning of the president was permitted (perhaps even encouraged) is fairly suspicious.

For all the flak that the "corporate media" receive from some Americans, they really serve a valuable purpose, and would have, in the case of the hostage situation, helped Russia's citizens to better cope with what happened.

From the evident left-wing bias of CNN to the "fair and balanced" (ahem, right-of-center) coverage of FOX News Channel, major news corporations provide their viewers with near-instantaneous information on major events in the United States and outside. And they do it with relatively little government meddling.

If, for example, such a tragedy as the hostage situation occurred in the United States, the media would be swarming to the location without the government telling them they cannot. In fact, government officials would likely hold news conferences out of deference to the position the media hold in the social system. If it became known later that these officials lied, they would be embroiled in a major scandal thanks to the media and its reporting. Anything of interest, especially if it's damaging, would be disseminated as quickly as possible and careers may be ruined.

Aside from giving the public information, the mainstream media outlets here place a check on the government's ability to influence the public. The government uses them to its advantage as effective mouthpieces, able to reach millions of people in their homes with ease and without a feeling of intrusiveness. But it is clear that if the government says something or does something of a self-incriminating nature, the media will be all over it, challenging them and forcing accountability.

Furthermore, because providing the public with news is really a business, the outlets act to place checks on one another as well. A media source's ability to break a huge story, especially if other news media do not yet have information to bring forth on it, can lead to huge ratings and more revenue. This desire for primacy within the market can transcend even the most set-in of biases, meaning that if a more left-wing network receives information they know will be of significant interest to the public, but it is harmful to the left, it would likely still be reported. Ultimately, though, other outlets will either find information to substantiate these claims or to discredit them, which holds back one outlet from having total control.

Media companies controlled by the government and elites linked to it are terrible for a society if there are no alternative sources. Small independent media sources have no accountability and little credibility. It may be difficult to place one's trust in corporate media sources, but at least there is some public accountability. The alternatives are far worse.

Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.