I posted a comment here propposing a different point-of-view, but it vanished somehow. Let's cast my patience on writing it all over again. We're assuming here that category developed/developing countries is a pair of opposites precise enough to think about media situation all over the world. In developed countries, media sector is functional. In developing ones it is not functional, or just partially functional. Is this precise enough? Is this pair of opposites subtile enough to clear us a usefull picture of media's situation over several countries? Or is it too simple, too narrow, to help us in this discussion? Could USA be taken as model of functional media to compare with? If not, which other developed country could work as this model? Why the Independent Media Center was born in US? Why did this voluntary, horizontal network of free media collectives expand, first and faster, through developed countries? Because their media sectors are more functional, maybe? Or could there be another reason for that? http://www.indymedia.org/en/ Another case: website The Real Battle in Seattle proposal of publishing voices of those who participated in this historical fact, estimulating ordinary people to tell their version of the history. http://www.realbattleinseattle.org/ We can find initiatives like those in Brazil, where I am. Local Indie Media collectives have the same approach. What I'm proposing is that, maybe, demands on a functional media sector are alike in some countries, differing in aspects and ways that might not be clear to us if we work this reflection about Wikileaks in meanings of "developed/developing countries".