So, I'm in class today, and we're talking about the age of mass media in which we are currently in. Political and social scientists argue that today's media is incredibly diverse and chock full of competition. Their argument behind this belief, a reasonable one, is that at any given moment you can turn on the television or the computer and find news from a multitude of sources out there. I have though been having a rather hard time with this. I'm not writing today to tell anyone of the political biases of the mass media, that seems like an argument with no good answer; many people on the right argue that the media has a clear and definite slant to the left, and people on the left argue the same just in the other direction. What I would argue though is the massive scale in which the modern news media is inefficient, inaccurate, and incompetent. Furthermore, in no way do I believe that there is a large diversity of voices out there in regards to the mass media; rather a great many voices all spewing the same swill, representing the interests of a few massive corporations. There are in fact only ten companies that control almost all of what anyone can see out there. When looking into the stakes and ownerships of these massive media conglomerates, only three are not owned in part by some of their competition; Sony, General Electric, and Walt Disney. This fact doesn't tell the whole truth though, after digging a bit deeper to see where ownership of individual networks and news outlets are concerned, not one of the ten major media companies operate independently of any of their competition. How can anyone argue that there is a diversity in news and opinion out there when there are ten companies, all working together, providing the public with almost all of their news and information? I'm not trying to suggest as some conspiracy theorists do that this puts us somehow on a path toward a New World Order or that all of the media is entirely corrupt. I believe there are individual journalists and reporters that are reporting on news that they believe to be relevant. The problem that I see is in the gatekeeping. That is what stories get reported, which ones get left behind and why. When the World Trade Organization holds a conference, it's no wonder that none of the major networks like ABC, CBS, or NBC spend much if any time on the situation in the streets outside of the conference. Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), and Viacom (CBS) would lose some of the benefits created for them by the ludicrous free trade agreements made by the WTO. Surely if the American public were to see their fellow citizens being run down by storm troopers in riot gear for showing their opposition to such deals and organizations, they would be outraged and someone would have to do something about it. So the simple solution is to keep it quiet. If the most powerful corporations in industry, technology, and services are the same corporations that serve as our window to the world why would they show the public anything that does not serve their best interest. You don't have to be a socialist, progressive, or a libertarian to see this, sadly it seems that only those on the fringe... better yet, those who believe there is something better out there than the stale 'best worst' scenario that is spoon fed to the American public so they don't get too far out of line and disrupt the balance of power, are the ones who are quickest to pick up on this. What can be done then? This is where I have trouble. Being one of those fringe elements, considering myself left of left and favoring ideas bordering socialism my response is to regulate the media industry, keep these massive corporations from becoming too big, and thus making them less harmful to the enlightenment of the American public. I already know what all of my fellow fringe elements in the Libertarian party will say, and that is we can't trust the government, they are the enemy in the first place. There are I'm sure a slew of opinions and disagreements in between. So what do we do? Can we let the free market have it and just stop giving these companies our money? They're the only ones out there. My internet service fee each month goes to support one of these ten media giants, in fact if I want internet where I live, I have no option but to give one of them money. Same thing goes for paid television and a phone line. Anyone, anything?
All I can say is "grass roots", man. Real power lies in the hands of the working class. Of course educating people is the first step. Then people must convince their senators and congressmen that if they continue to bow to the corporations whim and not the peoples will, they will not get the vote. You see, we have no choice but to change things the old fashioned way... with the vote. Corporate power is fragile and they know it. Corps. will be forced to bend to the will of the people or be crushed. The only true wealth of any Nation ultimately lies in the labor required to produce it. We could crush corporations overnight, but I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest. We must bend them slowly so they don't break. ZW
Furthermore, in no way do I believe that there is a large diversity of voices out there in regards to the mass media; rather a great many voices all spewing the same swill, representing the interests of a few massive corporations. I think you're right, but the swill they spew is designed for one thing ... to get ratings. They could care less about a "liberal bias" or "conservative bias", except in the case of a few high-profile individuals. What they care about is getting more people to watch or read, and so they'll broadcast/print whatever they think it will take to acheive that. One unintended consequence when the number of choices becomes excessive is that the competition boils down to attention-getting more than a better product. I agree with you about the "gatekeepers". They have the power of a government agency, without the regulation. A small number of pointy-headed news editors in New York or Atlanta decide what is "news" for the entire country, and the only check on them are the libel laws, which are mostly ineffectual, and the marketplace. But the libel laws are about content, not gatekeeping, and the shakeup we're seeing now in the printed news industry has more to do with the delivery mechanism than content. Another important point to make, I think, is that journalists don't write for the public ... they write for each other. That's why you often see such uniformity in their attitudes. And they all see themselves as the next Woodward and Bernstein, trying to dig up anything they can to grab a headline. The solution isn't government regulation. For one thing, exactly what is there to regulate? The points we're making here aren't something you could take to court, and I don't think any of us wants censorship of the news media. Probably the only solution is the marketplace ... i.e., a more discerning readership. The traditional networks have been losing market share for years, the print news industry is going down the tubes, and people are more and more skeptical of CNN and their brethren all the time. Eventually, I hope, that will lead to a new wave of journalism, such as happened after Watergate.
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/ Corporate media giants are silencing diverse voices, abandoning quality journalism and eliminating local content (we've got evidence). Our democracy needs better media. Bad policies made in Washington could have a big impact on the news in your community. Find out how you can help. ZW eace:
A Very Americentric outlook, LordHelmet. You can find a multitude of different perspectives if you look for them. How American TV works is one thing... The world media IS "is incredibly diverse and chock full of competition".
The second poster has a good point. We need corporations, especially because we live in a free world. If they decided to close up shop they would. We depend on them for the money we use to buy and entertain. Coprorations both offer jobs and the things that jobs get us. It true that this system has very little feasibility to change. Grass roots are nothing compared to the tree's that branch out in far reaches, sometimes secretly. The tree's being corporations. Grass roots are mear fodder for keeping the soil moist.
You say that as if there is no option between having huge, multinational corporations control everything and having the government control and fund everything.... I would ask anyone to consider a third option where free trade and the so called "free world" are encouraged, but given some sort of limitations so that all the competition is not stifled by the largest corporations. Perhaps some middle ground where corporations aren't allowed to get as insanely large and powerful as they have become, and government is still kept in some sort of check, like the ideals of the founding fathers (I know it's an American-centric point of view, but goddammit man! I'm a doctor of journalism) I don't know, but I think that there could be some middle ground. I'm not going to say that I don't appreciate and admire what some of the ideals of capitalism have given me in life, but at the same time some of those same very ideals keep people, including myself, from other opportunities, and there should be something in between. Controlled Capitalism. Good for media, good for business, good for jobs Of course the one world government option isn't as bad some people make it out to be... Honestly, one set of labor laws for the entire planet would save somebody's job somewhere... right?
Actually, I think the article posted in; http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=369696&page=2 sums up the 'mass media' we have these days quite well.
The conservative movement in America is a true fascist movement. No amount of accurate media information can address the problem of American fascism. That can only be done by blowing brains from heads. American conservatism has become a religion of fanatics, with Rush Limbaugh as their holy man, the one no one dare criticize. Fascism only runs in one direction, and IMO we're way past the point where education, logic, science, and reason can contain it. IMHO, YMMV etc.
Sunlion I almost completely agree with you. If you have ever tried to convince an average ignorant individuals of the opposite, you will know what your up against. It takes effort upon effort, upon time and time again, to even get to them a little. Where is this time? I need to work, I have relationships that take plenty of this time to be kept positive. Where is the time to spoon feed people who have no capacity, no ears for this important matter? Ontop of that I have to compete with the media companies that attempt to propogate their control. It seems impossible, I still believe its possible though, because the human mind has its own way looking at the world, something that will take years to undue. I really still want to believe that it is possible to change the world for the better. Its fucking pissing me off.
Find your news online, read everything. the New York times, your local newspaper, fringe news, etc. get all sides of the coin.
Yeah, but how many Americans actually watch global media? I refuse to watch TV news altogther because I know that it is slanted, filtered, or patently untrue. But I am in the vast minority when it comes to Americans. And LordHelmet's original point, that few corporations control all media, is still true. The Mega-Corps that control the media are multi-national, global organizations. Sure, they may be headquartered here (in the U.S.), but the media presented around the globe are still under their thumbs somehow.
I dunno. 10-15 million of them. I don't know about your TV news media...but we have: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/ It is still slanted and filtered, but very rarely the facts will be untrue. How you decide to present those facts is another thing. I tend not to bother with it though...It just doesn't inform me as much as it probably should. The vast majority just might be. But not all of it. Here there is ITN / Sky and the BBC - they are the major news gatherers for TV news. Within those the main players you will see a wide variety of opinion. Opinion being the key differences...the opinion can be wrong.
You're right. Not all of it. But we are talking about exposure, here. The amount to which a human being is exposed to a piece of information is the amount to which it will be absorbed by their brain. It's hard not to be exposed to certain influences in the U.S. I had to actively work not to see any of the footage from 9/11. Some people will seek out the more obscure sources of "real" news. But they are obviously more enlightened people to begin with, or else they wouldn't be making the effort. The vast majority will just turn on their local, sensationalized, useless newscast and accept it as truth. And the best tools we would have to expose those people to another viewpoint are easily overshadowed and obliterated by those same Mega-conglomerates. And, in a democratic society, where majority rules, you have the ignorant masses overruling the enlightened minority. And then things get worse.
