How could anything that follows the Simpsons or Seinfeld not be considered a form of entertainment? If you were to watch your nightly news tonight, what types of stories would you see? If you're watching a major channel at either 5 or 10/11 o'clock, you'd see story after story on murders, rapes, assaults, muggings, terror and then a little fluff piece centering around something like the world's biggest pumpkin pie or a cat being rescued from a well. If you watched a national or cable newscast, the stories would be similar, just projected on a much grander scale. How could these stories really be considered newsworthy?
As mentioned in class, 8 corporations control the world's media. 8! When ownership is consolidated into so few hands, it seems impossible for us (the masses) to receive any information that isn't framed and filtered. To safeguard their interests and maximize their profits, the news has become a socializing device of the media institutions that is designed to elicit emotions and protect the status quo, not to truly inform the public. By focusing on emotions over the facts, news organizations ensure that audiences will come back again and again to be entertained and their positions in society will be protected.
On the broader issue of the media as a whole and their control of television, radio and online news, I do have my own personal opinions that you may agree or disagree with. Before I delve further into what I think about media ownership and the dissemination of information, however, I would like to ask you, the reader, what you think would happen if the ownership of media outlets were to suddenly change from its current consolidated state to one that consists of far more owners. Do you think that media institutions would provide more unframed, unfiltered information that would focus solely on informing the public? Do you think that this information would be completely unbiased? What would the overall impact be on society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Though I do not believe that far more owners will lead to less bias, I do believe that it would help with providing a wider array of opinions, for lack of better words. Instead of having 8 corporations with 8 distinct views and portrayals, we will then have 20 or 30 distinct perspectives. But this increase in variety still only goes so far. People choose to watch certain news stations simply because they enjoy what they see more. So of course, while having many different corporations will create a variety to choose from, people will still tend to stick with certain news stations that they prefer to watch. It seems as though for as long as we are human, both corporations and viewers will always be partial.
In a way, we have an experiment with the emergence of the blogosphere. Admittedly, the number of people reading blogs is fairly low now but come back in 10 years and we might see considerable expansion. Of course kellychu is right about selective exposure to the information you like. But it will be interesting to see what happens in the future.
I think that we also have to think about other aspects that we talked about in class on this subject: routine, efficiency, and formula. I think that there are many news stories that are presented to us on the local and national news that are completely lacking in information that is of any use to us. For example, before going to bed last night there was a news story about a woman dressed as a cow causing havoc at a local gas station. I thought that it was hysterical, but yes it did not make me any more informed on the wide range of "important" issues that surround us. I think that the routine of the news media to provide these filler fluff stories gives less time for the more important stories and less time means a broader and simpler understanding of the issues which may in the end be harmful. I think that the public complains that there is so much "bad news" in the news media and therefore the news media takes these filler stories as a formula to provide a system of checks and balances if you will of "fun and entertaining" versus depressing, violent, the world is going to end stories. I may be completely wrong, but I see these stories as a part of the formula that is seen as the most efficient and therefore economically efficient way to present the news.
I'm not sure that media could ever be unbiased. As long as there is an economic factor in media, there will be framing and biases simply to make money. Media will produce what will sell. I think another interesting question would be what would happen if media and the news were no longer privatized. My family only watches BBC and PBS because they provide a wider scope/perspective on the news. Would it be better if all or at least more of media was no longer controlled by corporations?
Post a Comment