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?
Actually WTO I see often on the news when they happen, and they normally only in fact focus on the protests happening since otherwise WTO meetings wouldn't be very newsworthy to begin with except what comes out at the end, if anything. Though the BBC and European news services often do a much better job of covering the events
One problem, like the mainstream media being all controlled by a small handful of people, the small and local medias with smaller budgets CANNOT get the truth in many situations, as they get a lot of their news in the form of statements from officials... And officials tend to only say what sounds good for general consumption. Good investigative journalism is hard to come by and their news stories tend to get labeled as "crazy" or "conspiracy theory", even if it turns out to be the truest reporting around. What to DO about it? I don't suppose anything CAN be done, unless a lot more people take responsibility and decide it's time to become investigative journalists...
You're doing a communications major, right? You can stop using those shitty news stations and use alternative news sources. The internet really allows for many opportunities in that respect. Try looking at www.coanews.org - www.democracynow.org - www.independent.co.uk or whatever you're into.
Also, I don't know how green or fair you can find a communications company out there because I've never investigated the issue, but you may find someone in the Computers section of this Forum to answer your question and deliberate on which service provider is the most fair and less damaging to human rights as say, Verizon. This was kindda cool: http://www.coanews.org/article/2008/why-media-is-a-big-election-issue
There is no "independent" media. Even the big "alternative" media shows/websites/magazines receive funding from the big foundations and thus are told what to write. I think people need to do their own research instead of relying on any one source. Then one is able to separate the facts from the spin. Also, in the US I believe there are approximately five corporations that control all media. Worldwide it might be ten, but I think the number is less than that.
Who fucking said anything about fucking PrisonPlanet or Alex fucking sensationalist fucking Jones? Did I? Did I defend him or his bullshit websites? Alex Jones is a joke, much like Wolf Blitzer from CNN is a joke. Why people associate me with a sleazebag like Jones, who has featured MY work on his websites without MY permission, is beyond me. However, that does not mean I will not occasionally cite something from CNN, just like I will sometimes post an article that happens to be featured on PrisonPlanet or Infowars (but I haven't in AGES). Keep in mind that 90% of what is on those websites comes from from OTHER, often mainstream news sources. I could post something from one of those sites that originated from another site and is posted on dozens of other sites. It doesn't mean it has anything to do with Alex fucking shitbag Jones or his bullshit websites.
I don't know and don't care because PrisonPlanet is a joke, just like all the corporate media websites that spin half-truths with sensationalistic bullshit to put you in fear. Alex Jones serves a purpose, and that's to discredit real information with his sensationalistic tin foil bullshit antics. Alex Jones is no better than George fucking Bush and his pedophile daddy. He is scum.
Well there are rumours on the web that the Genesis Communications Network, which I believe syndicates Alex Jones’s stuff, is owned by Adnan Khashoggi, a Middle Eastern arms dealer who was involved in the iran-contra affair (among other things). But it could just be a conspiracy theory
As I’ve said in the thread ‘Conspiracy or lobbying?’ – http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393&f=36 Basically wealth are going to promote the interests of wealth, and the best way to lessen that influence is by regulating the ability of wealth to influence. But wealth has already seen that threat and that is why so many on the right who support the wealth’s interests are against government regulation and constantly call for small (read weak) government. Anyway here are my ideas for curbing lobbying **
The basic premise here is "I have access to the media I want, I have sources I trust, but MOST media (usually defined as television networks for some reason) is owned by a small number of large corporations". Well if you get the media you want, then what is the problem? The problem is that you don't approve of the media sources other people use. You are trying to come up with a way to change the media so that other people will use media that you approve of. You haven't even established that there is a problem to be fixed.
If it is true that as few as ten companies ultimately "own the media"...do you seriously think they have strategy meetings to decide what is within each newspaper (etc) so that it reflects the owners opinions? Not just nationaly but internationaly. I struggle to believe that. More like it is the editor decides based on the prejudices of its readership/viewers. They must own "media" that reflects left, right and centre, musn't they? But, It doesn't make sense - for e.g - that Disney will own all the left leaning media. Neither does it make sense - for e.g - that Murdoch will own all the right leaning media. They must - and I believe do - own all political leaning media. Now some folks will say: Yeah but they just give you a defined political space to discuss and never break free from it. Engineering peoples opinions to what ever they want. Letting us squabble amongst ourselves while laughing at us from way up high. (or some of BS like that.) This can't be true either...as your opinions are reflected somewhere...and Imagine the irony of this...the media that spouts your prejudices is ultimately owned by one of the ten. Btw, this is your logic not mine. Here (UK) there is this: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport.cfm Go through it, it is quite fascinating. All the top media owners or editors get hauled up to explain themselves from time to time. Plus they (The media) are regulated to death. I'm sure you will say: Yeah but it is run by the corrupt government...grrr. If you think that...no answer is going to be good enough for you. Most things in this world gets reported. You ask me to find a story and I will. I may even find who out of the so-called ten printed it first. It'll be tough and ultimately boring...but I do think it will show that those companies and others don't have some Orwelian desire to prevent news from coming out...certainly not for the reasons you say. Infact - no offence - I found that quite funny. I suspect they don't cover outside the conference that much (I'm not sure either way)...because it is the same arguments every time. It IS always covered by somebody. You CAN find out in great minutia what goes on inside and out. If your logic is true...one of the ten is covering both. So this is about you, really? You are unhappy because the "media ten" are not reflecting your prejudices in their "media". Well, nip on over to Youtube and you can find endless amounts of media that will suit your prejudices...(obviously Youtube is ownd by some right thinking dude, man.) Ultimately, I think mainstream media worldwide is not interested in your politics...because not many people agree with it. The truth maybe that the world is a dull mainstream affair...where governments ultimately are muddling along the best way they can. Nobody is engineering the media and our minds...and we ultimately get fed every type of opinion we could ever wish for...and you are whining. I can't accurately comment on the state of the media in the US. But, I do imagine that the vast array of news do have WTO riots (sorry, protests) on...and do have deep meaningful discussion about coperate America owning the parts of media; what can we do *gasp*? But they just don't do it night and day, or any and every given opportunity. It is not within the general daily zeitgeist. Neither is a multitude of things... Neither is reptilians ownership of the planet there either. (Before you laugh, some people believe that.) Your outlook is far too Americentric for my liking, to be honest. If you are talking about "the media" it has to be talking about the global media...You - anybody in the US, pretty much - have access to the global media.
This may be the best point that will ever be made in this thread. What is this constant paranoia about wealthy people? Is it jealousy, anger, what? Yes wealthy people do want to promote their interest, just like poor people want to promote theirs, and socialists theirs, no one is going to go lobby on someone elses cause just for shits and giggles. Wealth might be spreading the interests of wealth but socialists are spreading the interests of poverty
mass media was bought by the banksters back when the stock market crashed. they bought up all the stock of the papers for pennies on th edolla rto control the flow of information...... mass media is a big fraud...... a brainwashing of the masses
The media was controlled by the banksters well before that. Here is a quote from John Swinton, a New York Times journalist, from a speech he gave in 1880: (Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
That's right Rat, he was a socialist who thought the papers were too friendly to business. Well whooopeee. How exactly this proves that all media everywhere is controlled by the globalist magic space goblins is a bit hard to understand. Isn't socialism a plot by the magic globalist goblins monkeys too?
