A society lacking an objective media system will also lack democracy. There are many examples of societies such as this. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come to mind. The media systems of those nations served the government and the status quo. The public was misinformed and in turn, was incapable of participating in any significant form of democracy.
Is the American public in danger of losing it's democratic potential because of the concentration of media ownership in America? Many people argue that when fewer and fewer people control the flow of information to the public, the potential for a conflict of interest increases dramatically. The concentration of media ownership allows at great convenience the influence of the media by corporate interests.
This is a troubling scenario. The media in the Soviet Union was tightly controlled by the government. Inevitably, the media distorted reality. The information line to the public was first channelled through a filter which removed any information that was harmful to the government's image. The public's perspective was shaped to accept the status quo.
American media has a legacy of advocating watchdog journalism. Journalist's scrutinize the government and inform the public of any wrong doing. Essentially, journalism is thought to be an objective set of eyes, guarding the public from a tyranical government.
But what happens when a very large portion of the media is owned by a few corporations? After all, CEO's are amongst the elites of our society. Could the media be used as a tool to distort reality and shape the publics perspective? It has happened numerous times throughout history in other nations.
Noam Chomsky, the head of the linguistics and philosophy department at Massachusetts Institution of Technology, is one of the most prominent critics of the U.S. media. Edward Herman and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent. The book refers to different world events in the 20th century, such as the Vietnam War and America's involvement in Latin-America. They use statistical and empirical evidence to support their argument that the U.S. media failed to convey fair and balanced information to the American public. The public was incapable of making a sound decision on government policy. The public was denied the right to voice their opinions about supplying American guns, ammunition and bombs to dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a critical public, U.S. weapons manufacturers could keep selling guns and ammunition to dictators accused of human rights abuses.
Other folks argue that media consolidation is not a problem. According to the text book, Issues In Media, media executives argue that consolidations allows massive corporations to stay competitive and create more media outlets. They argue that there is still many different voices and opinions in the media and that massive media conglomerates promote a diversity of material. They point to the explosion of technological advances in the past decades. The internet allows citizen journalists to express diverse viewpoints to a huge audience.
Today, media consolidation has reached an unprecedented peak. The textbook, Mass Communication by Ralph E. Hanson cites Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Ben Bagdikian's assessment of media consolidation. Bagdikian wrote that in the 1983, the media was dominated by 50 corporations. In 1987, there were only 29. By 2004, the number of corporations dominating the media shrunk to five.
I see this as a direct threat to American democracy. Of course America is not a direct democracy. It is a representative demacracy with elected officials making legislative decisions. But an uninformed public lacks the knowledge to elect officials that will benefit society. An uninformed public leads to an undemocratic society.
Are we headed down this road?
Dylan
7 comments:
zzzzzz...
there are many newspapers across the country on the verge of bankruptcy. the outlets are shrinking. david halberstam related, in his book, the best and the brightest, that presidents kennedy and johnson, read the major daily newspapers
,for their reporting on the war in viet nam. the reporters had been spoon fed thier stories by army brass in saigon.
More americans are concerned with whats going on with Jon and Kate, or Michael Jackson then whats going on in the war right now. They need to be informed and they need to care. So the comment of zzzz... you need to wake up. The media has more power in this country then the people. And that not a democracy.And its because we choose to let just the few dicate to us.
This is too little, too late. With media becoming more and more centered, concentration wise, it becomes tougher and tougher to figure out which information is credible, and which information, in fact, needs to be disregarded.
1."The media plays a crucial role in a democratic society."
What democracy are you speaking of?
The word is absolutely useless without speaking of class.
The Soviet Union, in the midst of Stalin's paranoid bloody outbursts was far more democratic then the US today or any non socialist country ever.
2."The public must be informed of issues relevant to society. The public must be knowledgable of all the possible alternatives before making an effecient decision or supporting proper legislation. The media should provide the public with this information. There is no other institution or group capable of carrying out this function."
What public do you speak of?
The vast majority, workers, farmers, unemployed, class traitor professionals, and the like do not control society.
Even if Rupert Murdoch presented a unbiased version of FOX news and we were well informed he and his class still control the rest of the class dictatorship.
(military, the resources, the actual land of the earth under are feet, the institutes of higher learning, the means of production, what we do with our time etc.
The point is we dont decide anything.
3. "a society lacking an objective media system will also lack democracy. There are many examples of societies such as this. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come to mind. The media systems of those nations served the government and the status quo. The public was misinformed and in turn, was incapable of participating in any significant form of democracy."
Again what the hell is an objective media system?
Without class character spoken for we grope in the dark for the meaning of objectivity.
Enslaving Thai kids is objectively moral from the standpoint of profit, while to us communists and non capitalists in general, is a capital crime!
Also it waters down and dishonors the soviet proletarian struggle to compare them with fascists. The "status quo" for a while in the SU was precisely about the breaking down of all social status.
4.Is the American public in danger of losing it's democratic potential because of the concentration of media ownership in America? Many people argue that when fewer and fewer people control the flow of information to the public, the potential for a conflict of interest increases dramatically. The concentration of media ownership allows at great convenience the influence of the media by corporate interests.
The only "democratic potential for the American people" lies in their ability to implement class dictatorship over the rich, and to educate themselves through class warfare.
As far as "the potential conflict of interest",
We are living in a bourgeois dictatorship.
In math the contradiction is + and -, In electricty positive and negative, and in social science it is the class struggle, the biggest conflict of interest of all in human society.
5."This is a troubling scenario. The media in the Soviet Union was tightly controlled by the government. Inevitably, the media distorted reality. The information line to the public was first channelled through a filter which removed any information that was harmful to the government's image. The public's perspective was shaped to accept the status quo."
The filter of the bourgeoisie is on of selective coverage.
The right wing "tea party protests" (an utter failure by the way) were trumpeted for 2 months in advance by even the most liberal of media.
Anti Capitalist protests and even street battles are barely covered or slandered.
In India Maoists are taking over large portions of states and all we hear about is Obama's new puppy.
In Iran a militant anti theocratic/ anti imperialist street uprising is taking place and the US media makes it seem like people are on their roof tops chanting USA and holding pictures of Reagan!
6."American media has a legacy of advocating watchdog journalism. Journalist's scrutinize the government and inform the public of any wrong doing. Essentially, journalism is thought to be an objective set of eyes, guarding the public from a tyranical government."
This is the exception and far from the rule.
For every Ellsberg there are 500 Hearsts.
Remember when Matt Lauer was almost fired for asking tough questions about the Mumia Abu Jamal case?
The journalists that speak out often lose there jobs.
What tough questions did the media ask when Emma
Goldman was being deported?
7."But what happens when a very large portion of the media is owned by a few corporations? After all, CEO's are amongst the elites of our society. Could the media be used as a tool to distort reality and shape the publics perspective? It has happened numerous times throughout history in other nations"
It is this way already, it cant get much more extreme. Look how doped up most are. How unaware we are that are government is committing genocide in our names.
8."Noam Chomsky, the head of the linguistics and philosophy department at Massachusetts Institution of Technology, is one of the most prominent critics of the U.S. media. Edward Herman and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent. The book refers to different world events in the 20th century, such as the Vietnam War and America's involvement in Latin-America. They use statistical and empirical evidence to support their argument that the U.S. media failed to convey fair and balanced information to the American public. The public was incapable of making a sound decision on government policy. The public was denied the right to voice their opinions about supplying American guns, ammunition and bombs to dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a critical public, U.S. weapons manufacturers could keep selling guns and ammunition to dictators accused of human rights abuses."
If not the gun companies then the military itself. And if not in public then in secret.
What could an informed public do besides make revolution?
How could the CIA be effectively monitored?
9.Other folks argue that media consolidation is not a problem. According to the text book, Issues In Media, media executives argue that consolidations allows massive corporations to stay competitive and create more media outlets. They argue that there is still many different voices and opinions in the media and that massive media conglomerates promote a diversity of material. They point to the explosion of technological advances in the past decades. The internet allows citizen journalists to express diverse viewpoints to a huge audience.
Another name for "other folks" is fascists.
Staying competitive is about one thing, profit which has no country, no loyalty, and no morality whatsoever.
The internet though is open to proletarians and is a good thing overall. As for a huge audience i would say maybe a potentially huge audience.
10."Today, media consolidation has reached an unprecedented peak. The textbook, Mass Communication by Ralph E. Hanson cites Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Ben Bagdikian's assessment of media consolidation. Bagdikian wrote that in the 1983, the media was dominated by 50 corporations. In 1987, there were only 29. By 2004, the number of corporations dominating the media shrunk to five."
As the contradiction between private ownership and labor becomes more acute the resistance to oppression also becomes more sharp.
FULL SPEED AHEAD!
"I see this as a direct threat to American democracy. Of course America is not a direct democracy. It is a representative demacracy with elected officials making legislative decisions. But an uninformed public lacks the knowledge to elect officials that will benefit society. An uninformed public leads to an undemocratic society."
Are we headed down this road?
Dylan
11. There is no democracy for workers like us to be threatened.
Elected officials are scum who pander to the masses dissilusionment with capitalism and their hunger for change, They are CLASS ENEMIES that delay the confronation ever longer.
An informed public would hang them and proceed with socialist revolution at once!
A revolution against the very media outlets that would cease to exist if they informed people of the truths of the world.
Long Live Underground Media!
Up with the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat!
- give me a call let me know what you think
-your comrade for life -el
PS look up fuck fox news on youtube for something cool. Oh yeah you should receive mail soon.
We published the paper.
If you send one of your articles i will put it in the next issue.
Post a Comment