Sunday, April 11, 2010
Media Consolidation, Trevor Robb
It is quite amazing to see how capitalism has succeeded in completely and outright controlling how news gets produced and distributed over time. Open and free trading in the marketplace is one of the central themes of capitalism, and for the most part this theme is not a terrible idea. However when it comes to media consolidation and who owns the various media outlets, this theory falls short of its intended democratic values.
According to the Media Reform Information Center, in 1983 over 50 corporations controlled the majority of the mass media in the United States. Now there are five: Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. This is absurd. If all news agencies, movie studios, television channels and radio stations are owned by the same 6 companies, how can the average viewer/listener discern what's fact from fiction? In other words, how can the average citizen be truly informed?
You talk about propaganda and agenda pushing in media and you think that these things died along with the Nazi's and Communism. News flash people, the American media is better than that of Nazi Germany!
"Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth." - Mark Crispin Miller
The people of America, and consequently due to it's ever expansion across the border the people of Canada, need to wake up to this disturbing trend that started almost a decade ago.
Kate Elliott, a Grant MacEwan Journalism student, describes journalism's intentions to inform:
"Historically, journalism is a fifth estate created out of necessity for the everyman. Working to create a check and balance system for the people in regards to government and business, as well as providing an information flow for the public to be informed on local and global world events."
Unfortunately it's disturbing to think that a citizen getting their information from hundreds of different websites and news agencies and thinking that they're getting a different perspective, when really all the different agencies are owned by the same company. Is anybody truly informed? Maybe the internet can help, like duct tape for a handyman the Internet has been a Godsend for journalists and other citizen "truth-seekers"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your post because it is about something very valid that I believe more people need to be aware of.
ReplyDeleteBut I did find one crucial error, which is a common mistake that I have been editing my whole life. If this 'Kate Elliot' you quoted is me, then it should read 'Kate Elliott'. Last name has two T's.
Awesome blog post Trevor!
ReplyDeleteOne possible error I have noted, and I may be wrong but in the last paragraph, "Unfortunately it's disturbing to think that a citizen getting their information from hundreds of different websites.."
I believe "a citizen" and "their" do not agree.
Their should made made singular, should it not?
Awesome Blog Post Trevor!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I may have noted one error:
"Unfortunately it's disturbing to think that a citizen getting their information from hundreds of different websites..."
I believe "a citizen" and "their" do not agree.
Perhaps, "their" should also be made singular.
Otherwise, I like where your head is at!
MY BAD!!!! I'M DUMB! I fixed it, sorry Kate
ReplyDeleteSince everyone is pointing out errors, I thought I'd hop on the bandwagon. Luckily no one else saw this, so I can totally claim it. Trev, the thing that I'll point out is that in your work you used the number 6, when you should've wrote it out...one-to nine, 10 and up. Here's the error verbatim, " If all news agencies, movie studios, television channels and radio stations are owned by the same 6 companies." That is all. Otherwise, wicked post.
ReplyDeleteShould've written, Isaac. Should've written.
ReplyDelete