Hokay, so here is the deal.
Media reform hinges on the outcome of a major argument that is constantly put forth by conglomerates: That constitutional rights and our belief in the free market support the ability to print whatever they deem as news. The importance of this statement is that this rhetoric permits the media to publish anything they choose in the interest of whomever. SO, news outlets with this perspective will often publicize news that will be the least controversial and the most marketable. Free market dictates that winners are the ones in control, but let's look at that for a moment.
First, the constitutional protection, which applies to all citizens is often interpreted as "the freedom to act as long as freedoms of others are not encroached upon." This freedom of media conglomerates to say what they want means certain people are picked to serve the companies interest. "Profit trumps civil society every time," says Rob McChesney and John Nichols and in doing that, it becomes an argument that modern media are not pursuing everyone's interests, and thereby interfering with others' rights. Medium or Media is defined as
a middle ground where opinions are heard, it is this no longer.
Secondly, the argument of capitalism and the pursuance of that to a multi national status being "the American way" is based in fantasy. Once again common conception would dictate that businesses compete continuously for a chance of making money, but competition there is not. "In the case of radio, television, cable, and satellite TV, governmental agencies grant monopoly rights to frequencies and/or franchises to private firms at no charge (Our Media p.27)." Those favorites of the agencies (or those politicians who owe for coverage) are guaranteed profits for themselves and no one else.
So these arguments, although "American" may actually be just another interpretation in a "no spin zone" that the media occupies, OR did the revolutionaries envision a Forth Estate with riches beyond kings and no way to balance out their power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am going to be honest: I don't have the slightest idea what you're saying.
Alright, apologies for just laying all my thoughts out a once, this is actually just a few observations I have had on the material I have been reading on Media Reform. Points are this, American network media uses the rhetoric that they are doing a service for the public which is portected by the first amendment and our faith in a capitalistic society. I was bringing into question this rhetoric by asking to questions, one "whose interests does the network news serve?" and two "how free is the media market today?" This is to say that not just anyone can start a TV or radio stations because of the restrictions in place for most people. Guess you didn't get that though...
I really just wanted to start a discussion which brings into question our ideas of media as a helpful entity, so please respond to that.
Post a Comment