Media's bottom line, be it a news channel or the home-shopping network is profit. Above and beyond money to operate, they want money enough to compete in our socially darwinistic economy where the more money you have, the more power you have to leverage in a democracy seemingly more respectful to the wealthier voice. Money somehow implies intelligence and authority and corporations try to shape every last detail of their image so that the consumer will feel like they themselves are becoming more intelligent and powerful by using a companie's product. And if all media is also this capitalistic, competing beast out for our loyalty and all "news" about our the decisions we make as a democracy are drawn from media, then media conglomerates are indeed a threat to a properly working democracy.
The checks and balance of competition in the market place is threatened by the merging of huge corporations, yet many of the new products they produce (or buy out once they become popular), such as YouTube, should give us a little hope. They're still affecting us in subversive ways through advertisements on the site, but the nature of free video posting to anyone is revolutionary in concept and could be seen as hope of "the people" winning ultimate control over the media we're all so "inbed" with.
1 comment:
Careful- Adorno thinks it's controlled; Marx never directly commented on it.
Don't we have a bit of a chicken/egg syndrome here though? I would think that it's just as possible is that the role is to inform us about products that will allow us to be better in touch with what will make us better citizens.
Post a Comment