American Media

Finding the correct role of media in a democratic culture is a tricky thing to pin down. Democracy, in theory, means that everyones opinion goes into the pot, and the most prominent opinion will be what the country agrees to act upon. The operative word is opinion. No one is right about anything, ever. Everyone has opinions that they believe to be right, though. Where do these opinions come from? Why the media of course.

The major corporations of America control the media.

We are brought back to my earlier post of Problem, Solution, Reaction. People are told what is going on, they're told how to feel about it, then they go to 'vote' on these topics. Voting which is rigged for good measure.

Corporate influence is a threat to America if the corporation wants it to be.

A non-corrupt government would be the optimum media distributing/regulating system, but lets not fool ourselves with childish dreams! The internet is the best form of media available to us. Everyone has access to it, everyone has the ability to put information up.

The Media Sucks

I hate the media, because of the stranglehold it has on our society and our culture. The role media plays in our democracy is one of sheer crap. All they ( the media) do is fear monger and inform us about all of the horrible things that are going on in the world. While we go to school and or work all day everyday it's incredibly nice to come home, crack open a drink and allow the overwhelmingly pessimistic news networks to make my life feel even more hopeless than it already is. A disturbing trend that has taken course in the media is the slow death of actual journalism. Journalists steal leads and stories from other sources, thus creating a lot of redundancy throughout the internet, television and radio. Every channel is the same crap. Fox News brings us the lovely "Fair and Balanced" perspectives from gung-ho conservatives who feel that their inability to compromise or be tolerant of others needs to be shared with all the world over a loud speaker built into their own voice boxes. CNN wants us all to think that everything is a lost cause, and that we're all doomed to be destroyed. CNBC is all about money, but at least they don't pretend like they aren't. At least I can still watch the Daily Show and laugh about our government's problems, but not become depressed about it.

All in all, the media has immense bias, and hardly anything these days can be absorbed pure information. It's all dummied down and dialed up with emotion from the so- called "journalists" that it's hard to know how to interpret all the information out there. Everyone believes their personal view needs to be inserted into the discussion of facts and fiction, which creates a lot of rooms for error and hostility. Oh, but need not worry, friends! We still have the New York Times- why would they ever print something without all the facts?

Blog 5 (trapped by media)

The question, "What is media's role in a democracy?" is relative to what culture your speaking about and you is answering. So, I'll answer from the point of view of a "middle class" American citizen in a capitalistic democracy. I think media is a part of popular culture. It shapes how we see ourselves and others and sets up scales of what's acceptable to whatever group you what to interpellate yourself with: the playa, the jock, the entrepreneur, the indie rocker. And I tend to agree with the Marx's view that popular culture is controlled, if not produced, by the bourgeois class in order to zombify the proletariats out of revolting. And with all the descriptions of US corporations merging into 5 or 6 huge, god-like companies in the last chapter of the Theory Toolbox, my view is furthered strengthen. 

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.   

Question deux

Mass media does not play a role in democracy. Democracy does not play a role in mass media. Rather, these two work together under the watchful eye of our oh-so-wonderful government. As a democratic society, we as citizens are entitled to our rights, our freedoms. When we elect a president, they should be elected on the stance that they will do well in that job position. Granted, we want a president who is amicable and well-rounded. But where do we get off thinking that their personal business should be our business? So what if Bill fooled around with Monica? It has no relevancy to the job of president, unless it somehow interferes. So instead of covering our attacks in Kosovo, our media dug as deep as they could into a private matter.
Now to the issue of corporate influence, how could there NOT be an issue???? I am bewildered to hear when people don't care that everything in our economy is run by 5 corporations, that even work together to maintain their control and status. There are always exceptions to the rules, but there are still things that you will never see on tv, never see in a magazine, never read in a newspaper. Is that for our own good? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. I think the fact that we live in a democratic society that is run by 5 corporations is the most troubling paradox. I'll bitch all day about corporate America, but I don't have a definite solution. I think as a society we're so far beyond that point of equal democracy that we are stuck in a rut without a place to move forward to. We've just fucked ourselves to a point of no return. But seriously, how can I saw who should regulate media's usage? Obviously not corporations, obviously not our government- and especially the one we have now. It can't be regulated by a 3rd party because it is still RUN by the corporations, who really are run by the government.

Media's Role In Democracy

Instinctively, I would answer that mass media in democracy exists to inform the public and educate. Yet, I feel that in many ways I'm wrong. American mass media prides itself on it's "objective" reporting and profiling of world events. However, most news programs are filled with biased opinions and limited amounts of coverage. How often are we forced to turn to BBC online or on public broadcasting stations? Nightly news programs lack extensive international reporting. Unfortunately entertainment reigns supreme with broadcast programs and because of this, we're left watching stories that have been heavily sifted through.

The first amendment establishes the freedom of speech and a free press, yet a journalist or publication's reputation can be seriously damaged if they publish a story that defames the occupation in Iraq, they are met with scorn. Although the amendments were instated to create and uphold democracy, little by little, I think they are altered to diminish the democratic state.

What kind of information citizens "need" access to depends solely upon the person answering. I'm sure certain lobbyists and corporations would argue that the public does not "need" to know certain information regarding fast food and the effects it has on your health. At the same time, we have a right to this information. Who's to say we don't deserve to know? By withholding and controlling information, the government and corporations are seriously threatening democracy.

Perhaps it's the anarchist in me, but to me, an ideal society would allow its citizens to regulate the media. Almost immediately after typing this, I'm laughing at myself because I fear this would cause nothing but destruction of the press. After all, Wikipedia does pretty well, as do blogs, which is a form of citizen journalism. Why not? While blogs allow a broad range of topics covered, they often lack thorough fact checking and balanced opinions.

Liberal Media Culture?

To call liberal media liberal we have to first ask 'What is it to be liberal'? A liberal, to most people is someone that is very open to new ideas and is free. I think people run the news business because if someone didn't then there would millions of newspapers all with their own opinions and chaos would probably ensue onto the whole world. People can be liberal sometimes to get the support of a lot of people and be accepted in a group but then do many conservative like favor tradition and gradually change whereas they would make a lot of change. But some conservatives can be very liberal by not sticking to traditions and trying to change everything about the world. So when the media is owned by liberals, that doesn't mean everything we watch or read is liberal. A lot of the newspapers we read can be liberal but we never know. The world always brings something magnificent to us all the time so we should just wait and see what will happen next.

Vantage Point

(Blog post 5 ~ Question 3 )

This weekend I went out and saw the movie Vantage Point with a good friend of mine and when I came home to work on my blog I couldn’t help but connect the two together because Vantage Point is exactly what the book is talking about.

First I’ll sum up a little bit of Vantage Point. It’s a high octane action movie about different people’s views, vantage points, of the shooting of the president in Spain. You get to see the story in the eyes of a FBI guard, a tourist, the terrorist organization and someone completely unrelated to the whole event. I don’t know why his view was important but it was just thrown in there for some reason. About 1/3 of the movie is a car chase and there are explosions covered from every angle possible. Sound interesting? Hate to disappoint you, but it was a snooze fest. In fact, the guy behind me actually fell asleep and was snoring quite loudly through the majority of the movie. Is this really “what the people want?” I don’t think so at all. But, like the book said, it’s a lot easier to make this sort of movie and release it globally. You don’t need a translation for an explosion or are car chase, but in today’s world that isn’t engaging enough.

Even though I had to sit through that boring movie, I’m glad that I was there in that theater reacting with the rest of the audience to what we were watching. I think that in other theaters people were having the same reactions and soon I hope that it will start reflecting in box office sales. We, as an audience and a people, are looking for more than just an explosion or car chase or gun fight in films now days. The audience is craving story and substance and characterization and if a movie, TV show or story doesn’t have it then it is going to fail. It’s good to know that our society is more intelligent than that.

media-march4

I think the media in movies for the most part give the people what they want. A lot of times certain types of movies will come out back to back and this usually generates money. It seems like most action films come out during the summer in my opinion. They most likely gain most of the money during this time. I think our culture in general enjoys action films with violence and big explosions. I don't know the statistics but it seems that action films made the most money in the past. The past couple of years though, comedy has really generated more revenue and more audience. Both types of films will make money, so I think you just have to balance them out. Action movies sell merchandise and other things to entice the audience, but some comedies do the same thing. The film industry puts a lot of time and hard work into the craft, so they want to make the best out of what they created. If they have to advertise and sell merchandise, I think that is a good thing, because more people will be intrigued about the particular movie. When it comes down to it, I believe the film industry and the media do give the people what they want. The industry just uses merchandise products and advertisement to reach to a broader audience. Both type of films want to generate the most money, so buy selling products, more people become attracted to what the film is all about.  

Mass Media in Democracy

Media serves the purpose of bringing politics to the average voter. With such a large country as the U.S., I think the quantity of media matters more than the quality of it. With more information out there, one way or another the truth will find its way to the 340 million or so legal residents. Now a lot of other people have mentioned that a few corporations controlling ALL media bothers them, because then the information they can view is selected for them without their knowledge. I agree this isn't the greatest interpretation of "freedom of the press," but come on. Is the media lying to us more than any other politician? Did Fox News lie about WMDs in Iraq, or did the government? Mass media DOES serve a purpose in democracy because it gives free access to any and all information available. But that doesn't mean the information is handed out for free. Democracy doesn't rely on the press, it relies on the PEOPLE to get off their asses and DO something. So don't be so quick to judge the corporations so harshly. Yeah they have an agenda, yeah they may be crooked, and yeah they might hide certain information. But that information is still out there. So if a citizen watches something on Fox or MSNBC and says "whether or not I believe what was just said, I feel no need to pursue this any further," THEY are the ones failing democracy, not the media. So I reiterate...don't blame Fox, blame the guy too lazy to find information from numerous sources before he votes.

blog for march 4

2:
Mass media could play a direct role on democracy in our country. Because corporations that run and fund this country have a huge advantage in advertising using mass media. In all honesty it is a very simple concept. The corporations that have the most money to fund are able to afford the most prime time to place advertisement and in turn they will get the most influence on the population because of the number of viewers they get tuning into their ad. Citizens need access to all kinds of information through the mass media including health care information, product display, and updates on pop culture keeping up with the latest trends available on the retail market of the day. Corporate influence could have an affect on democracy because we as citizens do know that money can be powerful and we really have no control over what is advertised to us. We usually don't care to find out who has the control of advertising anyway so sure corporations may be able to buy their way to success using mass media. organization in the media world should be controlled by someone with a non bias opinion on a product who is advertising for the true better of the state and not influenced by the power of large corporations. However, that is not the world we live in unfortunately.
Alex Barrera

Blog Post 5

Question #3

The media today is pretty much a bunch of companies owned by a few corporations. I do think this is both a bad and good thing. The reason I feel this way is because Hollywood as much as we like to believe isn't behind the scenes producing things due to certain companies or CEOs who are telling these production companies to put out whatever movie they think will sell to a certain demographic, the sad truth is that they are. These movies are all created for certain niches in the population and even though independent movies exist, the only reason they are independent is because the company that produced it is just a smaller owned company of the major corporation. So it sucks for the lack of a better word, but there is not much the people can do as a whole to change it. However the good thing about the whole industry is we (as in the public) get what we want. There is not a single group of people who don't seem to like movies. So in a sense can we be mad that everything filters down the way it does? Is it bad that they use apple computers in the big hollywood blockbuster, so the public wants apples too? I really think its bad because it makes it tougher on the little guy, but thats why the film industry is so unique because people can get in on chance, and timing, or never make it all. But now I am just rambling because I am indeed a film major, I don't believe there its a multiple sided question, which can't be changed. 

Matt Griffin

Media Control?

The role of the media in democracy... a hard question to answer, and a very relevant one considering the magnitude of the upcoming presidential election. The concept of the media being controlled by a few select corporations is a very hard one for me to wrap my brain around. I find it quite frightening indeed that these greedy companies would control what I see on television, hear on the radio, and read in newspapers. Again, this concept is almost so hard for me to come to terms with that my brain really won't let me believe it. However, for the sake of answering this question in a timely and orderly fashion, I will force my brain to agree with the book.
Citizens depend on the media to stay active and involved in their democracy. We need to know most of the decisions that our representatives are making; at the very least, the ones that effect us directly. Also, with the quickly approaching election, we depend on the media to give us information about the candidates so that we can choose the one that most accurately meets our criteria for a good leader. Corporate influence could easily become a threat to democracy. If these few corporations are controlling what information the people are receiving about their representatives and candidates, we are not able to make decisions based on the entire truth. I think there is enough competition to ensure at least some range of views and opinions, but not necessarily a wide one. I think the media should be largely unregulated. Of course, there is a need for the F.D.A. and some censorship. Overall, I think our country is doing a pretty good job of regulating the media when it needs to be regulated, and letting it run free the rest of the time.

Does anything blow up in it??? NO... Then I don't want to see it.

I believe people’s taste and giving the people what they want both apply to this situation. However, I believe it falls more onto giving the people what they want. As stated in The Theory Toolbox, action films cost less and sell more products in their films. When is the last time you saw a building blow up? Or an extreme car chase that has two cars completely colliding and blowing up with both characters in the vehicles survive. People rarely get the chance to see these types of situations.

It is no wonder why many production companies tend to lead toward action films, because many people don’t have to have a background knowledge of things blowing up. Whereas in a comedy you have to have a certain background on the joke that has just been implied. You need to have an understanding on how the culture "operates." An example of understanding these different ways of life is in the film Blazing Saddles (1974) when Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little dress up in Klu Klux Klan outfits and try to sign up to help catch a black sheriff. This is very comical to the American people because we know that Cleavon Little is a black man trying to portray a Klu Klux Klan member, even though he is the sheriff everybody is looking for. However, someone in Europe or Japan might not understand this comical moment.

Film Productions are also a great way to show off your product. Director Michael Bay (of Transformers and Bad Boys) uses very appealing and expensive cars in his films. This is his trademark and his way of making money to produce his films. However many comedies’ use this types of method to poke fun at some corporations. Austin Powers: Goldmember pokes fun at Starbuck’s stating how it has made Dr. Evil a multimillionaire. Movies help sell the products and the products help make the movie. So whether it is to say that the production studios are just giving us what we want and saying whether we are just a violent society is hard to define at this particular moment. But one thing is for sure and that is that people like to watch things blow up. It gives us excitement and the opportunity to escape from reality.

democracy now? Or between 6 and 9 pm?

The role of mass media in A democracy should be to convey knowledge and news. That's not to say that the role of mass media in society can be to entertain, sell things and hopefully also convey news and knowledge. But if a political system were to assign a role for media, it should really only be for enlightenment. However, obviously our government doesn't share my sentiment. All though citizens really only need the news (and who's to say they technically "need" that, even), our country's mass media is chalked full of cheap entertainment, sales pitches, and basically mind control. Did you know that watching television slows your brain waves?
I suppose corporate influence would be a bit of a threat to democracy, as it doesn't even really follow the basic principles of democracy. Everyone is not given a voice in the corporate influence over mass media, the fat cats with the most money have voices though-big loud voices with flashy commercials. I think how our media works would appeal more to capitalism than democracy, as TV, like most anything else, is a business in a free market. I don't really believe a wide range of views are available in our media. We are made to feel as if there are, but with censorship comes a limit to that range. I use television as an example, because it is pretty well understood on a mass level. We can watch televangelists, right wing news-nazis, yoga, cooking shows, you name it-as long as it's PC in our culture. Where's the satanist church broadcast? How come fox doesn't have a news show on the other end of the political spectrum? Why aren't there near-commies on a major news channel giving their point of view? Besides PBS, the history channel, and a handful of others, we watch TV and learn not much more than our culture and our capitalism. How American is that?
I suppose if media has to be privatized like it is, then it should technically be run by the producers of any given media, and not by corporations and politicians. However, it seems as though money makes the world go round, who knew. I don't really know what a good solution to that catch-22 would be. Though I will rack my brain until class Tuesday, promise!

is the media really biased?

Question #1

How could this happen that all of the news anchors are liberal "hippies?"  This raises a very good point, and I personally have been approached with this theory.  It is true that many journalists are in fact Democrats.  I think that conservatives view the news as being very liberal because there are often featured stories about gay rights, civil rights abuses, anti war demonstrations, women's rights, environmental issues, etc.  These are seen as being liberal causes or concerns.  Though this may be true, there are still many people who think that the news programs are not liberal enough.  I personally believe that a lot of what really happens in other parts of the world or even in our own backyard is not published in the news.  There are newsworthy things going on all the time that do not get press.  So does the news industry have a liberal bias?  I think they cover some liberal topics or issues, but at the same time, there is a lot about business on the news as well.  There are conservative issues on the news.  Maybe those issues aren't presented in a way that the conservatives agree with.  So perhaps the media does have a liberal bias...but being a liberal, I'm ok with that.  I think that maybe this point of view is aimed at mainstream America.  I think there are a lot more people who want to hear about issues like civil rights, women's right's, or environmental issues.  Or, maybe there's just some evil plan for them to get everyone in the country to think like them.  That to me is quite a funny thought to entertain.  I think the big CEO's do have control over who they hire and how they are running the industry. 

Question #2

The role of the mass media in a democracy is to give people information so that they can make informed decisions.  People need access to information about the presidential candidates, so they know who believes in what causes, who is going to work hard for their country and lead the country in the right direction.  People need this information so they know who they want to vote for.  Also, people need to be informed about what's going on in their neighborhood so they know they are safe.  They need to be informed about the traffic, so they know how long it will take to get to work.  They need to know what the weather will be like, so they know how to dress in the morning.  I think that corporate influence could possibly be a threat to democracy.  If you are being influenced by corporations, who's to say you are really making your own decisions?  I think that market competition makes things more confusing.  For example, how do you know if one candidate isn't a total liar and is going to lead the country down an even darker road than Bush has?  I think it's hard to say who should regulate the media's usage.  Maybe the people should regulate it.  I'm not quite sure how we would go about doing that, but it might make things more fair.  

Question #3

I don't think it's either of these.  I think that corporations hyper commercialize movies by producing t-shirts, action figures, coffee mugs, etc, and the people buy into it.  Literally.  If there weren't a Luke Skywalker action figure, I highly doubt that people would be walking around saying, "Wow, I bet my kid would really like it if they had a Luke Skywalker action figure!"  I also doubt that little kids would be saying that.  However, if these items are commercialized, the public will start to think, "Wow, that's awesome!  I've gotta have that!"  It's all about consumerism and capitalizing on that.  

I can tell you from experience that the majority of media certainly doesn't give me what I want, but that's not the point of the question. In mass, does the media give people what they ask for, or do the people develop a taste for what the media gives us?
The gut instinct of the optimist is to say that the media gives us what we want. What they produce changes with what we're willing to pay for and consume. An inverted Frankfurt school of thought, if you will (and I do). On the other hand, the gut instinct of the pessimist, of those so many in my generation who are jaded for reasons I still don't fully understand (really, the world hasn't been that bad to us, come now) is to say the media gives us what they want, what is safe and will make them money, and we eat it up.
This is where the Birmingham (see? I take notes!) model comes in; Neither the pessimist nor the optimist is completely right. The reality is a compromise, wherein the consumers don't always buy what's given to them. We wouldn't have bombs at the box office if this weren't the case. And the media does give us more of what we've taken to. I think it's funny, people complain when a band doesn't deliver more of the same (I know, I know, "but better"), but get upset when movie studios do the same thing... Hm...
Anyway, the point is, I feel that it's a balance of power between the consumers and the media. Neither is completely responsible for what the other does.