Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
There is a lot of evidence to support the view that the media offers its consumers what they want. How else should we interpret the success of shock jocks or channels like Fox that openly lie to confirm its audience's biases? Or the rapidly disappearing distinction between news and entertainment?
Yes, there is a lot of truth to the idea that they're just giving the viewers what they want. Of course, one could say the same thing about politicians and elections - or any company and its customers.
On the other hand, news media is unlike any other business. It is my understanding that it was not unheard of for news divisions within networks to lose money on a regular basis, while the networks would have to make up the loss with their sports and entertainment departments. The idea was that news is important, it provides a public service, and accuracy and objectivity were vital to maintaining a media outlet's reputation for integrity and believability.
I think most people really do want the truth from the mass media, while the media see their task as to do whatever it takes to convince the public that what they're peddling is "the truth." That the public can be easily convinced by style over substance is a sad commentary on the political culture and education system in this country. That's what needs to be fixed, in my opinion. What we see in the media is more of a symptom of a deeper problem.
quote:
However looking at the media treatment of issues like the Iraq war, there is a lot of evidence that the media was engaged in a project to manufacture consent, where certain perspsectives were promoted and others treated negatively. The same process is in operation today on the Ukranian crisis.
There may be a certain level of groupthink at work when it comes to how media present government views on the outside world, although I'm not sure if it's something that happens passively or if it's something that they're actively, consciously doing (in terms of manufacturing consent).
Media tend to present imagery designed to evoke an emotional response from the viewers. I've seen this happen so often that I can't help but think that reporters are being actively told to write from an "emotional" angle in every story they do. I don't know that the public actually "wants" such an approach to news, but it may be more a matter of manipulative appeals to emotion which seem to work in molding public opinion.
As for the Iraq War, I remember back in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This, I think, was a total surprise to most Americans, since in years prior, Iran was seen as our main enemy in the Middle East, while Iraq was a kind of ally of convenience since they were at war with Iran. Most Americans didn't know why Iraq invaded Kuwait, but considering Americans' love affair with their cars and gasoline, it was relatively easy for the media to convince the public that their supply of oil was in danger from some madman in Iraq who just invaded Kuwait out of the blue for reasons which were incomprehensible to Americans. In addition, I remember that the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. was practically a permanent fixture on the TV networks and CNN (Fox News didn't exist yet). He was telling Americans just how cruel and abusive the Iraqi occupiers of Kuwait were, and he was far more convincing than any U.S. pundit or politician ever could have been. He was educated, spoke perfect English, and he seemed quite adept at understanding and speaking to American audiences.
On a general note related to this, the "token foreign dignitary," who acts as a cheerleader for America and the point man for educating Americans on the ways and means of different areas of the world, is an absolutely essential component. During the Cold War, one could find many emigres from Russia and Eastern Europe to tell us just how horrible things are behind the Iron Curtain. If any Americans wanted to soften our anti-communist policies, they would invariably get met with someone saying "I lived there; I know what it's like; you don't know what you're talking about." This is a relatively common phenomenon in public debate on foreign policy, and it seems to be instrumental in manufacturing consent.
Americans in recent generations have been raised with the idea that they are "protected" and "insulated" from the outside world, that we are the land of plenty and have it so soft and comfortable that there's no possible way that we could truly understand the ways and means of the outside world. Those who can speak from practical experience, whether foreign emigres or our own military veterans, seem to carry more weight in influencing public perceptions on certain matters. They talk about issues being far too complex for any insular American to truly understand, so there's the insinuation that we're just supposed to trust our government and defer to their expertise on world affairs. Ultimately, that's where the debate will end up, if the standard appeals to emotion and other manipulative tactics don't work.
World War II and the Cold War also instilled a certain level of national loyalty and patriotism in Americans which was also easy to manipulate. It's the idea that "those who are not with us are against us" - an idea which is totally illogical and nothing more than a crock of bubbling shit - but it's still pretty powerful just the same. Even if we consider ourselves more enlightened today than we were during the McCarthy era, there's still a bit of staying power which seemed to endure and outlast the various anti-war and peace movements we've seen over the past 40-50 years.
quote:
In theory the diversity of media resources available today ought to balance those biased media out but in reality how many people rely upon multiple sources for their information? It is likely that most of the people posting here do, but we are to varying degrees internet savvy and know how to access a multiplicity of sources.
Normally I utilise perhaps up to 10 sites ranging from the BBC and other major international resources to smaller independent sites and some openly partisan sites. Upon occasion I access more sites if researching a topic in more detail. I suspect many of us would have media consumption patterns along these lines.
I'm generally the same way, depending on what the issue is and what I'm looking for. I think those who post here and show a general interest in current events are probably more inclined to actually want to seek out information, whereas others might not really care all that much. I know people who are clearly internet savvy and can get as much as they want about sports and entertainment news, but may not want to know much about politics or general news. Maybe they think it's boring or too depressing or maybe they just don't care.
I once knew a guy who refused to watch any news at all. He didn't read the newspaper and didn't even listen to the short newscasts on the radio. He felt that if something important was happening in the country, he would hear others around him talking about it or someone would tell him. Of course, he knew all the latest celebrity gossip and was an avid sports fan. There are a lot of people like this, and these are usually the same people who come across as overbearing blowhards who think they're experts on every subject under the sun.
quote:
I can't imagine less engaged people are prepared to make the effort to access such a wide variety of sources. It seems to me that most people out there still rely heavily on one or two mass media outlets for most of their current affairs/political information, usually the one(s) that are closest to their particular positon on the political spectrum. So while media diversity undoubtedly has an effect on information consumption I wonder about the extent of that effect.
It could lead to more polarization and sub-culture insularity. I think people might gravitate towards whatever makes them feel comfortable, so people of whatever political bent will spend more time on media outlets and websites which mostly agree with them and cater to their particular viewpoint. Just about every issue or political position can be found somewhere on the internet. If people become too comfortable in their own internet "nest," they may be less inclined to know or care about what others in different "nests" might think.
Back when media was not quite so diverse, people used to listen to the same radio stations and watch the same news programs and TV shows, so their cultural focus was in the same general frame of reference. Now, there's a heck of a lot more out there to absorb, although people still have their own pet sources and networks which they're far more comfortable with.
To some degree, I've noticed how people from rival parties or political factions tend to talk past each other, as if they come from completely different worlds and seemingly have no clue as to what life is like on each other's planet.
I think this is the consequence of what we're seeing with media and its role in political partisanship and influencing public opinion. As internet technology gets more sophisticated in the decades to come, it might actually become easier for people to insulate themselves even further. People can create their own insulated intellectual "bubbles," in which they can shield themselves from anything they don't like, and carry it with them in whatever portable electronic device they prefer - so they don't even have to interact with people around them in the real world unless absolutely necessary.
|
RE: Jews Ordered to "Register" in Eastern Ukr... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread