The recent debate in class about Media Conglomerates, has left me feeling somewhat like a hypocrite. I was on the side of the debate that was arguing that media conglomerates are good for our society as a whole. One of our arguments included the idea that conglomerates don't force people to be individuals, they produce thousands of options, from their billions of capital, for people to either accept or reject as their own. When the other group that was arguing against media conglomerates said that conglomerates keep people from letting their voice be heard, and that the little man is left out, we responded with the aspect of internet blogging as we see lived out in these very words. There are multiple outlets, provided by media conglomerates, where people can express their views on the internet for the whole world to see. There is only one problem with all of my groups "solid" arguments, I don't really agree with them, which is where the hypocrisy steps in.
While I will agree that media conglomerates do provide some of our modern day services that we seemingly "couldn't live without" (which makes me wonder how my parents are still living?), most things that conglomerates do in concept hurt rather than help our society as a whole. That is where my quibbles begin. As noted in a recent reading and class discussion, there are only 6 to 10 major companies that own the majority of every type of media that we partake of on a daily basis. That means, when you wake up and flip on the T.V. at breakfast, nearly every news broadcast will be reporting the "news", when really the reporters are just there to draw viewers in and make more money for the CEO in a starchy suit. I say "news" because, the "news" is brought to us, is almost ALWAYS biased in some way shape or form, especially in the area of political news. We hardly ever hear the whole story in any aspect of an election or any other political happening, we only hear or see what will draw viewers and thus draw more capital to the already Multi-Billion dollar franchise that owns the news we choose to watch. Let's take a little deeper look into this area of "selective media."
Recently, I was home with my girlfriend, and her father was talking about a plan that would literally change the United States of America as we know it FOREVER. There have been papers signed, by our president, in agreement to an elimination of the Canadian-American border AND more surprising the American-Mexican border. This would make a unified North American Union. So say bye bye to border patrol and hello to a Meximelt of Canadian Bacon and American Cheese! You may be pondering, why haven't I heard anything about this? I'll tell you why! The writers, and actors of and upon these laws don't want us to know. This is a quote from an article from a website called Accuracy in Media about the topic that you can find at http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5102_0_4_0_C/
"Major players are secretive and are trying to keep the media out of the loop. But that does not let the mainstream media off the hook. There is enough stonewalling, secrecy and there are plenty of telltale signs, so that any assignment editor whose curiosity is not aroused is probably in the wrong business."
While I will agree that media conglomerates do provide some of our modern day services that we seemingly "couldn't live without" (which makes me wonder how my parents are still living?), most things that conglomerates do in concept hurt rather than help our society as a whole. That is where my quibbles begin. As noted in a recent reading and class discussion, there are only 6 to 10 major companies that own the majority of every type of media that we partake of on a daily basis. That means, when you wake up and flip on the T.V. at breakfast, nearly every news broadcast will be reporting the "news", when really the reporters are just there to draw viewers in and make more money for the CEO in a starchy suit. I say "news" because, the "news" is brought to us, is almost ALWAYS biased in some way shape or form, especially in the area of political news. We hardly ever hear the whole story in any aspect of an election or any other political happening, we only hear or see what will draw viewers and thus draw more capital to the already Multi-Billion dollar franchise that owns the news we choose to watch. Let's take a little deeper look into this area of "selective media."
Recently, I was home with my girlfriend, and her father was talking about a plan that would literally change the United States of America as we know it FOREVER. There have been papers signed, by our president, in agreement to an elimination of the Canadian-American border AND more surprising the American-Mexican border. This would make a unified North American Union. So say bye bye to border patrol and hello to a Meximelt of Canadian Bacon and American Cheese! You may be pondering, why haven't I heard anything about this? I'll tell you why! The writers, and actors of and upon these laws don't want us to know. This is a quote from an article from a website called Accuracy in Media about the topic that you can find at http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5102_0_4_0_C/
"Major players are secretive and are trying to keep the media out of the loop. But that does not let the mainstream media off the hook. There is enough stonewalling, secrecy and there are plenty of telltale signs, so that any assignment editor whose curiosity is not aroused is probably in the wrong business."
No comments:
Post a Comment