A Discussion of the Impact Current Media Representation Within the United States - Essay Example

Section/# Media Bias: A Discussion of the Impact Current Media Representation within the United s An undeniable aspect of the current world is with regards to the fact that media proliferation exists upon almost every level of society. Working hand in glove with this level of media proliferation is the fact that individuals from all demographics are continually integrated with news stories as they develop. Moreover, a societal norm is represented by the media and has a profound level of impact with regards to the way in which individuals integrate with understandings of morality, consumerism, and/or appropriate behavior. As such, the power that media has upon the lives of individual around the globe is dynamic and likely will increase as globalization and media integration continue to be evidenced. However, for purposes of this brief analysis, the author will not specifically focus upon the globalizing power that media has; rather, the focus will instead be upon the way in which self-censorship, bias, and seemingly uniform actions; even without overt coercion needing to be applied. As a function of seeking to understand the impact that media has on stakeholders within society, the following analysis will engage the reader with some of the most prominent ways in which media impacts the way in which people think, act, and define/constrain their lives. Through an exemplification of the way in which propaganda and bias are represented throughout the media, it is the hope of this author that the reader can come to a more profound and nuanced understanding of the way in which these very real and prescient issues impact upon the way in which society interacts with the world, defines it, and seeks to understand it. Firstly, in order to understand this uniformity of approach that so many media outlets throughout the current market exhibit, it is necessary to seek to understand the way in which media control exists within the current dynamic. Whereas it is true that television media only accounts for one way in which the individual is exposed to information, is necessarily a microcosm of media proliferation and can adequately help an individual to understand the way in which power dynamics and bias are represented with regards to the information that is consumed. Ultimately, the current television media is 90% owned by six main corporations within the United States. These corporations are as follows: GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacomm, Time Warner, and CBS. Such a level of realization helps to denote the fact that a virtually oligarchical level of control exists over television news media. Ultimately, this level of oligarchic competition was not always exhibited. Even two decades ago, a litany of different companies owned the television news media and allowed for a great level of diversity of opinion. However, due to the fact that diversification of ownership was not maximizing profitability and reach, not to mention marketing potential, the six key firms that have been denoted previously engaged upon a definitive program of buying out the competition. Yet, before the reader comes to the assumption that television media is somehow a unique entity and therefore should be understood differently than newsprint, radio, or other forms of media, the fact of the matter is that the same level of consolidation has taken place within these industries over the past several decades. For instance, if one briefly reviews radio and considers the way in which consolidation has taken place over the past few decades, Clear Channel and a handful of other powerful media moguls have defined the way in which current radio programming is presented to the listener. By much the same token, one need not perform a high level of analysis into the newspaper industry in order to understand the fact that individual such as Rupert Murdoch and others have brazenly set out to acquire almost each and every newspaper within the United States and place it under a central banner. Although this process of “capitalism on steroids” might be understood as beneficial in some ways, it must be understood by the reader that the ownership of media within the hands of but a few powerful individuals necessarily decreases the level of objective reporting and increases the bias that is represented throughout the system (Groening 69). As a means of understanding this, the reader can and should engage with the fact that the entire production and distribution of media within society is directed as a means of making money. The corollary understanding that can be had with regards to the structure is with respect to the fact that the money making ability of the corporate media is predicated upon advertising and representing new stories that are beneficial and/or not harmful to their main corporate sponsors. With regards to the first of these determinants, it can and should be realized that the accrual of advertising monies and the selling of advertising space within the media has ultimately been a driving force with regards to defining the industry. One need think that no further than the way in which Walter Cronkite would present the news an interview prominent guests while at the same time smoking a Parliament cigarettes and recommending this cigarette as the one that is the healthiest for the individual. Bringing the level of analysis and discussing to the present time, one can quickly see that handful of extraordinarily powerful firms are responsible for buying the bulk of the advertising that exists on major media outlets; regardless of whether or not this outlet’s television, print, or radio. Many of these dynamically powerful firms are ones that provide for basic human needs; denoting the fact for why such massively profitable companies are represented as a means of meeting every day needs to the consumer. The danger of bias that exists with regards to this particular type of advertising and the overall power of the companies which are responsible for it focuses upon the fact that the news entities and media outlets in question are unlikely to represent any type of negative media attention towards such an entity as long as it continues to buy relevant advertising space on their particular network. Of course there are cases in which a particular news article or story was so sensational that this law or unspoken rule has been broken; however, by and large, a tacit level of understanding exists with regards to the major media outlets and the means through which they do not openly criticize or investigate newsworthy items concerning dangers or harm that could be caused by their lead advertisers. Another form of self-censorship that is taking place is with respect to the way in which the United States government has increasingly curtailed civil liberties over the past several decades. Many individuals who have reviewed the situation have pointed to the fact that since September 11 marks an increase in the range and extent to which the government can stifle any form of dissent. By harkening back to the examples of the way in which “national security” is trumpeted as the ultimate concern through which all media outlets should acquiesce, the level to which objective reporting can seek to engage the audience with a true level of understanding concerning their own civil rights and the realities of the world around them is greatly decreased. For instance, recently released information denoting the way in which presidential campaigns are carried out has revealed the fact that news articles are in fact it invested by major newspapers to the respective candidates league chief information officer prior to ever going to print. As such, the objective nature through which journalism can take place within such self-censorship is ultimately in question. Furthermore, recent revelations by NSA leaker Edward Snowden, have revealed the fact that government censors and “free readers” exist within the media and help to supervise the information as it is released; denoting that which would be ultimately harmful to the United States and/or the administration as well as denoting that which would ultimately benefit from their particular approach. Even though this last example is a result of direct censorship exists within the current news media, it also serves as something of an exemplification of the way in which self-censorship continues to take place (Zayani 49). Due to the fact that all of the major news entities and media outlets that have thus far been discussed do not have any particular desire to have their licenses suspended or to be under a specific level of harassment by the United States government, they are passively coerced into acquiescing to the needs and demands that the government places upon them. The profit-driven nature of the news media strikes at the very core of the issue up for discussion within this analysis. Ultimately, the very sad reality is that the news media derives a very great deal of profitability of the suffering and magnitude of harm that both man-made and natural disasters in her around the world (Thomas 53). At Within such an understanding, it becomes quite obvious to the reader that the news media is ultimately desirous of events such as terrorist actions which will greatly increase the scope of viewership that they would otherwise derive any one particular time. Although this is indeed sadistic, a rapid increase in viewership as a result of terrorist action allows for the news/media outlets to rapidly increase its profitability. Once again, although such a reality is difficult to fathom and completely understand within an ethical interpretation of the current paradigm, it is nonetheless true and impacts upon the extent and level to which terrorism is engaged and the extent and level to which societal stakeholders are presented with a continual influx of information concerning these activities. It must be understood that the United States has long ago developed mechanisms through which social media opinion can be shifted. Within the United States military psychological warfare operations, there exists entire divisions of civilians and soldiers whose job it is to shift public opinion with regards to one issue or another. In very much the same way seeking to take social media as a barometer of the way in which “the people” feel with regards to a given topic is ultimately at risk of being representative of a particular biased and warped view. Upon the other side of the equation, it must be understood that as soon as the autocratic leaders of nations such as to media, Libya, and Egypt realize that social media was being used as a tool against them, these sources were promptly shut down and indeed the plug to the Internet was removed for the nations in question. As can be seen, this represents a fundamental flaw with regards to the way in which social media is oftentimes put forward as the great mediator of bias and injustice/propaganda within the modern world. Realizing that it was impossible to battle against an insurgency while removing its form of communication, the Egyptian government sought to fight back utilizing a paid militia of commentators and news pundits that integrated and inundated Facebook and Twitter with pro-government stances. In such a way, the reader can come to the profound level of realization that even though globalization and the proliferation of media initially helped the truth to come out with regards to the occurrences that were taking place within these autocratic and repressive regimes, these very same tools were quickly use against the opposition as a means of neutralizing their effect. Accordingly, rather than saying that social media and/or the globalization of media and its impacts are ultimately neutral or bad, the reader should instead come to the interpretation of the fact that these same tools, put forward as a hopes of democratizing the media, can in fact be utilized in quite the opposite direction and have an inverse affect. As with so many other forms of business, the media itself ultimately acts as a type of singular business entity. As such, the possibility of the ethical interests of the population being served at each and every juncture by an entity that is solely interested in selling advertising space and providing sensational stories so that the individual participant within society will continue to engage with it is somewhat limited (Lazariou 209). Due to the fact that the power of special interests and the unbelievable power that advertisers and massive firms can have upon the direction and focus of news, the individual observer should be keenly aware of the fact that bias within news reporting is not only the function of a political orientation or of the way in which a particular news entity seeks to represent the story based upon their own point of view. Rather, bias within the media can more definitively be understood as a function of the way in which governance and special interest advertisers are able to impact upon the way in which stories are represented and items of interest are understood. In such a way, instead of understanding propaganda as something that is specific to the way in which a particular government seeks to integrate with its people, the reader can and should come to the profound understanding of the fact that propaganda within the current news media is mostly the result of powerful corporations that seek to present their own companies, products, and business interests in a favorable light to the consumer. In such a manner, advertising takes on an entirely new approach; one in which the marketing and actual advertising is represented alongside favorable propaganda with regards to the particular interest in question. Naturally, beyond merely being unethical, this particular approach is damaging due to the fact that it represents an unrealistic and unnatural approach to the world; as well as the product, service, company in question. Sadly, the take away and conclusion that the reader can draw from all of this is the fact that the current exemplification of the news media is one that is not likely to change anytime within the near future. Due to the fact that powerful and dynamic firms control the lion’s share of the market, the possibility of other firms to break into this market and experience a level of success by attracting advertisers and engaging with a populace that is already grown accustomed to the news media as it exists today, cannot and should not be expected. Moreover, the increasing level of control that the United States government exerts over the way in which self censorship and a close consideration of the impact that any particular news item or story will have with regards to the current administration or with respect to the way in which the United States is viewed throughout the world, the level and extent to which the individual can expect a change of course with regards to the way in which media is represented is unlikely to say the least. However, rather than assuming that each and every tidbit of information that one is presented is false, the participant within the media should instead be fully cognizant and aware of what entities are representing the information and what possible gain they may have to present it in a biased manner. Works Cited Groening, Stephen Francis. "Connected Isolation: Screens, Mobility, and Globalized Media Culture." Dissertation Abstracts International Section A 69. (2009). PsycINFO. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Lazariou, George. "Media Knowledge And Journalism's Mission In Democratic Polity." Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice 3.2 (2012): 205-211. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Thomas, Roger. "Media, Cultural Diversity And Globalization: Challenges And Opportunities." Journal Of Cultural Diversity 18.2 (2011): 48-54.CINAHL Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. ZAYANI, MOHAMED. "Media, Cultural Diversity And Globalization: Challenges And Opportunities." Journal Of Cultural Diversity 18.2 (2011): 48-54. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Read More