 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
amy
Joined: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 24 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 28
Country: Canada
|
Media Bias (and Ownership)
September 24, 2003 - 12:57 PM
|
|
A huge complaint about media is that it is biased (according to who owns it, etc.) - however, media is inherently biased - media has always been a way for people to express their specific opinions. This is why competing newspapers have started: one person didn't like someone's opinion, so they started their own paper. So it's natural that the owner's opinion shows in their media.
However, I think the problem today is that media ownership is increasing concentrated into the hands of a very small group. It's much harder for new newspapers (like the example above) to spring up when behemoths like Clear Channel (radio) and AOL-Time Warner own not only the paper itself, but also the channels of distribution. It's like owning the paper, and owning all the stores that SELL papers.
So... how can this be combated? What needs to be done? Government regulation?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
amy
Joined: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 24 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 28
Country: Canada
|
Re: Media Bias (and Ownership)
September 26, 2003 - 03:28 AM
|
|
I guess it's also too bad that governments are increasingly complicit with corporations, to the point that anti-trust laws are softened so that government & corporation can remain buddy-buddy.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Roentgen
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 70 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: Philippines
Province/State: Manila
|
Re: Media Bias (and Ownership)
September 26, 2003 - 06:39 AM
|
|
A ticklish issue. If we let market forces dictate everything, then monopoly or in most cases, oligopoly could be a natural consequence. Economies of scale, in other words. Government has a big role. Anti-trust laws are important to ensure that cross-ownership would not occur. Media is a very powerful medium and giving control to just a few hands should be a no-no.
Another issue is the content expressed. Of course, as owners, they have the right to express their views on the matter. The very fact that a television station for example gives more coverage on an event or incidence, already speaks of the bias of the station. It can be both good and bad. In that case, the information that is available to us is controlled.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Michael Newton-McLaughlin
Joined: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 171 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Berkeley
|
Re: Media Bias (and Ownership)
September 27, 2003 - 05:58 AM
|
|
For anyone wanting to study media and media control, I am going to be teaching a class at the University of California, Berkeley, this Spring... so have aquired a lot of information...
I recomend that people check out the five following books, as a beginning step into the world of media:
'Bias' by Bernard Goldberg
'Manufacturing Consent' and 'Propaganda and the Public Mind' by Noam Chomsky
'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy - Greg Palast
'Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News' by Normon Solomon
and for something right now, here is an article by Noam Chomsky...
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Huiii
Joined: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 6 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Austria
|
media concentration/bias
October 6, 2003 - 05:45 AM
|
|
I think media being biased is more than normal. There is no "absolute truth" of anything, but always several "truths", which is ok. - As long as there is enough diversified media to bring differnt views of the "truth", so that everybody is able to access all different aspects of this "truths", and decide which one s/he prefers.
Another aspect: Imagine an owner of an imperium including important industries and media, decides to become a politician. Supported of the several tv channels he owns, he becomes prime minister. (some similarities to Italy not excluded)
And is it ok, that some people behind some medias, have more power to decide "indirect" what should happen in a country (by having a huge influence on public opinion), than any of the elected representants, which where meant to decide on this issues?
But how to find a balance between the extremely important freedom of expression and the power of some individuals, owning big parts of a country's (region's/ the world's?) media?
Any thoughts/ideas?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Media Bias (and Ownership)
October 6, 2003 - 10:13 AM
|
|
Well the real threat to the free flow of ideas is that FCC endorsed law that Bush just signed which is being fought bitterly in the house and senate.
I basicaly expands the amount of media saturation a single source can have.
This is dangerous.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Raymond M. Kristiansen
Joined: Mar 1, 2002
Posts: 132 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: Denmark
Province/State: Roskilde
City: Roskilde
|
Re: Media Bias (and Ownership)
October 18, 2003 - 03:11 AM
|
|
media is many things, and the syndicated media networks is but one of these.
of course, in everyday life of mr. and mrs. average citizen, it IS the mainstream media which is their preferred choice. Here in Norway, for instance, it is either VG or Dagbladet (tabloids) or full-format newspapers like Aftenposten or Bergens Tidende which is the offering on the newspaper stand. For news on television, there is either NRK (state-owned), TV2 (commercials funded, private) or TV Norge (owned by TV2). The news content of either NRK or TV2 are pretty good, balanced and honest. However, they are very mainstream, and at the same time they DO choose some funky stories just because "they will attract viewers".
My point is that at least in my country there is not that much diversity when it comes to main stream media outlets. Ok, I guess the situation is the same in other countries.
Then, of course, we DO have the International Herald Tribune (US), or Information (Denmark), or The Guardian weekly or something like that, but these are more segmented newspapers with not only a much smaller distribution, but also being of less popular demand because the price is steeper.
The problem is not only one of there not being enough CONTENT out there, but one of distribution.
As someone noted earlier, some news corporations own the distribution networks. This is something we might impose anti-trust rules on. It's like how Rockefeller and the other barons of the 19th Century monopolised the railways, thus squeezing other/new competitors out of the market before they were able to get a standing.
I don't think media bias is that bad either. If Aftenposten (a fairly conservative newspaper) wants to hail the conservative government's budget proposals for 2004, fine by me. But then we need organisations like FAIR (www.fair.org), and we need to develop our own critical thinking.
Luke, you mentioned an FCC endorsed law.. Could you please elaborate on that? What law is it? What will its possible implications be?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Alinta Robinson-Herbert
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Tasmania
City: Hobart
|
Aussie Laws
October 26, 2003 - 08:42 AM
|
|
Hiya Guys,
Undoubtedly a monopoly of the market is a bad idea, I know that in Australia we have laws so that one person or company may only own a certain percentage of any one type of media.
Does that happen anywhere else?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
