I would like to express connection of some theories
mentioned in the Griffin’s chapter about exploring territory of communication which are well presented on the Internet.
Cybernetic
tradition is undoubtedly presented on
media communication where the editors choose how much and what kind of information will be presented. Similarly as within the example of small, regional televisions or newspapers, which influence only small
number of spectators, same principle works on the Internet. Small sites, small
blogs have little or none influence to society. As websites gets bigger they
can more easily affect masses on daily basis, even if the ideas that they
present is not exactly what would person look for, they will read it with more probability
on big sites than on smaller ones. That’s way the powerful websites can more
easily shake the attitudes and thoughts of masses than tiny blogs whit maybe
more valuable content.
A little, not really pleasant example could be
the difference in USA's biggest media’s, CNN website at the same time compared
to smaller, but still well known world media, Al jazeera.
It is quite obvious that the most people, consisting of audience of news seekers on these competitor's websites, had at the same day thought more about iPads, than about newly released footage of US’s faults in mistakenly killing reporters.
In this same example, there is also a connection to a Critical
tradition, where the change doesn’t come just from 'outcast-ed individuals' but also, these days, from a so-called
hive mind of virtually connected people, on social websites, which seems to be a powerful tool to deliver and back up maybe just a doubt or an attitude of an individual to a masses with the same, maybe yet unrealized same view of reality. On regard of the Egyptian uprising mainly allowed by Facebook.
Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-most-powerful-photos-of-2011
Critical theorists see the media as some kind of manipulator. But in fact, it is just a service that is delivered to people just because of the demand and numbness – masses of people want it. They want to see rather news about iPad than about some conflicts and faults their country has done. This idea was first expressed by Aldous Huxley:
Source: http://cinderellainrubbershoes.tumblr.com/post/7484031625
Critical theorists see the media as some kind of manipulator. But in fact, it is just a service that is delivered to people just because of the demand and numbness – masses of people want it. They want to see rather news about iPad than about some conflicts and faults their country has done. This idea was first expressed by Aldous Huxley:
I don't agree with your idea stated in the last paragraph about people preferring to read news about the iPad than about the US army's faults, even if its their country and even given that the US citizens are usually quite patriotic.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's not the citizen's fault that the media publish some news and no others, although of course we help that system to perpetuate by still buying certain papers or watching certain channels.
Whose fault is it, then?
In nowadays society, it's all about money. Money is what gives power. I remember I once read that in the US a journalist could criticize the president of the Republican Party or the president of the Democratic Party, but that he could never publish that a fly was found in a Coca Cola can.
So it’s the companies the ones who have more power. The media depend on publicity, so they need to keep the companies happy. Coca Cola means a big percentage of the incomes of the biggest media, and if those media published any news that means a negative publicity to the company, it would loose that percentage of its incomes.
In the case you present, the reason of the CNN publishing the news about the iPad and not about the US army may be more a case about making happy a big company like Apple by giving them free and positive publicity than about not wanting to offend the Government by giving them negative publicity.
Anyway, it’s also a form of manipulation of the public opinion: the one that rules in “democratic” countries.
Well, your arguments sound reasonable. I even have to back you up by FreePress initiative which has a goal to reform nowadays media. On their website, they have a list of biggest companies owning nearly all of US media: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
ReplyDeleteI should state, that even we are not in US, I believe Europe is lead by US trends in many areas, especially in media.
Hopefully, numbness and not caring about what we are served in media is going to change.
I think that internet is helping us to be not manipulated, because when we have some doubts about what we are reading we can read another sources, newspapers, blogs with opinions of another people. But on the other hand it waste a lot of time and I think a lot of people after work are very tired and they want to read only some short messages, watch news...so there is not so much space for reading more sources, but at least there is this opportunity, and it is very good. Without internet, I think that there would be very difficult to get right opinions. I can't imagine to get information without opportunity to verify it.
ReplyDelete