Isabelle Rigoni's article on Muslim media bugged me. In fact, it really, really bugged me.
Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.
Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.
Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.
I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...
I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".
My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.
Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Actually, I think having only ONE agenda, the government's agenda, is even scarier. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is sometimes uncomfortable to hear a minority group advocate strongly for a position you completely disagree with. But the remedy for objectionable speech is MORE speech--not less.
Just a thought....
You speak of ONE agenda as if the government is the only body capable of corruptibility through power.
My scary thought is the media being corrupt because of the power carried with it, and the media jading the message for everyone and no one suspecting that the media is the one that is messed up.
Post a Comment