Maybe it is the lack of diversity of media opinions that bothers me. Maybe it is the control that each media corporation dictates on what is news and what isn't.
Moyers says on page 221: "So what must we devise to make the media safe for individuals stubborn about protecting freedom and serving the truth? And what do we all -- educators, administrators, legislators, and agitators-- need to do to restore the disappearing diversity of media opinions?"
It is true that the amount of media opinion is much smaller. Here's why: Media opinion attached to big corporation means that local news stations cannot just be local news stations. They have to be subordinate to the larger conglomerate, let's use Fox News as an example.
When something happens around the country, the news stations locally act for the national news. Basically, the local is removed as we are all thrown onto the national scene, constantly.
Multiply this by many media stations, divided it by the amount of substations, and square the amount of total national stations, and that equals a complete lack of diversity.
Random diversity is completely necessary for democracy to occur. Random occurrences are also necessary as well.
If all the media in the country all are subordinate to one type of opinion "from the top", how is that helping democracy?
It is easy for us to sit here in a graduate class and philosophically discuss the first amendment and whether we believe in it, however the strange reality is the amendment meant to protect us is quickly turning into something that it isn't, or something that won't exist soon.
Bottom line, I don't want to see the same story on CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC. I want to see differences and competition, not just cheap policing of each other like a bunch of elementary school kids. (O'Reilly said this or Couric said that type stories)
This country needs opinion diversity or the First Amendment will die.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree that any country needs opinion diversity. I consider that the pluralism and the freedom of individual choice must be a value and a constant of democratic societies. I share the point of view of Bill Moyers who said: „Free and responsible government by popular consent can not exist without an informed public”. (216)
Nowadays, I noticed in USA, as in Romania, that the information presented, by different channels of mass media, is the same. In this way the public opinion has not the possibility to have a real choice. The democracy can not exist without a well informed public, without pluralism of opinions.
Maria Iova
An example of this type media consolidation happened in my home city of Danbury. The News-Times was purchased by the Connecticut Post. As a result, local coverage has definitely suffered.
To fill some empty space a few months ago, they ran a feature about 9 teachers in a Bridgeport school that got pregnant at the same time. Cute story, but not of interest to anyone in UPPER Fairfield County.
The Hartford Courant barely knows this part of the state exists, so Danburians are left with the local bloggers. Some of them aren't bad, but the better ones are blatantly partisan.
Despite all the "choices," it does seem that major news outlets all seem to cover the same stuff. Honestly, I don't even watch TV news anymore. I mostly get my news from newspapers, (online and paper copies), radio, and news magazines.
I do agree with a lot of what Bill Moyers has to say, but I feel that the news network might be a lost cost. The last bastion we have is the internet. Yes, there are some wacko's out there posting their daily blogs, while drinking their mochachino non-fat latte. But a good chunk of hard core investigative scoops pops up under the main stream radar.
While the main stream media is too hung up on Glamour of a politician the real news is present on the information super highway.
Bill Mayer (the comedian) on the Barack Obama flag pin controversy.
"Another, in a series of bull-shit non-stories, that have zero effect on the Troops, the war, or anything else in the real world. Or as FOX News calls it- "Breaking News".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299439,00.html
Apparently Fox News was not the only media outlet that thought the story newsworthy, nor were they the first major television network to address it. If you watch the clip of Dick Morris (no friend of Obama or Clinton) even HE says it’s not a big deal.
Bill Maher is funny and I enjoy watching him occasionally, but I’m not sure he took aim at the correct target this time.
Click here for the Fox News/ Dick Morris interview on the subject with Alan Colmes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299439,00.html
and check out MSNBC and the AP article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkfaEohqv6mY_K46tJ4waCivh0kAD8S2K3UO0
"The First Amendment"
In this political atmosphere we're in The First Amendment has been challenged many times.
I agree with Moyers to defend the rights given every U.S. citizen. I remember the uproar brought on by Natalie Maine of the Dixie Chicks.
Her statements about President Bush almost destroyed her career. It is a sad state of affairs when mass media continues to be run by corporations.
And let's not forget about the McCarthyism era when censorship was at its worse.
As usual we are subjected to whatever news the gatekeepers feel we should be privy too.
Should we believe in The First Amendment? Yes,but more importantly we should believe in the freedom of our press to provide the public with fair and balanced reporting without interference.
I firmly believe that a lack of opinion diversity can open the door for reckless use of the First Amendment. I find it unfortunate that my hometown newspaper, The Hartford Courant, is really the only game in town. The pillars of The Hartford Times building still gleam, but gone are the days when it was there to provide a little friendly competition to the Courant. No one to provide a real challenge to its editorial opinions, no Pro-Yankees sports columnist to challenge the Courant's Pro-Red Sox columnist, and nothing to really light a fire under them to be the best paper they can be. Competition brings out the best in every player in every industry. If there was another large newspaper in Hartford, they might work a little harder to dig deep and get the stories in areas, like Lori mentioned, that are often forgotten.
I agree that there is a huge lack of diversity, especially on slow news days. But in reality, the national news should be mixed in with the local news. People are always in their routines, watching their news station and if there is no national news on their local news, they will not here about it. I agree that the issue is that the news is the same on all stations. It should not be this way, however americans dont want to work, we are lazy. If it isnt right there in front of us, we wont try to get to it. We rely on the news stations to give us the news, we shouldnt have to go searching for it.
I agree that the lack of diversity is killing the first ammendment. I think that if things progress the way they are the news that we get will be through one corporation.
I think the thing that bothers me most about the news that we recieve today is that it comes from a corporation whether it be tv news, online news, or a newspaper. I feel as though I don't trust the news as much from a large corporation because I feel that it might be a bit biased. In this sense I feel like we might have already lost the first ammendment because news is corporate and things might not be available to the public because it has been silenced because it effects this corporation or its sponsors.
Another thing that bothers me about the media is I never feel like I get the whole story, especially with the war in Iraq, I mean I never really feel like this is why this is happening. And the stories that I do read are very brief, I just feel as though the media has been shut out of the truth and it has essentially made the first ammendment in this case not existent.
I agree with Moyers when he says, "It's a reality: democracy can't exist without an informed public," (p.216). The First Amendment was designed to have citizens be able to speak freely about the government and our forebears believed that if citizens were free to criticize the government for its failures, voters would be well-informed.
I think we should still believe in the First Amendment, but to an extent. I think that if you are going to say something in public that may be offensive to certain racial groups or religious groups, freedom of speech should be censored or restricted. But then again it shouldn't be, becuase it would basically be de-synthesizing the whole purpose of the First Amendment.
But then how could controversial radio personality Don Imus be fired for a racist remark? He was just using his right to say what he wants and it's not the first time he has ever said degrading remarks before; that was the staple of his show, people expected this from him. Or take for instance the Dixi Chicks when people became so upset about the lead singer criticizing Bush, and people burned and destroyed their CD's, etc. Imus and the Dixie Chicks, were just excersing their right to freedom of speech and so were those people who were outraged. You may not agree with what they said or did, but it was their legal right.
Post a Comment