Monday, June 15, 2009

Who Is Telling You Your Opinion?


If you are Canadian, then chances are you are getting your information about your community, nation, and the world from one of a small handful of media conglomerates. This is true for newspapers, television, radio, and increasingly internet, and these various forms of media are often all under the control of one company. This kind of oligarchical control over the information that Canadians receive is unacceptable - there have been a plethora of stories (usually printed by a rival conglomerate) about the centralized owners of a media chain interfering in the editorial independence of journalists. This has taken the form of everything from issuing stories 'of national interest' that local papers must run, a relatively benign event, to killing stories attempting to expose Jean Chretien's involvement in corruption, and subsequently firing the journalist responsible for the story, for supposedly unrelated reasons. This type of undemocratic influence rips at the very heart of journalism's supposed role as an unbiased source of information.

In a democracy, the principle of an informed citizenry is key to allowing elected officials to be held accountable for their actions, and for keeping important and unresolved issues at the forefront of the social imagination. The concentration of media ownership which has occurred over the past three decades has served to limit the number of choices Canadians can make for their news. In addition, those sources that remain are increasingly accountable to anonymous shareholders, forced to prioritize a profit above their responsibility to report in an unbiased and accurate manner. This is not suggesting that media companies have were not interested in profit in the past - rather, it seems that the balance of power has swung away from principled editors and toward amoral owners and investors, to the detriment of the wider public.

Coupled with the shifts toward fewer news sources presenting fewer opinions, and the power shift toward self-interested capital at the expense of principles, has come the misguided belief that the public should in some way be consulted about what news is presented to them. This misguided notion has resulted in the extensive use of polls and ratings micromanagement. This is especially unfortunate in light of the fact that polling reliability is being called into question. Again, by no means have media ever operated in a vacuum, separate from the wants of the public they serve. However, an unfortunate side effect of the modern media corporation's propensity to worship at the altar of public opinion is the distortion of news media into a new breed of "info-tainment". This new species of media passing itself off as news is more likely to dedicate air-time or page-length to celebrity gossip and prolonged scandals than it is to less popular, though still vital, issues such as campaign finance reform.

Another problem facing the profit-driven, consumer-generated media choices being presented is that they are invariably the most violent and sensationalized stories from around the world, selected more for their shock value (and subsequently their ratings value, and subsequently their advertising dollar pull) than for their intrinsic worth as news. While unfortunate that humans are drawn to extreme violence, it is more unfortunate how modern media cater to these tastes like never before. This can help explain why heavy media consumers overestimate their likelihood of being involved in violence, why they experience higher levels of anxiety, and why they are more likely to behave in antisocial ways toward others. There are, of course, other studies which deny that violent media have a negative effect on viewers.
Since there are fewer voices presenting fewer issues, focusing increasingly on titillating our basest fascinations, there is a dearth of stories Canadians need to hear - such as the issue of media concentration.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

5 comments:

The media's role is increasingly becoming similar to that of a circus unfortunately. There appears to be little resistance to this. Whereas in the past media may have been kept on its toes by the more discerning members of society, such people today are easily able to find better options than mainstream media sources. Thus abandoning the less fortunate members of society to drown in the puddle of banality that is fox news/cnn etc.

I will segue into your rant with one of my own...

I personally blame the 24 hour newscycle for the skewing of any rational prioritizing to what is deamed newsworthy or " Breaking News"
When I grew up ( 70's early 80's ) " Breaking News" - as in "We now interupt this broadcast for...news that the President got shot or the war ended or something IMPORTANT not "Brittany has left the hospital in a powder blue SUV"

I think was the beggining of the mess we have today. News now has to bigger!!! and better!!! and scarier!!! for ratings and market share.

You are right that it has had a detrimental effect on the quality of news and what is deamed headline worthy BUT I don't think it is the great evil cabal that it is often made out to be.

There are a lot of sane voices out there- you just have to know where to find them. I read/ follow columnists from the "left" and the "right" And interestingly enough my favourite left winger is published in the right leaning Post and "right winger" is a regular on CBC. So there is still some diversification through out media- I still find myself impressed by the opinions that columnists put out there. I may not agree with them, but I give them and their editors credit having the "Cahonies" to put ideas out there that are guaranteed to piss off at least half their reader/listenership.

I know it's not a good thing to have so much "power" in so few hands, but I don't think hopelessly corrupt either.
If anything thing, we now have unprecidented access to a wider range of media than ever before- My dad in Burlington reads the newspaper on line every morning - it's published in Roskilde, Denmark.

I don't know who ownes it though....;)

@cw_addie - it's certainly true that many self-proclaimed anarchists subscribe to conspiracy theories. however, more moderate anarchists, and socially aware citizens in general, can agree on a wide range of topics regarding the oppression of the environment, human rights, and freedom in the name of corporate profits.

@Marcus - While the notion of a two-tier society (those with the self-respect to seek out reputable news sources and those unable to discern between 'The Daily Show' and 'Morning Joe Brewed By Starbucks' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/morning-joe-now-brewed-by_n_209797.html) appeals to many, is there not a responsibility shared within a society to place limits upon the depths to which newsmedia can sink? After all, how many families have the time or inclination to sift through various news sources, tracking down those that are more legitimate and weeding out those whose independence is marred by their relationships to corporate sponsors. Something tells me Morning Joe will never do a story on fair trade coffee or the inherent waste of disposable paper/plastic cups rampant in the coffee industry...

@Carol Nasvytis - I have to agree with you that the pressure to constantly produce critically important news updates around the clock does not bode well for the industry - it cheapens the use of "breaking news" coverage and further desensitizes the public, making it harder to tell what is important news and just filler. I am also somewhat skeptical about the idea of a cabal of news organizations working together to control what news is heard - but within each conglomerate, there is definitely a pressure to conform to the company's position on certain issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed). Lastly, the internet has certainly opened up a vast array of choices about where to get information about the world. Yet this is somewhat restricted to those with access to the internet (less of an issue in Canada than elsewhere), and is increasingly under threat from the corporatization of the web (http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2005/08/cause-for-concern-corporatization-of.html).

@cw_addie- I have to agree the spectacle mongering practiced by many counter-culture "conspiracists" is as abhorrent as the entertainment news; however, there are several documented instances that bring to light the death grip conglomerates have on the information that reaches are weary ears. Here is a link to a segment of video from the movie "The Corporation", a Canadian documentary that brings to light some significant problems our society faces (admittedly with an anti-corporate bias it does showcase both sides of the argument). This particular clip gives us primary source details on a scandalous mishap involving Fox News and our stalwart friends to humanity Monsanto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0

Post a Comment