Media juggernauts are buying other media outlets, a process known as media consolidation; this consolidation and convergence of the media is creating a mass movement among our media driven lifestyle. This process is affecting how we receive and interpret the news and may even effect the news itself, in regards to what is being reported on and the amount of coverage a particular topic is granted. Today, six companies and a handful of CEO’s are in control of the news. The big six includes names such as The Walt Disney Company, General Electric, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom and the CBS Corporation. All of these companies turn over billions of dollars in profit each year, allowing them the funds to purchase a large amount of media sources. The largest profit is turned by General Electric, who in 2008, grossed $183 billion dollars. General Electric holds control over “television networks NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks MSNBC, Bravo and the Sci-Fi Channel. General Electric also owns 80 percent of NBC Universal (Freepress.net)”. But the most impressive in terms of directly influencing the news is News Corp. News Corp controls the Fox Broadcasting Company, television and cable networks such as Fox, Fox Business Channel, National Geographic and FX, and print publications including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, TV Guide, the magazines Barron’s, SmartMoney and The Weekly Standard, book publisher HarperCollins, film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios, and numerous Web sites including MarketWatch.com(Freepress.net)”. It is the staggering amount of media that is controlled by these companies and corporations that make others feel nervous or uneasy, simply because these corporations themselves are being the media.
The overwhelming question is, how much influence in the media do we consider to be too much and at what point does this influence become hazardous to the media itself and detrimental to our overall media lifestyle? The answer is not a clear cut one, the lines are still blurry, but we know through our own experiences that when too much power is put in the hands of a select few, it can easily be abused. Surely the idea of consolidation isn’t a negative one; the concept of combining media houses should make the news more reliable, more easily accessible, and more accurate but the same powers can be used for more sinister purposes. These media giants have more leeway to skew the facts, neglect certain stories and topics and over all just narrow the scope of the news covered by eating up more and more sources for the news, this kills media diversity. When the media is less diverse and all major news networks and publications are owned by one of the companies above, the likely hood of deception is more easily executed. In upcoming elections these companies & corporations could potentially poor millions of dollars into add campaigns, through this political saturation spread throughout various outlets, these companies could have an usual amount of influence over our public elections in the future. The problems of media consolidation will become ever clearer in the coming decade, when more and more media is converged into each other, creating a one way news flow.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Article Critique
Fox News has a reputation that I will not start to delve into, but for this assignment I figured I would step out of my normal news circuit, CNN and the New York Times, and critique the infamous Fox News and see exactly what all the fuss is about. I choose this particular article because the headline 'Blame Bush' Strategy Wears Thin as Obama Enters Second Year’,caught my eye and my interest. I like reading about politics so I figured why not.
First I must give kudos to the headline because upon first glance it causes one of two reactions; either you are instantly enraged by it because you support President Obama and you believe he is not making an excuse or you feel proud that Fox News is calling for real action instead of allowing this excuse to suffice. Either way it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as the headline roped you in. Frankly, opinions change from news outlet to news outlet, what seems to matter most is the audience, and the headline is the first device a journalist can employ to catch one. It’s not the most glittery or provocative headline but I think it accomplishes what it needs too.
Now with all that said, I do think the article was a bit bias against President Obama. The article quotes two Republicans, and both make strong statements against the President. The article quotes former Rep. Tom Davis former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, who goes on the say "What you have the last two cycles is the angry voters, the ones most motivated to turn out, were Democrats, who did not like Bush. They didn't like his policies ... You saw it, what we call the surge voters, Bush is gone now -- they're all asleep." This quote implies a lot, first it implies that President Obama was just elected because people didn’t like Bush, which to some degree is true but I don’t think it would be fair to say this as an all encompassing statement. President Obama was elected because the people supported him not because we hated bush. This, in turn, connects to the theme of this article itself. Fox News is trying to criticize President Obama for blaming his problems on former president bush but they are similarly blaming his election on the former President as well. The connection may not be a direct one but I just found it interesting that Fox News would criticize President Obama for blaming bush when they themselves blamed Bush for President Obama’s election. It seems a little hypocritical that they condemn the “blame Bush” excuse and then they themselves use a quote as evidence but it implies that they are blaming bush as well.
I thought the flow of the article was consistent and the whole story meshed together quite well. There is definitely a sense of voice but I found it to be somewhat bogged down at times, like you felt what the author was trying to convey but at times it just felt like empty words strung together to form a sentence. I guess my problem is that this piece is not based in fact but more opinion based. All in all the article is interesting to read, even though it feels somewhat unbalanced in regards to accuracy and opinion.
Full Article Found at.....
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-blaming-bush-president-enters-second-year/)
First I must give kudos to the headline because upon first glance it causes one of two reactions; either you are instantly enraged by it because you support President Obama and you believe he is not making an excuse or you feel proud that Fox News is calling for real action instead of allowing this excuse to suffice. Either way it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as the headline roped you in. Frankly, opinions change from news outlet to news outlet, what seems to matter most is the audience, and the headline is the first device a journalist can employ to catch one. It’s not the most glittery or provocative headline but I think it accomplishes what it needs too.
Now with all that said, I do think the article was a bit bias against President Obama. The article quotes two Republicans, and both make strong statements against the President. The article quotes former Rep. Tom Davis former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, who goes on the say "What you have the last two cycles is the angry voters, the ones most motivated to turn out, were Democrats, who did not like Bush. They didn't like his policies ... You saw it, what we call the surge voters, Bush is gone now -- they're all asleep." This quote implies a lot, first it implies that President Obama was just elected because people didn’t like Bush, which to some degree is true but I don’t think it would be fair to say this as an all encompassing statement. President Obama was elected because the people supported him not because we hated bush. This, in turn, connects to the theme of this article itself. Fox News is trying to criticize President Obama for blaming his problems on former president bush but they are similarly blaming his election on the former President as well. The connection may not be a direct one but I just found it interesting that Fox News would criticize President Obama for blaming bush when they themselves blamed Bush for President Obama’s election. It seems a little hypocritical that they condemn the “blame Bush” excuse and then they themselves use a quote as evidence but it implies that they are blaming bush as well.
I thought the flow of the article was consistent and the whole story meshed together quite well. There is definitely a sense of voice but I found it to be somewhat bogged down at times, like you felt what the author was trying to convey but at times it just felt like empty words strung together to form a sentence. I guess my problem is that this piece is not based in fact but more opinion based. All in all the article is interesting to read, even though it feels somewhat unbalanced in regards to accuracy and opinion.
Full Article Found at.....
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-blaming-bush-president-enters-second-year/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
