The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Media conglomerates - how much do they control?

Media conglomerates - how much do they control?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Media conglomerates have unprecedented power, owning press and television, book publishing, film production, and databases. They provide a virtual world of the 'eternal present,' as Time magazine called it: politics by media, war by media, justice by media, and even grief by media (Princess Diana). So, how free is our thinking?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 November 2007 6:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy asks "How much do they control?"

EVVVVVERYTHING foxy :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 November 2007 12:12:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I find troublesome is pseudo information. Consigning to oblivion unacceptable truths. Dissent is permissable within "consensual" boundaries, reinforcing the illusion that information and speech are "free."
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 16 November 2007 8:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz
Not Evvverything, you missed something.
There is one exception. That is Media itself.
Doesn't control media.
Posted by Angela84, Saturday, 17 November 2007 12:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy and Angela.

Well.. both your points seem valid.

I don't think we can ever escape the following:

1/ Commercial media seeks to promote political ideas. Activly by putting foward stories and themes which support them, or.. passivly by simply ignoring alternative views.

2/ Government/Independant media inevitably become the battle ground of the same political interests persued by the commercials.

GENERAL. When one conglomerate becomes HUGE, such as NEWSCORP the power they wield must be tantalizing... they could crucify a local political identity on a world wide basis. They could then, USE that power to intimidate any person in the world who took a contrary line, by threatening to do the same hatchet job on THEM.....

To the extent that they promote values I support, I guess I don't worry too much, but it's rathe scary to think that they could suddenly depart from 'planet Boaz' and begin a campaign of 'religious vilfication' against ordinary Christians "They drink blood and eat babies" was the kind of 'media output' during the early Church's life.

That had the impact of us being fed to the wild beasts and ripped limb from limb for the sporting pleasure of the general population.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 November 2007 6:01:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Conspiracy theories are such fun, aren't they?

Unfortunately, the saddest fact is that the media simply reflects us, back to ourselves.

If they don't provide what we want, they don't survive. Control doesn't come into it, except at the level that we want to be controlled.

A surprising number of people want to be told what to do by some form of authority figure - hence the popularity of religions - and the media just happens to be the most accessible form of that "authority".

But it is always comforting to think that there's someone out there who is to blame for all the things that go on around us that we don't like, isn't it?
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 17 November 2007 10:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Overall, I've got to concur with pericles.

The media is a mirror. Sure, it distorts the image sometimes, but it's always in pursuit of profit, not an ulterior motive by the moguls.

People always complain that vacuous matters like celebrities and sex are too often covered in the media instead of worthwhile things.

Well, tough. If you really want to do your bit to improve the quality of media, the answer is simple. Consume better media and persuade your friends to do likewise. Gossip news only exists because people like reading it.

The lowest common denominator is at the core of this issue, not some shadowy mogul.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 17 November 2007 11:21:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm talking about the transnational media corporations, American and European, that own or manage the world's principal sources of news and information. They have transformed much of the 'information society' into a media age where extraordinary technology allows the incessant repetition of politically 'safe' information that is acceptable to the 'nation builders.' The 'quad' dominating the World Trade Organisation (the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan) and the Washington Triumvirate (the World Bank, the IMF and the US Treasury) that controls even minute aspects of government policy in developing countries.

In the West, we are trained to view other societies in terms of their usefulness or threat to 'us' and regard 'cultural' differences as more important than the political and economic forces by which we judge ourselves.

Those with unprecedented resources to understand this, including many who teach and research in the great universities, suppress their knowledge publicly.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 17 November 2007 1:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one of my favorite examples of media control is this:

twice, smh published letters from readers who referred to lincoln's famous lines from the gettysburgh address.

each time, the writer quoted lincoln as saying: "of the people, for the people." each time, the editor made no note that what lincoln had actually said was: "of the people, by the people, for the people."

this, in microcosm, is why ozzies imagine they live in a democracy. contrary evidence is edited out. media, academe, and politicians continually assert that oz is a democracy, and the whole nation lives in a psychotic fantasy. most ozzies hear the story of the emperor's new clothes, most are exposed to '1984', but none realize they are living proof that reality is what they are told to believe.
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 17 November 2007 1:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The funny thing about the words "conspiracy" and "theory" is that they are always used together.

However, as soon as there is just one piece of evidence to challenge an official version, it's no longer a "theory" but becomes a "possibility", no matter how remote.

Of course the media is there to control society and protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful. It has it's own agenda, whether it's the SMH, The Washington Post, Fox, CNN or Pravda.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 18 November 2007 1:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirror....or Director?

Yes.. interesting question... perhaps a bit chicken and egg...

Considering that the Media is also 'commercial' we have to factor that into the mix.

There are ways to present facts, and also there is the frequency, the selection... emPHAsis..etc...

Considering Cronulla as a close to home example it should be clear to all that the Media is both mirror AND director.

When ratings and circulation is slow..... do they look for stories of a controversial nature, then promote them... yes of course they do.

It cannot be argued that this does not reinforce public opinion, and even shape it.
Todays 'ill feeling' could be tomorrows stone throwing radical, given enough media fuel.

Never forget the profit motive.

-Sex sells.
-Violence sells.
-Tragedy sells.

A report on who won at lawn bowls last saturday.......nope..it doesn't sell.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 18 November 2007 5:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My vote goes for directing rather than mirroring:

It is not necessary to believe that media figures get together in backrooms & conspire to doctor stories. Rather it is more likely is that many of the educational institutions through which journalists/commentators pass have particular leanings.

And these leanings show up later in the way many important issues are presented by main stream media:
-Global warming coverage is largely sensationalised & one-sided
-Iraq coverage is largely negative & one dimensional.
-Refugee stories are largely copied verbatim from press releases issued by advocacy groups.
-And if its a case of reporting on Pauline Hanson or Dr James Watson the story will be, 100 reasons why the public should not hear what they had to say
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 18 November 2007 7:14:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus -

If the academic establishment causes too many journalists to become left wing, then why are most of the complaints about these media organisations that they're too right wing?

If it's not people complaining about a liberal media, it's people complaining about a right wing media. If it's not people complaining about a right wing media, it's people complaining about a profit driven media. If it's not people complaining about a profit driven media, it's people complaining about the media seeking the lowest common denominator. If it's not people complaining about the media seeking the lowest common denominator, it's people complaining about incompetent coverage. If it's not people complaining about incompetent coverage, it's people complaining about one-sided coverage.

At the end of the day? People complain because everyone has a different idea of what the media should be, so it can't always tell them what they want to hear in the way they want to hear it.

As far as Pauline Hanson goes Horus, she does a fine job of showing why the public shouldn't listen all by herself.
Yet she gets plenty of coverage? So who's at fault?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 18 November 2007 12:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And to further illustrate that point: how often have you heard:

Damn The Australian! They're too right wing!
Damn The Age! They're too left wing!
Damn the Herald Sun! They're too right wing!
Damn the Sydney Morning Herald! They're too left wing!
Damn Alan Jones! He's too right wing!
Damn Mike Carlton! He's too left wing!
Damn Fox News! It's too right wing!
Damn the ABC! It's too left wing!

Puh-leese.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 18 November 2007 12:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
True enough, you get those with an axe to grind from all shades of the political spectrum, regularly complaining that one media outlet is too far lefty or right.

But a better measure of the ‘bias’ of the media would be to gauge what the grassroots’ population
(the usually non-political) ‘believe’ on key issues. Given that the majority have no direct experience with issues such as Iraq, US Immigrations Law, The Arab –Israel conflict or culpability for climate change – it is highly likely their opinions are moulded by the (local) media –and if the grassroots’ views on such issues tend to fall left of centre, what does that say (?) (i) the left has better story ,or (ii) it gets more/more sympathetic air time (?)

I am not a great fan of Pauline Hanson my self, but, I am critical of the way she was set up by the press (i.e. the style of questioning).And, a typical coverage of a Hanson speech would run 30+ lines of the journalist telling us what s/her though of the issue, with a two line paraphrase of what Hanson actually said, starting on line 31-if we were lucky . It was amazing the number of people who could tell me she was racist, without knowing what she actually said –it seems they had been spoon-fed their views with their breakfast cereal……
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 18 November 2007 3:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pauline Hanson is an excellent example of the power of the media.

She - a political and social nobody - was virtually contructed by and for the media and promoted as some sort of messiah for the voice of "real Australians". A sort of Australian Idol media invention.

They made money out of her party's so-called manifesto, then out of her personal life. Later they made money from her legal problems and again when she was released from prison.

Her manufactured celebrity status was then used to promote an amateur dancing TV programme and now she's poised to squeeze a bit more personal cash out of the voting taxpayer. All she's done is cross-out the word "Asians" and replace it with in "Muslims" (or "Sudanese" as required).

She hasn't got much coverage this time around because nobody's really interested in what she's got to say anymore (Howard reclaimed her reactionary disgrunted powerbase) and there are more saleable topics out there to keep us enthralled.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 19 November 2007 12:01:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus... you make quite a good point about the basic level of political awareness being shaped by the media, even if there are left and right organisations... I guess we're talking about where the centre now lies.

I find it interesting you think that centre point has shifted to the left and that the media tends to be a liberal organisation.

From my view, I'd agree that there's been a shift, though I tend to think it's the opposite direction, and how much of that is actually a manipulation on behalf of the media magnates is open to interpretation.

From my point of view, there has been a shift in the base point of politics, but it has been to the right.
For instance, in Europe we still have nominally socialist government such as Spain, and countries such as France are still more left leaning than Australia.
Yet in all the western world, the shift is toward a privatised, more right wing model. How often do you actually hear genuinely left wing views on economic issues in Australian media being given much credence?
I'd put it to you that there has been an overwhelming shift toward free market tendencies, and now that it's started it drives itself, via the media.
In relation to social issues, I think that's an issue that swings like a pendulum. I tend to think we're living in a pretty right wing country, as evidenced by the rebranding of multiculturalism to citizenship, as well as issues like Tampa, Nauru and Villawood.

Inrelation to the economic side, I suppose the simple answer is to lay it all at the feet of multinationals and the influence they exert via the power of advertising... fair enough I suppose, though again, I don't see this as something where a media mogul has sat back and made a conscious decision - perhaps in relation to certain advertising clients, yes, but not as a concerted direction.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still on the topic of controlling vs. reflecting.

How many people choose to read a newspaper or watch a news program that displays an ideology with which they disagree?

Would you find dyed-in-the-wool liberals reading a Murdoch paper, or a Pauline Hanson supporter reading the op-ed pages of The Age?

We are fed the material that the proprietors know will keep us buying their titles. To suggest that there is an editorial conspiracy to lead our thinking down a particular path, away from our comfort zone and into new territory, is a little fanciful. To further suggest that this is a means of subtle thought-control is, in my view, just a couple of steps too far.

Marketing companies are active 24/7 tracking the mood of the people, and selling the results to a broad range of businesses, amongst whom are newspapers. All major businesses - those that provide to the mass consumer market - don't think of us as people at all, simply a statistic. When sufficient of us statistics begin to sway in a particular direction - whammo, the product will change to reflect the shift.

A classic example of this was the claim by the Sun newspaper in the UK that their editorial shift from Tory to Labour brought about Blair's election win in 1997 - their headline even boasted "It was the Sun wot dunnit!"

Here's another angle on the story from Peter Mylan:

"In the UK, for example, the Sun likes to claim that it wins elections, and that the major reason Blair got elected in 1997 was because it woz the Sun wot dunnit. But I recall at the time that many commentators saw the Sun's support of Blair as inevitable, given that (a) their readership had already decided to vote that way, and (b) their Australian-American proprietor wasn't about to have his papers back a losing horse."

It is certainly not as exciting as a conspiracy, but, I think, more convincing a story.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:49:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually pericles, I like to think I'm reasonably near the centre but definitely on the left side, but I find most of the 'left wing' papers a bit insipid. I very rarely read The Age or the SMH, preferring The Australian over either.

I must admit I do prefer the ABC to the other netowrks, but I'd still say that's an issue of superior quality not political direction, though no doubt many of the hardcore anti-ABC right wingers would disagree.

Fair enough, plenty of people do just choose media they can barrack for (enter Alan Jones) though I think the quality, or perhaps I should rephrase that as content, angle is just as important.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy