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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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