Rich media, poor democracy

C

Challenger78

Valued Senior Member
I've only finished chapter 1 and I recommend this book to anyone interested in the media, and the fate of democracy.

Heres a brief summary:
Robert McChesney argues that the media, far from providing a bedrock for freedom and democracy, have become a significant antidemocratic force in the United States and, to varying degrees, worldwide. Rich Media, Poor Democracy addresses the corporate media explosion and the corresponding implosion of public life that characterizes our times. Challenging the assumption that a society drenched in commercial information "choices" is ipso facto a democratic one, McChesney argues that the major beneficiaries of the so-called Information Age are wealthy investors, advertisers, and a handful of enormous media, computer, and telecommunications corporations.
Click to expand...

From:http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/22qxm7kq9780252024481.html

In my opinion, It's a must read for anyone who wants to know where the true power lies. Not really simple language though, but simple enough for anyone with CT skills.
 
That actually sounds interesting, I'll be sure to read it sometime. :)

Meanwhile, I am watching the elections and deciding the lesser of two evils. I feel so helpless right now.
 
umm challanger you do realise that the ABC has a legislative requirement to be impartial dont you?
 
Fox, NBC, CNN....all bias. Fox is generally more conservative bias; n.b. I think that is why Sandy referenced anti-liberal stuff from there. NBC tends to lean more conservative as well and CNN is certainly liberal.
 
challanger is right, the only unbiased sorce is CNNNNNN (is that the right number of N's?):p:p:p
 
Asguard said:
umm challanger you do realise that the ABC has a legislative requirement to be impartial dont you?
Click to expand...

We might be luckier than the yanks, thank god we have media watch. However, Even they have their own interests. But for the moment, I trust only SBS and ABC not because they're owned by the government, but because they do have some good stuff. (But, As Mcheseny points out, good stuff is needed for profit.)

Asguard said:
challanger is right, the only unbiased sorce is CNNNNNN (is that the right number of N's?)
Click to expand...

Yes :p

That's hosted on ABC, ironically, the government wanted to charge them..!.
Chaser's coming back in 2009.
Wohooo!.
 
All television stations are biased and give their own "spin" to things the way they want to show it. They tell you what THEY want you to know not what you NEED to know. :mad:
 
Just ask yourself next time you watch the news: ask not what is there but ask what information is missing.
 
CatherineW said:
The internet is a form of media, apparently you trust that.
Click to expand...

No actually.
The lack of public discussion, and the increasing propensity to censor the internet, see http://nocleanfeed.com, makes me disinclined to trust the internet.

Adding to that, (despite the fact I have one of my own) are blogs. News can be picked up from an irreputable source, and spread. Allowing someone to do something stupid, and make real news.

However, the breadth and spread of the internet ensure that to effectively muzzle a view or to spin something, It would take a lot more effort to convince millions, than to convince a few editors in newspapers and TV stations.
 
Asguard said:
umm challanger you do realise that the ABC has a legislative requirement to be impartial dont you?
Click to expand...

I think its great that a state sponsored tv station can (and does) take the elected govt to task...bite the hand that feeds it! It and SBS are the mainstay of TV watching IMO, the rest is mostly unmitigated, unashamed CRAP.
Back to topic, the media generally does wield too much power of persuasion, and keeping newspaper and TV corporate ownership in limited hands is not conducive to democracy.
 
Challenger78 said:
No actually.
The lack of public discussion, and the increasing propensity to censor the internet, see [LINK] makes me disinclined to trust the internet.

Adding to that, (despite the fact I have one of my own) are blogs. News can be picked up from an irreputable source, and spread. Allowing someone to do something stupid, and make real news.

However, the breadth and spread of the internet ensure that to effectively muzzle a view or to spin something, It would take a lot more effort to convince millions, than to convince a few editors in newspapers and TV stations.
Click to expand...

But you're putting your views and opinions across on a forum, what's the difference between writing them on here and putting them on a blog? :shrug:
 
CatherineW said:
But you're putting your views and opinions across on a forum, what's the difference between writing them on here and putting them on a blog? :shrug:
Click to expand...

not much, true. But all information sources suffer different forms of scrutiny. Forums tend to suffer more than blogs, because they have a wider variety of opinion/discussion.

Blogs, usually have a dedicated fan base/regular readers, who become used to the style of the blog. forums always have new readers.
 
Bricoleur said:
I think its great that a state sponsored tv station can (and does) take the elected govt to task...bite the hand that feeds it! It and SBS are the mainstay of TV watching IMO, the rest is mostly unmitigated, unashamed CRAP.
Back to topic, the media generally does wield too much power of persuasion, and keeping newspaper and TV corporate ownership in limited hands is not conducive to democracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was puzzled when Asguard pointed that out.
More frightening, is cross ownership of media industries , allowing a company to blanket an area with one type of line/information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top