Cognitive Dissonance

Mass Media - A problem?

So here we are, with the first real post of the blog.

I worked a panel discussion at IRCC today, in honor of our "international week." The topic of discussion was, supposedly, "Perceptions of the United States at Home and Abroad," or something to that effect. However, a majority of the 2 hour discussion centered around the employment and influence of media in this country, the positive and negative effects it has on our culture, and how it defines the perception of the US in other nations. It is from that talk that I will form the basis for my post here tonight.

Too many, too few?

One of the statements made during the panel was that the vast majority of American media is controlled by five companies. In my research, I was unable to corroborate that specific figure, but I did find an article from back in 2000 that gave an interesting picture on the media market on a global scale. I am certain that I remember at least one of those companies (Viacom) merging with another. Anyway, here is the point that we were discussing:

How can you really expect a news organization to be fair and balanced, when their existence depends on the satisfaction of their extremely large parent corporation?

You really can't. Corporations are motivated by profit. That is their function. Can you expect a newspaper that is owned by General Motors to publish a negative review of a GM car in their weekly "auto" feature? Even if the newspaper is not directly owned by GM, if a significant portion of advertising revenue comes from this source, can you expect them to publish a negative report on one of GM's new cars, even if it is justified. It just isn't feasable. "You don't bite the hand that feed's you."

The essential paradox
So, here we are at the root of the matter. We want independent reporting, but on the scale of CNN. To have such a market share as CNN does, one needs money. One obtains money from corporate advertising or ownership. However, as soon as one obtains such ownership, one's credibility is shot, assuming that the theory of an inherent predisposition to one's sponsors/owners is accurate. So, in order to avoid this "corporate taint," one refuses to accept advertising or ownership. One is then able to maintain an independent stance, however at the cost of market share. Indymedia (see link above) is (in my opinion) an excellent news source, but how many people honestly look to them for news? An incredibly miniscule amount, when compared to the number of people looking to CNN.

To end tonights waxing philosophic, I ask: How can this situation be resolved?

Next time: Media part II, are sitcoms and "reality shows" the soma of our times?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

Monday, March 14, 2005