Who determines the news or sets the agenda?
Wouldn’t it be great if anyone would be apart of owning a news broadcast channel, station, or publisher. Then anyone and everyone would be equally heard and the amount of media coverage and diversification of news throughout the nation would be determined by their local stations, and there wouldn’t be some sort of conspiracy of big business to keep certain things from being seen in the news. The news use to be like this, where the mass media was made up of thousands of local stations, publishing companies, and channels…that was until corporations began merging with each other and forming mega corporations that were then buying up all small broadcasting stations which has now created this since of nationwide news controlled by a select few who run these mega corps.
Why do we need a media that specifically represents difference interests of people of color? Aren’t those interests everyone’s interests? What can be done to increase the mainstream media’s interest in other topics and concerns? Aren’t those interests everyone’s interests?
The answer to this is so simple, we often over think it. Everyone just wants to be heard. That’s it. Not even all white people think alike or agree upon the same things, so what makes mainstream media think that those outside of the majority would see things the same way as white people, or for that matter even care about the same topics as we do. A major problem with mainstream media is that only one point of few seems to be shown on most any news broadcast, which usually happens to be the majority (white) view or perspective…what white people find to be newsworthy or important. So where does that leave minorities? In the dark, unheard and unseen. That is the problem. So what can be done to fix these problems you ask…that is even simpler. How about we actually make a noteworthy attempt to make something in this nation of ours equal. Show an equal amount of every race and ethnicity in the news, shed light on what might not be important to you (the white mega corp editor and chief) but just so happens to be important to the select few minorities out there who are usually underrepresented.
How was the war initially reported by the media?
The acts of 9/11 caused such a catastrophic rift in the hearts and minds of the American people. We needed to unite, show our patriotism, support one another and especially this was true for the government and our political leaders. No one was questioning what the government was telling us, what they were persuading us to do and think, and if there was any ulterior motives to the actions and ideas being supported as retaliation methods to the acts of that horrific September day. We had no control over what was being put on the news, nor were many of us being skeptical and intelligent consumers of the media we were being shown. Everything from scripted speeches and news conferences were used so that no question that was beyond our government’s knowledge or to get information that they desired to not make known. The reports of the war were simply very Hollywoodized if you ask me. I don’t think we saw the whole truth directly after 9/11 and we saw a sugar coated, glamorous side of the war with Iraq.
image5.png How has the media covered recent social protests?
Because the news media is ran by a small select few, what is covered is simply not the whole story. Everyone has their own agenda, and it seems that the government and these mega media conglomerates’ agenda is to keep us Americans from seeing things in the news, like protests for the war and racial conflicts in schools, that they don’t think reinforces “good” America. Back during the Vietnam war, anti-war protests were the news. They didn’t have a small 20 second or 2 minute blip in the middle of a news segment that was downplayed to sound like a handful of overly liberal people with peace signs on the street corner. The media wants to report news that they think with further their own agenda in one way or another while turning a blind eye on bigger issues like social and racial equality and conflicts, as well as the showing of our right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly when it occurs.
Was the media beneficial for the Civil Rights Movement?
I think the media was most certainly beneficial for the Civil Rights Movement. In fact I think media is one of the reasons it was so successful. Mass media allow African Americans all across the nation to ban together and fight for a crucial cause. A movement is only successful if it catches on like wildfire across vast areas and is well supported and the media gave this ability. Sure, not all media was good, but just like today any press you can get is good press. It allowed people to really take a step back and look at their own lives, whether white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or what so be it and really ask themselves if this is America, is allowing what is going on right or just?
Your thoughts and reflections on setting the news agenda, minority media and the media and reporting the war.
I think my thoughts on these issues are pretty upfront in my writing and opinions on these different topics. However, I will close with the following: We say equality and freedom are the pillars on which America stands, and media is the greatest form of mass communication within and outside of our great country…so where in our media are these foundations truly found?
Is the fourth estate falling asleep on the job?
ReplyDelete