Government and media

Hey Guys, Girls And all manner Of creatures from the night.

As i have Been watching, lately i have noticed Quite a few References To the government in mainstream Films Positive and negative (mainly of the Government being useless/ untrustworthy)

In My opinion The Media industry is the biggest and most powerful in it's country as it controlls what people know, What the don't know and even what people think, It has a massive influence on the population and it is in control of what information we are allowed to have.

The example i have of head are The Tranformers movie and Simpsons movie, however there are more out there and i'm sure more to come.

Simpsons movie, Government Emplyee: " Hey We found them, Everybody! The government actually found something they're looking for! Yahooooooooo!

Transformers movie end Credits, Sam's Parents: "I'm Sure if anything had happened here, the government would have told us..., Oh definetly..."

So What do you think of These views?, what are yours?
How Powerful is the media?
How Is the government being portrayed, Why ?
General opinions?
Is there something going on here, Is it purposeful?
Let me know what you think...
Regardless of What the Media outputs, It influences peoples way of thinking and reason etc... It's like any other form of influential behaviour but it is fed to the public,
wheather you care or not about what you produce to them, People who read it will still take it in and Contemplate it's point.
In Countries Such as darfour The internet has been censored of most of the content, Why ? because the Dictators of the country don't want people within to become inspired to revolt and aware of Change outside the World, They are basically cut off, And that is controlling what they know, by removing Certain media, and replacing it with propaganda.

Btw i like the replies Keep em coming guys

And This is a topic ihave chosen for my a level media, being one of the purposed of this thread Thanks Keep it coming ! Great stuff here

The media is, it sometimes seems, almost more powerful than some governments. Not in terms of executive power but in terms of setting the agenda that those in power have to follow.

When you ask yourself in what way the government is being portrayed I think you at the same time have to ask yourself who is drawing the portrait. And then you might be able to guess why the portrait looks the way it does.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Not to play Devil's Advocate....well, to play Devil's Advocate, the Government governs the media (e.g. sets laws and regulations that they must follow), so take another look and ask yourself who really is pulling the strings?

this doesnt mean I necessarily agree with the vantage point, but it does exist

However, the Senate Commerce Committee hearings in 2003 involving the FCC and Clear Channel were quite interesting to watch.

__________________
something witty goes here......

I don't really understand what Piddzilla said, but I'm going to think about it. I like it. I just can't explain why I like it.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Who is this etheral person, "The Media?" I'd like to meet him/her. Because, at some point, arent we getting a little absurd? The only way to really follow that logic is to follow it all the way:

if the "people" own the airwaves, and "The Media" is made up of people, then arent the people then "drawing the portrait" of the government?

And isnt that exactly what we want - the definition of free speech?

So you dont get to pick/choose. Either the media is a grand conspiracy run by the government, for the government, and we shouldnt believe anything said/shown across the airwaves; or the media is truly the face/opinion of the people and is thereby unbaised (although definitely susceptible to the whims of the populace), and therefore we should accept its opinions as real.

Pick one.

I still feel the government ultimately manages the media, though I dont have notions of a grand conspiracy.

Yes, but one must remember that media is about money. That is why sensationalism was born. To make a buck.

The media is now owned by corporations. That has changed the landscrape drastically. In addition, so has 24-hour news.

There was a time when the media was rather independent of the government. Woodward and Bernstein could never be successful today; in no time, the 24-hour news programs would have destroyed them, picking on every little detail of their reports.

The media is why Bush was never impeached. We no longer live in a time of independent, investigative journalism where freedom to report exists.

My opinion is that we are in deep ****.

Wait, I don't really understand what you mean here. Doesn't that negate your whole "Bush should be impeached" thing? If Bush is such a criminal, then wouldn't an age of such easily accessible information condemn him? Like, I have no idea what you mean by saying Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have been successful because the media would pick apart their reports. If anything, it just means someone else would've beaten them to the punch.

I don't think the media, as a whole, has any vested interest in whether or not a president is impeached. In fact, if a president were to be impeached, wouldn't the stock of 24-hour news networks and other national news sources just go up?

I dont agree or disagree with either point. But I am trying to show the futility in all of the strange finger pointing that gets done (ON. BOTH. SIDES. OF. THE. POLITICAL. FENCE.) at "The Media."

1. What if people did own the media? Then wouldnt it follow that people see what they WANT to see?

2. What if the government did own the media? Then wouldnt it follow that people see only what THEY WANT us to see?

3. What if the corporations that own the media only cared about money / getting money? Then wouldnt it follow that they would show people only what people WANT to see? (ratings, etc.)

I mean, yes - I know I am being incredibly simplistic in this explanation, but cmon. I seriously hate how simplistic people get when they say things like: "Republicans (or Democrats) own the media, and THAT'S why they put that on TV!"

O.M.G. Make it stop.

If we are no longer in the era of Woodward and Bernstein type of reporting (and I agree we are not), it is because the people who own the mediums sold their souls to the Almighty Dollar - AND the populace is only willing to pay for lies....or their personal brand of truth.

So, who's buying tonight?

No, you don't understand. (responding to Swedish Chef)

At the time, Woodward and Bernstein had the luxury of having a story printed once a day. There was 24 hours between stories. They once posted something that the government shot down, and they looked like fools. They were able to recover -- this was also when Deep Throat confirmed for them that they were on the right track.

In this age of 24 hour news, they would have been crucified and probably stopped before they could continue on. Corporations have interests in government activities. And they are predominately republican. (Sorry, but it's a fact.) Whenever a media corporation has an interest in how politics is played out, the very nature of an objective media is dead.

We no longer have that anymore. I think it is the scariest thing about this 21st century.

The Internet and its ability to disseminate information seems like a good thing. But as we've seen, if "news" is printed somewhere on a site, the people that don't like that information will call it biased. Each side is playing the other... and the truth is lost. The Republicans have played this game very well -- using whatever talking points they come up with, they will discredit news that hurts them, by simply putting their talking points out there. I cannot say the Dems don't do it a bit, too.

We are in a media haze right now.... so much information coming in, we no longer know what to believe. Anything and everything can be covered in smoke.

1. People do see what they want to see. That is why so much of what we see is worthless or based on ADHD entertainment. The very few want to take the time to watch thought-provoking or thorough programming.

2. If the government did own the media, then, yes, we would see government propaganda all the time. The government doesn't actually own the media here, but it influences the media certainly. Look at post 9/11 media coverage -- the media admits they were scared to really look and ask questions. They admit today they allowed Bush to walk into Iraq without nary a question why. Bush bullied the media. The media allowed themselves to be bullied, all in the name of patriotism and being afraid of the people. The media serves the people, that's true, but to be afraid of the people was betrayal.

3. not sure what you mean...except that is what they do. Ratings are everything.

Your last statement is 100% true. The media will even tell you they sold their souls.

Yeah, I totally agree with you, mack. It's true that there isn't much of a market for truth these days, but that's more of an extension of general apathy than government interference. There's no one identifiable faction that "owns" the media. I think you hit closest to the mark with number 3. The stuff that gets shown on tv, pop culture trends and all that jazz are, for the most part, dictated by money.

If Rupert Murdock thought showing a video of kittens drowning on a continuous loop would bring in the most advertising revenue, you better believe FOX would run a video of kittens drowning on a continuous loop.

I know. I'm very confused.

I think you're delusional about the objectivity of the media in the 70's. I'm not saying it wasn't objective, I'm saying it was no more objective than it is in 2008. Not that I was around back then or anything, but i don't think the government has any more hold over the stream of news that comes out today than they did thirty years ago.

What about Bird Flu?

At the end of the day, the consumer is the one who decides whether or not to buy what the media is selling. It can be a bit muddled, sure. But i think the average American is more informed today than they ever were.

No, I was around in the 1970s, and it is different today. People in the media will tell you how different it is. It's so different that you should be concerned.

I am certainly not delusional.

And while this shouldn't make any difference, I guess, but I teach a media class. I've studied this subject a lot. I've read a lot. I'm not saying I'm an expert, and I'm sure some can disagree, but I've spent the last two years researching this very subject.

Oh yeah? Well I've been thinking about this very subject for the last thirty minutes. So let's just agree to disagree.

Yea, well, that gets us far, doesn't it? Thanks for the sarcasm... oh and cutting off my first sentence. I tried to say it in a way that didn't come off like I'm a know it all.... whatever.

Well, sorry if you took it that way, but I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. I was ironically commenting on the fact you obviously know more about the subject than me, but that i still kinda disagree with your thoughts about the evils of the internet. I think it's great that we get opposing viewpoints on junk and that there's no shortage of opinions being shared. We're not in a "media maze". We're just being given different ways of looking at things and ultimately we get to choose what we want to believe.

I never said the Internet was "evil." What I said was that so much information is coming in so it has become hazy. That is the nature of information -- does it not get confusing when you read many different viewpoints? And how do we know what is the truth? How do we know who to believe?

We are in the early stages, really, of this global instant information. And it has caused drastic changes with how much information we are getting. It then follows that information can then be shifted, changed, glossed over, ignored, etc. How do you really KNOW you're getting the full story about anything?

Choosing what to believe is one thing -- but how do know what to believe when we don't have all the facts?

I'm not sure there is a media person out there that will not admit that the media world today is very different than the past. It's too easy to put out false information. It travels around the globe before someone can correct it. There was more time to do that years ago. There was more restriction on things. ANYTHING can be printed on the Internet today and people will believe it.

EDIT: BTW, the government knows how to play this game. They have stated as such. Whoever controls the media controls the people. George Orwell talked about it. Squealer in Animal Farm is the media. And whatever Squealer said, the animals believed. The media is everything.

No, I think it's fantastic that we're offered different sides of every story. We believe what we want to believe, but at least we're able to learn about every possible angle before we make an informed decision. How is it possibly better to only get one viewpoint on a particular news item? Don't you want to know what different people think about the same story?

Can you give me an example on the internet of two news reports (not opinionated articles, news reports) that give dramatically different facts or in any way distort what the other says on the same story?

Again, then who's to say when you're only getting one side of the story once a day that that one is the truth. First you say it sucks information is allowed to be printed instantly now, but then you say it's easier to alter the facts these days. Wouldn't it be easier to alter facts if you had a whole day to think about it? The 24 hour news cycle has allowed more information to be shared in a shorter span of time and I don't think it's any more untrustworthy than it ever was. It still comes down to you, as the consumer, having to ultimately think for yourself and decide what to believe.

Yeah, of course it's different now. But individuals being able to print ANYTHING on the internet is a good thing and a big step forward for our country. Why do you want information to be restricted? I want to hear what everybody has to say about everything. Even if I disagree with them.

I don't know, Swedy, but sometimes people don't have an open or formed mind and believe the first thing they hear about something, especially if it's supported by their friends and family. I'm too busy to find specific examples, but everything seems to be in a revisionist mode at this time: politics, religion, science, or even important crap, like movies and music!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Gosh, let me think of an example... how many stories did we read about Heath Ledger's death before he was dead 24 hours? In that time, we thought maybe he had snorted coke (one headline read: "Rolled up $20 bill found near Ledger's body..."). That's just a small example. Many stories printed before we knew the truth.

Journalists have a Code of Ethics to follow -- their number one code is the "seek the truth and report it." In an era of trying to get the story first, being the news organization that gets it out the faster (which feeds into their success and their bottom line economically) they will report ANYTHING just to get the story out there. In the days of an evening and morning paper, there wasn't the urgency. Stories were checked out. They were doublechecked. That is relatively gone. Media people will tell you it's gone.

Don't get me wrong. We're in a era of blogging, too, and quite often, we get information the mainstream media doesn't report. We often find things out that contributes greatly to the truth being spread.

My point is this: we are still navigating through this new era of the media. And there is no denying that the more information thats out there, it can often lead to confusion, sometimes on purpose. This is where those that know how to control the media can play their game. They can put so much crap out there to hide a truth and they will often do that for their own purposes. That is where the relationship of government and media can be very dangerous.

A democracy only survives with an independent media. When the two are connected, we are no longer in a democracy. The government that controls the media is no longer a democratic government. It then begins to resemble a dictatorship.

I have to go to bed... sorry I contributed so much in this thread. But this very subject is something I feel very strongly about.