In my classes they teach us plenty of different theories on how strong the press is in formulating public opinion. The scary thing is that most of the theories work. Without getting an issue into the MSM, it's rare that something will happen and things will change.
Just to give you one example: AP, AFP, Reuters and UPI. Four news agencies that between them generate and put out approximately 80% of all the news information to the MSM across the world.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
I think you should start a thread on that, will be interesting.Originally Posted by bigross86
Hey, you might do better at the quizzes this way once everybody has a chance to pile in.
So what ?
Its better than two or just one.
Eight would be better than four. But what commercial sense would that make.
The reasoning behind the theories is that apparently the four agencies have a tacit agreement between them and focus on different regions, though they all have a global presence. In essence, despite the proliferation of world media and the MSM, the information is still coming from very few sources, and therefore is very easily manipulated by the ruling class and the hegemony. Yes, it's very neo-Marxist, but most of the cultivation and strong effects of the media theories are.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Right, so they don't have to waste resources competiting for no reason. You could say that it allows them to do a better job in their respective areas, no.
Are you saying the ruling class gets a say in what these agencies put out, sometimes but otherwise ?
Besides I thought the job of the media was to police govt. Thats what the 4th estate is supposed to be about anyway. A nexus between govt & media is a threat.
Why is that or is it just that your profs have a preference for this.
That's also true. See why it's complicatedRight, so they don't have to waste resources competiting for no reason. You could say that it allows them to do a better job in their respective areas, no.
Newspapers and other media outlets are first and foremost businesses in the field of making money. They are under pressure from many different areas including the government, advertisers, editors, owners, readers and others. It's very likely that articles will be published or nixed based on pressure from one factor or another. As is always the rule, money talks.Are you saying the ruling class gets a say in what these agencies put out, sometimes but otherwise ?
Besides I thought the job of the media was to police govt. Thats what the 4th estate is supposed to be about anyway. A nexus between govt & media is a threat.
WRT to the government, it is one of the largest sources of information the MSM has. It is in the MSM's interest not to piss them off too much, or else that information source is cut off. Of course the media still does hold the title of "Government watchdog", but that doesn't mean it always keeps the government in check.
Some of it is my professors, but a lot of it is that's the theories that are prevalent today. In the 20's-30's, people believed the media could say "Jump" and people would ask "how high". Orson Welles and War of the Worlds is a brilliant example of this. In the 70's the theory was that people were smarter than to believe that everything the media said was true. In the 80's-90's people once again believed the media was strong, but whereas in the 20's the impact was immediate, now the belief is that cultivation works over time. It's ironic that the same weak effects that were ascribed in the 70's are now what makes the media strong.Why is that or is it just that your profs have a preference for this.
I've added a couple academic articles, studies performed on the TV show "All in the Family" and how people perceived Archie Bunker and his racism. Some people though it hysterical, some were offended, some thought it very realistic, and some gauged themselves in comparison. The articles show the different impacts the same show can have on different people. Both studies were performed in the 70's, when the attitude towards the media was one of "the media can show it, but we'll decide what to do with it by ourselves"
Now, that is the broadest explanation with one example given. There are many smaller theories that have been proved, disproved, and work partially. Functionalist and Critical theories, Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories, different models of freedom of the press, criticism, different pressure types, etc...
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Is thinking the writer of the article in question needs to put down the shisha or hookah. Its obviously effected his mental capcities.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 12 Jul 11, at 02:31.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
BR,
This is fascinatining stuff, perhaps worthy of a better thread than this. I might even chime in later on. Just one thing. The term 'MSM' is deeply problematic. From my perspective it is essentially a construct of the American political right that equates to 'media I don't like'. Thus Fox & the WSJ aren't included. It certainly isn't self explanatory. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by 'MSM', but it might be useful to choose a differnt term if it isn't.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
It probably is worth it's own thread and if anyone still has more questions, I'm more than happy to answer them, as soon as someone opens a new thread, or the mods cull this into a new one.
I use the term MSM for Main Stream Media, and while it fits, perhaps a more fitting term to use would be the Mass Media, though that one doesn't fit perfectly either. The thing is, I'm translating the term from Hebrew and there really isn't a proper translation for the term that we use here, so I'm stretching a bit
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
That would be fun, propaganda is the dog's janglers.
I typically prefer the term "elite media", but will sometimes use "corporate media", "mass media" or "mainstream media", depending on the audience.
I'm not referring to propaganda. I'm referring to cultivation theory, spiral of silence, Third person perception, etc. Propaganda is a very specific aspect of communications, I'm dealing more with the broader aspects of communications.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Over here for MSM is considered television and the newspapers. No news agency in MSM (the big four you put there are agencies, right?). There are alternatives mainly on internet like blogs, social networks...
For what you need maybe a better word is Media Companies.
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: