could the media come under the influance of the people through democracy?

liberty 2007

Over the last few decades the media in this country have become extraordinarily powerful, to the extent that those we elect to represent us, may be undermined by unelected,but powerful people. It seems to me , that not only have the media replaced the churches power base, but they're moving towards the level of church power in the middle ages where a ruler could not make decisions without the approval of the bishop. I understand the need to maintain a critical view of the political elite, but what is going on is a lot more then that.
A couple of decades ago the media complained about political interference, so the elected government revoked its authority. seemed like a good idea at the time. But with complete editorial control, the media ignore the many positive stories and constantly highlight the negative and even use their power to ridicule these elected representatives in comedy sketches.
Perhaps its time to rein in their power and make them democratically accountable.

mike65

WTF WTF WTF WTF????????????????!

Sorry I'll try a sensible reply, media accountable to who, us or the elected powers of the day?

They already are accountable through the laws of the land, media can and does do stupid things, they may not be punished as harshly as some may like but better that than Putins Russia for example, where free media has been greatly curtailed and journalists get assasinated.

Mike.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah... nothing worse for democracy than a free press..

meglome

I would have said our media isn't too bad. I imagine they tread more carefully with industries that spend large sums in advertising but in international terms it's pretty good here.

So as Mike65 said WTF??

FYI

meglome wrote:

I would have said our media isn't too bad. I imagine they tread more carefully with industries that spend large sums in advertising but in international terms it's pretty good here.

So as Mike65 said WTF??

Sorry meglome, but as always Mike doesn't have a point.

Without addressing the particulars of the initial post, I'd just like to note that if we reduce all discussion to 'its better than communism' we are essentially creating similar boundaries of thought that an ideology such as this might impose.

There are plenty of facets to the 'free press' - remember for a second this is simply a phrase it does not imply that the press is actually 'free' - that are not 'free' it operates under a strict set of laws - governmental, ethical, professional and corporate, it is not 'free' in the determinist sense we might subscribe to our personal lives.

To question the ownership of media, which has become much more concentrated over the past years, or the political and party political sway of the media, or the concentration of control and influence over the population by media, or even the cost of the media is part of how democracy works.

Remember that when someone tries to derail discussion with talk of a reversion to Stalinism.

seamus

FYI wrote:

To question the ownership of media

That's the real question here. It's not about *controlling* the media per se, just making an attempt to ensure that nobody else can exercise complete control over them either.

There's no such thing as a perfect political system. Free press has its good and bad sides, just as restrained press does. If you want a press that will report the facts without political interference, then you have to put up with unwarranted attacks on individuals, and "fluff" pieces about David Beckham.

In my opinion, the problem with today's media is that the electorate are not accountable to themselves. The media's power comes from the people who listen to them. So by buying their papers and listening to their shows, we are democratically providing them with the power. If we called out those publications who have a penchant for operating with an agenda, and stopped listening to them, they'd be dead.

So to say that the media are not democratically accountable is completely wrong.

The Corinthian

liberty 2007 wrote:

Perhaps its time to rein in their power and make them democratically accountable.

Like SMS voting in the Eurovision...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I tnk de sit n brma s n bslute dsgrce. lyk d guvment shud get of deyr ass n hlp d burmanians.

Akrasia

seamus wrote:

In my opinion, the problem with today's media is that the electorate are not accountable to themselves. The media's power comes from the people who listen to them. So by buying their papers and listening to their shows, we are democratically providing them with the power. If we called out those publications who have a penchant for operating with an agenda, and stopped listening to them, they'd be dead.

But the thing is, people buy the newspapers and listen to the radio for different reasons. There are lots of people who buy the Sunday Independent for the sports coverage or because of the free dvds they give away, they might not actually agree with the content of the news and opinion sections, but by purchasing the paper they are empowering the expression of those views by providing them with increased revenue and the 'mandate' of a wide circulation.

This is similar to Electoral democracy, where FF might get 41% of the vote, but that doesn't mean that 41% of the people believe in everything they do or say, but that still doesn't stop them from using that 41% number to claim that they have a mandate to do anything and everything.

A 'free press' requires regulation to be truly free. I know that looks like an oxymoron, but to enable the press to operate in it's purest form, there need to be conditions that favour the market for honest and fair reporting without any of the other factors that marketing experts dream up to give their own publication an advantage in the market.

If I was dreaming up a regulatory system, I would design it so that news, entertainment and sports were all kept separate. I would put a punitive tax rate on combination papers and a very low tax rate on individual segments sold separately. This would have dual advantages of saving resources (less wasted paper printing sports or gossip pages for people who don't want to buy them) and it would mean that newspapers would have to stand alone on the strength and accuracy of their news coverage. It would mean that the entertainment and sports coverage would improve because the poor quality supplements would be weeded out of the market

As for ownership, I would make it illegal for one individual or corporation to own two publications in the same category serving the same region.

(If I was designing the whole system, I would make it illegal for one corporation to own another corporation or shares in other corporations full stop)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it would also probably mean that the hard hitting investigative journalism would get under funded, because to be frank.. not enough people care that much to make it profitable.

Akrasia

Mordeth wrote:

it would also probably mean that the hard hitting investigative journalism would get under funded, because to be frank.. not enough people care that much to make it profitable.

What hard hitting investigative journalism?

Every story in modern newspapers is sourced from 'experts' 'spokespeople' and 'government officials'

marcsignal

I think the op has been misunderstood, imo it's not that he/she is suggesting Communist or Nazi like control of the media is the way forward, but, that the Media has become hugely influential, and tbh i have to agree.

some discussion of this issue in the following movie, which is free to watch on the web.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

it's a sad fact of life that there are people out there who believe everything they see on the 'magic lantern' and that if you control information, you control opinion.

The media and intense consumerism are intrinsically linked, and when the sole object of the exercise, in terms of consumerism, is to make money, that can be a little disconcerting. For example, if John Paul Gotier decided tomorrow, that it was fashionable to wear a flower pot on your head, you could bet a weeks wages, that some tit would arrive in the pub, next saturday night, sporting the biggest greanium you ever saw.

having said that i also think Mike65 has a point, its just a case of choosing who's propaganda you'd feel more comfortable believing ? Murdocks' or Goebells' ?

Take American movies as another example, in the 30's the Bad Guys were always Germans, in the 50's and 60's they were East Germans, in the 70's and 80's they were Russians, and now these days they all seem to be Arabs.....coincidence ??

oscarBravo

FYI wrote:

Sorry meglome, but as always Mike doesn't have a point.

Careful now.

seamus

Akrasia wrote:

As for ownership, I would make it illegal for one individual or corporation to own two publications in the same category serving the same region.

Well I wouldn't make it illegal, but I would certainly make it fall under the remit of the competition authority. I have no problem with one individual owning two papers (for example), when there are fifty other papers out there to choose from.

bonkey

marcsignal wrote:

having said that i also think Mike65 has a point, its just a case of choosing who's propaganda you'd feel more comfortable believing ? Murdocks' or Goebells' ?

Or indeed the propaganda of Zeitgeist....

silverharp

liberty 2007 wrote:

Over the last few decades the media in this country have become extraordinarily powerful, to the extent that those we elect to represent us, may be undermined by unelected,but powerful people. It seems to me , that not only have the media replaced the churches power base, but they're moving towards the level of church power in the middle ages where a ruler could not make decisions without the approval of the bishop. I understand the need to maintain a critical view of the political elite, but what is going on is a lot more then that.

The printing press helped break the monopoly of the catholic church during the reformation. I would say the internet is doing the same to media today. The media will always have its own agenda but for once we have access to non conventional media which I think takes the heat out of the issue.

brianthebard

liberty 2007 wrote:

A couple of decades ago the media complained about political interference, so the elected government revoked its authority. seemed like a good idea at the time. But with complete editorial control, the media ignore the many positive stories and constantly highlight the negative and even use their power to ridicule these elected representatives in comedy sketches.

I don't think that's true, its just that when as positive thing happens it is reported and over and done with, but when something bad happens it quite often turns into a **** storm or is dragged up as a way of showing the incompetence of so and so.

Perhaps its time to rein in their power and make them democratically accountable.

How????

marcsignal

bonkey wrote:

Or indeed the propaganda of Zeitgeist....

Accepted, but in this context i refere only to the part of the movie which mentions the movie 'The Network'

Is there any other particular part of that movie which you feel is propagandist ?? or just all of it ?

silverharp wrote:

The printing press helped break the monopoly of the catholic church during the reformation. I would say the internet is doing the same to media today. The media will always have its own agenda but for once we have access to non conventional media which I think takes the heat out of the issue.

good point, but not all of us have the ability, paitence, or intrest to use sites like boards, a lot of people just worship the box instead.

The Corinthian

marcsignal wrote:

having said that i also think Mike65 has a point, its just a case of choosing who's propaganda you'd feel more comfortable believing ? Murdocks' or Goebells' ?

Or Indymedia?

bonkey

marcsignal wrote:

Is there any other particular part of that movie which you feel is propagandist ?? or just all of it ?

Not quite the point I was making.

You suggested its a question of whether people prefer the "Murdock" or "Goebels" approach to propaganda. However, if we look at something like Zeitgeist, it fits neither of these models.

It is media, but unquestionably non-mainstream. There seems to be some sort of (implicit) suggestion of the "great truth" of such new media forms...that it is only mainstream media which is painting the world in pictures that the creators/distributors of content want us to believe. I simply question such logic.

Regarding Zeitgeist specifically, it makes points regarding the trust people have chosen to place in media and how this trust has led them astray. But it, in itself, is also media, and therefore we should not believe it at face value....but there are no shortage of people who do. They want people to look at this media, to take its message on board and believe it.

The message, ironically, is not to simply believe what you are told.

good point, but not all of us have the ability, paitence, or intrest to use sites like boards, a lot of people just worship the box instead.

Anyone who trusts a single source for news - and more specifically for analysis - cannot assume themselves to be well-informed. The real problem is that people in general either do not accept this, do not understand this, or do not have an issue with it.

The media is accountable. We can vote with our pockets and put them out of business. We choose not to. Its not our media which needs reform....but rather our acceptance of it.

mike65

FYI I'd hope to not find myself in agreement with you too often!

Perhaps the OP could have been a bit clearer in his/her opening gambit, maybe some clarification will follow.

Mike.

liberty 2007

Ok you guys, I'm not as good with this machine as you lot, so you'll have to be patient with me. But I'm glad to have it, as one of you pointed out. These boards may grow into something more powerful.
As far as the print media is concerned, Its easy to elect not to support. Their are some newspapers I have'nt bought in years for that reason. It's the TV and radio. I remember when TV was only on for 7 or 8 hours a day. now it's in your face almost every where and growing and the off button argument does'nt work unless you're actually in control of it.
Individual journalists, reporters and presenters gain celebraty status simply by being on the airwaves when they really, are no more important than any of us. They elavate themselves in society by highlighting the flaws in others. That's not always a bad thing, unless they are selective in who they point the finger at. as for focusing on the negative, let me give one simple example.
Before the port tunnel opened, we were regularly told of the major traffic problems it would cause to the end of the M50. As far as I know, that did'nt happin and it was a success. But as usual, nobody heard about it.
How to control the media is no easy task. what we have to decide is, if their power continues to grow, is it important enough to find a way.

silverharp

marcsignal wrote:

some discussion of this issue in the following movie, which is free to watch on the web.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

it's a sad fact of life that there are people out there who believe everything they see on the 'magic lantern' and that if you control information, you control opinion.

it makes you want to f'ck the tv out the window

marcsignal

bonkey wrote:

You suggested its a question of whether people prefer the "Murdock" or "Goebels" approach to propaganda. However, if we look at something like Zeitgeist, it fits neither of these models.

True, however my reference to 'Murdock' and 'Goebells' was really only in the context of, one person, (or a small group) controlling the information thats spewing out. I just find such a scenario a bit disturbing.

bonkey wrote:

It is media, but unquestionably non-mainstream. There seems to be some sort of (implicit) suggestion of the "great truth" of such new media forms...that it is only mainstream media which is painting the world in pictures that the creators/distributors of content want us to believe. I simply question such logic.

Yes it certainly is non-mainstream, but I have to add that I simply found it an interesting movie, and entertaining, as opposed to suddenly 'seeing the light' so to speak, as a result of watching it.

bonkey wrote:

Regarding Zeitgeist specifically, it makes points regarding the trust people have chosen to place in media and how this trust has led them astray.

that's the bit that worries me, some of the points in it relating to the large percentage of american consumers who couldn't be bothered reading books anymore, when america is such a hugely powerful and influential country.

bonkey wrote:

The media is accountable. We can vote with our pockets and put them out of business.

In thoery, yes we could, but how could we achieve that when someone like 'Murdock' for example is using his massive media machine, and we're using a discussion forum ? We would never pose any kind of threat to his business, and if we ever did he would simply stamp on us like a bug. (using 'us' as a general term of reference)

silverharp wrote:

it makes you want to f>ck the telly out the window

doesn't it just :-)

marcsignal

liberty 2007 wrote:

Ok you guys, I'm not as good with this machine as you lot, so you'll have to be patient with me. But I'm glad to have it, as one of you pointed out. These boards may grow into something more powerful.
As far as the print media is concerned, Its easy to elect not to support. Their are some newspapers I have'nt bought in years for that reason. It's the TV and radio. I remember when TV was only on for 7 or 8 hours a day. now it's in your face almost every where and growing and the off button argument does'nt work unless you're actually in control of it.

Fair play liberty 2007 , never mind about not being good with the machine, you said it better than i've been trying to since the beginning

liberty 2007

mike65 wrote:

WTF WTF WTF WTF????????????????!

Sorry I'll try a sensible reply, media accountable to who, us or the elected powers of the day?

They already are accountable through the laws of the land, media can and does do stupid things, they may not be punished as harshly as some may like but better that than Putins Russia for example, where free media has been greatly curtailed and journalists get assasinated.

Mike.

Ok, technically they are accountable and they may accept a slap on the wrist sometimes, but if pushed too far they have a very powerful weapon in their ability to through mud or cloud the issue. Remember the Stalker affair. If you dig deep enough, you'll find dirt on anyone, even if it's not that bad it can be made to look so.

Just because it's worse somewhere else, does'nt make ours ideal.

edanto

We can't change corporations. Most of us in this thread have probably seen The Corporation, as well as Zeitgeist and maybe some of you have been over at adbusters.org over the years.

These films and sites just highlight problems that we are aware of - but can be very time-consuming to explain to people that are hearing them for the first time. This is because of the legacy of memes that we carry around with us.

For example, the generally accepted measure that a constant increase in a country's GNP is always a good thing. Or concepts like 'the economy doing well'. These are over simplistic ideas, so clichéd by repitition in the media that if you try to get people thinking about the reasons that consumerism culture is so hollow that it will take a lot longer than you have planned.

And you have to step slowly since often it will be the first time that they're hearing these ideas. Indeed, if anyone's seen The History of Oil, you'll remember Newman explaining why he declined to go on to Questions and Answers - because the complexity, depth and novelty of his argument can't fit into the time allowed for a soundbite and he would just come across on telly as a raving lunatic.

The web of course is the only democratic communications technology we've ever come up with and it's promise is long known. But if you've been following Alexis, you'll have noticed the boards.ie has slipped down the rankings and telly-like sites like youtube have flown up. There will always be a place for this type of considered discussion, but it won't ever be the most popular type.

As to what you can actually do about it - we won't ever stop big media groups, just look at them as advertising delivery devices instead of newspapers and gently point it out to people that consume them. I think it was Chomsky that described them as corporations selling your attention to another corporation.

But, yes, we have the control. Just one person at at time - you can choose which papers you buy, which ones you borrow, read and dismiss.

I would be wary of using terms like 'they' when talking about the media, as that implies a level of co-ordination which doesn't exist. The model may well serve the interests of the wealthy, but that doesn't mean that it was designed to only do that or that any one group could have organised it.

Show your concern for the current direction of the media by subscribing to Adbusters or Village, for example. And talk to people in real life about it!