Why do media seem to follow the status quo

Bob Z

Why do media seem to follow the status quo when it to especially when internatonal affairs, terrorism etc? Why do they not print/broadcast alternative views when it comes to things like Northern Ireland, Iran, Afganistan, Venezual etc

I can understand Countries like Iran, China and formerly Russias media were state controlled but what about Britain and USA

I have a friend who thinks they are all controlled by goverments but i dont think so i think that the media just too lazy or think people are more interested in Celebritys

Vietnam is always used as an Example of a War that got lost because of the media but the media were never really against the Vietnam War and didnt report a lot of things that happened eg mai lai. It was only when things got really bad that some news slipped through

So why does it happen? They dont want to annoy the estabelishment? They dont want to been seen as Pro-terrorism? Lazyness? Budget and limited resources? They don't think the public care?

sundaypapers

Laziness, don't want to upset the paymasters or their buddies. Try the SIndo for example.

The Agogo

I agree, they may lose out on advertising. They also might not have the resources to pay people to risk their lives writing in a warzone. But then again, why not just pay a literate soldier to do it? Just like Winston Churchill did back in early 1900s?

This was slightly interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5031s1MAPY

Jhj10

Bob Z wrote: »

Why do media seem to follow the status quo when it to especially when internatonal affairs, terrorism etc? Why do they not print/broadcast alternative views when it comes to things like Northern Ireland, Iran, Afganistan, Venezual etc

I can understand Countries like Iran, China and formerly Russias media were state controlled but what about Britain and USA

I have a friend who thinks they are all controlled by goverments but i dont think so i think that the media just too lazy or think people are more interested in Celebritys

Vietnam is always used as an Example of a War that got lost because of the media but the media were never really against the Vietnam War and didnt report a lot of things that happened eg mai lai. It was only when things got really bad that some news slipped through

So why does it happen? They dont want to annoy the estabelishment? They dont want to been seen as Pro-terrorism? Lazyness? Budget and limited resources? They don't think the public care?

Anarchist Santa wrote a book on this in 1988.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280499824&sr=8-1

Bob Z

Jhj10 wrote: »

Anarchist Santa wrote a book on this in 1988.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280499824&sr=8-1

I seen the documentary of that years ago must get it again

Jhj10

Bob Z wrote: »

I seen the documentary of that years ago must get it again

I didn't know they'd done one. But lo and behold: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#

fly_agaric

Bob Z wrote: »

So why does it happen? They dont want to annoy the estabelishment? They dont want to been seen as Pro-terrorism? Lazyness? Budget and limited resources?

Another book that touches on this issue is Flat Earth News (focussing on the UK newspapers but I think alot of the ideas in it apply to any media that must turn a profit, satisfy shareholders with "growth" and increased "efficiency").

The media's conservatism stems partly from a fear that writing/broadcasting something challenging will make powerful enemies (i.e. end up costing alot money).

The journalists are also under massive time pressure. Its easier for them to run with an "official" line handed to them on a plate rather than go hunting for alternatives.

Any sort of investigative journalism is expensive anyway. Why do it when one can sell papers/get viewers with rubbish (like regurgitated PR & govt. press releases, celebrity pap etc) that has the advantages that it is quicker and easier, cheaper to produce and won't annoy the powerful.

Jhj10

fly_agaric wrote: »

Another book that touches on this issue is Flat Earth News (focussing on the UK newspapers but I think alot of the ideas in it apply to any media that must turn a profit, satisfy shareholders with "growth" and increased "efficiency").

The media's conservatism stems partly from a fear that writing/broadcasting something challenging will make powerful enemies (i.e. end up costing alot money).

The journalists are also under massive time pressure. Its easier for them to run with an "official" line handed to them on a plate rather than go hunting for alternatives.

Any sort of investigative journalism is expensive anyway. Why do it when one can sell papers/get viewers with rubbish (like regurgitated PR & govt. press releases, celebrity pap etc) that has the advantages that it is quicker and easier, cheaper to produce and won't annoy the powerful.

Yep Nick Davies is solid, although I would hold back against using either Chomsky or him as an absolute; a lot of good stuff goes on, despite the existence of these pressures.

As an aside: apparently it was Davies who convinced Julian Assange to share those files with Guardian/NYT/Der Speigel. He is involved with CIJ as well, to the best of my knowledge.

KenGriffin

Jhj10 wrote: »

Anarchist Santa wrote a book on this in 1988.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280499824&sr=8-1

I certainly wouldn't hold his model as absolute. For a start, he ignores all consideration of audience reception, any form of socialization bar organisational or any suggestion that the media could influence those in power. If want to take book recommendations from a Sindo hack, a much better model, which considers those factors, is available here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Projections-Power-Framing-Opinion-Communication/dp/0226210723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281004638&sr=8-1

And if you want to look at how the media influences those power - essentially the reverse of your initial question, try this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cnn-Effect-Action-International-Communication/dp/1403975191/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281004725&sr=1-1

The latter book is pricely but gives a blow-by-blow account of the interaction between the media and US elites during the Kosovo crisis.

sundaypapers

Give the age of a lot of our media celebs, rather than following status quo, they might as well be playing in status quo...