Saturday, September 12, 2009
Enzensberger
According to Enzensberger, media in a capitalistic society is the product of a burgeois sect that manipulates the truth for political reasons. Today, almost forty years after Enzensberger's essay, does such an "owner" of the media exist? Is media the product of manipulation? And, finally, can the media be trusted? Feel free to answer one or all questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To quote Enzensberger, "...the manipulation of the media cannot be countered, however by old or new forms of censorship, but only by direct social control, that is to say, by the mass of the people, who will have become productive."
ReplyDeleteI think the people own the media in two-fold. First, anyone can take part in media because it's so accessible. We create what we want whether it be in posting a blog, writing a text, or editing our pictures. Secondly, media companies cater to the masses. If they don't produce what the people want, they won't make money. That's just good capitalism.
I think it's important to say that the media has remained under a free-market structure rather than a socialist one. Government control has been loosened because society wanted it that way. The efforts of the media have been so successful because they have been catered to the masses; they have supplied what was demanded.
Enzensberger says that "The new media are egalitarian in structure. Anyone can take part in them by a simple switching process" (265). However, I think that this egalitarian nature of media is what makes media so easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteFor example, last year I had to do a research project for my environmental science class about the effects of population on various African countries; I would go to one website and get a few statistics, and then I would go to another website and find different numbers for the exact same thing I found on the last site.
The problem with the media being so easy to use and pretty much accessible to the masses is that the information presented is manipulated by the people presenting it. Maybe the facts themselves are not necessarily "manipulated", but there is certainly information that is omitted, emphasized, etc. based on the presenters bias, agenda, etc. With this in mind, it can be difficult to trust media because today our society is obsessed with "the truth": and unfortunately, there isn't really a way to know what is "true" and what is not.
Enzensberger states, "A revolutionary plan should not require the manipulators to disappear; on the contrary, it must make everyone a manipulator." (265) In some aspect, every media object, whether it is literary works or the internet, has been tampered with or manipulated. In addition, it can be any one person who manipulates, it is not one select person or one group of people, but rather anyone who uses media. Therefore, as Enzensberger says, everyone is a manipulator.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the internet is a powerful tool when it comes to manipulating. Wikipedia, as we all know, is constantly being changed by people of all kinds all over the place. This website that all of us have used at one point or another could have been easily manipulated whether a few words or the entire document. This is one aspect of media that is completely untrustworthy, yet somehow we all seem to trust its validity.
It is also important to say that Enzensberger is thinking even deeper than just the accessibility of media. He believes that it manipulates the truth for political reasons. I do not completely agree with the severity of the manipulation that he does. Media, to me, is simply created in the mind of the masses and therefore can be heavily manipulated in its hands.
-Allison R.
Forty years ago, I might say that I agreed with Enzensberger about new media being controlled by the higher sects of society (those who were able to afford the different forms of new media). But now, with the growth of the personal computer and web-browsing on cellphones, I would be a bit more hesitant to agree to the same claim. Now information beyond what is "allowed" by the rich are accessible to everyone, and thus, if one wanted to find out the "truth" then he or she could do her own research on it.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the question of who the owner of new media is, there is no such thing. Everyone can become an owner, everyone can become a producer. Is media the product of manipulation? The answer would be yes, but I think that it is through the commercialization and availability of new media that leads to the way out of manipulation. Can media be trusted? Yes, for the most part--just remember that you need to get multiple sources to confirm one fact and you should be fine.
-Jennifer Ly Pham
If there is one thing that the Internet has shown, its that there is definitely no true owner of almost anything on the internet. Taking this blog as an example, one could make the legal argument that Google owns blogger, so Google owns the blog. However, Google would be the first to deny any responsibilty for the blog, besides providing the servers it is stored on and the advertisements they could (though thankfully don't) put on it. The "creator" of the blog, professor Burgess, could be argued to be the owner of the blog, though only of the framework. Almost none of the content is her intellectual property. The content is created and owned (legally and otherwise) by the students of the class that have posted on the blog. However, by putting our thoughts out onto the internet, they become public property. Anyone can read our thoughts and use them (especially mine) in conversation as their own. Using a translation program (the owner of which would technically own partial rights to the translation) or their own knowledge of English, anyone on the planet can use our thoughts as their own. In China, many things on the internet, and many of the guiding principles, are considered subversive and treasonous. A Chinese person could be held accountable for and arrested for agreeing with the thoughts we put on this blog, which is yet another, very serious, form of ownership.
ReplyDeleteI related very closely to Rebecca’s response. I have had many experiences in which I have been researching online and have found contradictory information or statistics on different websites. It’s hard to know which sources to trust and which to avoid. For this reason and several others, I think most media is the product of manipulation.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about media manipulation I think about reality T.V. because it is edited to make the viewer believe certain things are happening or being said even though the video clips or interviews might be completely taken out of context and changed.
I also think about music production and manipulation. It is obvious that many of today’s pop stars sound very different on their recordings than they do live in concert. Technology makes it easy to manipulate pitch, tone, harmony, accuracy, and even rhythm. Changing all of these elements of someone’s voice makes it hard to know what their natural singing voice actually sounds like. Flaws can easily be covered up and musicians can appear to be much more talented than they are in reality.
I believe the owner of media is whoever knows how to manipulate it, or whoever has control over its distribution. For example, the public is in a sense the owner of Wikipedia, because anyone can go on the website and contribute or delete information. However, the public is not the owner of music or T.V. manipulation because most of us do not have the means or knowledge to change or affect what is being broadcast.
This being said, can media be trusted? Yes, to a certain extent, but I believe each of us is responsible for knowing the source of information and the original form and context of anything that has been edited.
In the world of today, there is no single owner of the media. Art, propaganda, subversive texts are all examples of work that can be produced by almost anyone and shared for the rest of the world to see. However, like anything else, the media can never be fully trusted. Everything that one can read can range from being slightly manipulated to being downright lies. Even those to attempt to work honestly cannot help but bias their work toward one direction or another. So even texts that are produced not for profit will slant the truth because after all, they exist to spread a certain point of view to as many people as possible. Still, the media today is much more reliable than that of several decades ago when those few sources of information available were controlled and manipulated by those with either money or power.
ReplyDeleteI believe that media are, as Enzensberg stated, truths manipulated for political reasons. Initially using narrow definitions, one can always find examples of this in the news. You can find the "same" story on MSNBC.com as you can on CNN.com or FOXnews.com, but each station will take a different view on the same information, twisting it to fit their own political slant.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that the answer to the questions posed depend majorly on the definitions of the constituents, namely, "manipulation" and "political."
Manipulation, according to Enzensberg, on p. 265, is "handling," and it entails everything from filming to editing to distributing. The question then shifts from "Are media manipulated?" to "Who manipulates the media?" The answer? Enzensberg says "everyone."
To me, "political" doesn't just mean Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. Politics, in its most basic form, is trying to influence others to agree with something that they wouldn't have agreed with originally. So, in effect, all media is political - it's purpose is to influence others to new conclusions. Thus, all media is truth manipulated (shaped) by everyone to influence everyone else.
--Julia--
According to Enzensburger, manipulation can be any decision made in regards to how to present the text: "...the choice of the medium itselft to shooting, cutting, synchronizing, dubbing right up to distribution..." (265). I think this is a very intriguing thought. The fact that absolutely no media is unmanipulated just emphasizes the wide array of interpretations we can receive out of one report. The person behind the medium, whatever the subject, has a goal in mind when writing. Slanting a subject is inevitable; however, I do agree with Cody that today there are many different options and versions of the same text, such as different TV stations, magazines, internet articles, the newspaper, etc. to compare stories. This way we are able to decipher what might be the most unmanipulated version.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe media can be trusted. Companies spend millions of dollars trying to make their product more appealing and seem as if it will work better than a leading competitor, when in reality this not may be true. Companies use certain colors to evoke emotion. They use certain phrases, or jingles to get stuck in your head. They bombard you with gorgeous men and women, luring you to buy their product in hope that you will end up looking like the models. Retail media is not to be trusted because in the end all they really want is for you to buy their product.
ReplyDeleteMedia is manipulated through censorship. “Today censorship is threatened by the productive force of the consciousness industry.” People can no longer say what they want because they don’t want to offend certain gender, ethnic or race groups.
I agree with what people have been saying so far about media manipulation and ownership. Technically, anyone who changes anything about a form of media has manipulated it, especially when it is data used to present a specific point:
ReplyDelete“Mosquito nets keep the mosquitoes off of you at night.”
Yeah, I know.
“The introduction of mosquito nets into Zambia has helped reduce the death toll due to malaria by as much as 47%.” (http://www.france24.com/en/20090423-zambias-dropping-malaria-death-rate-world-model-who)
All of a sudden mosquito nets seem much more interesting. Or one could use this same fact to create another idea: “Mosquito nets are depriving the bugs of our delicious blood to feast upon.”
Commenting more specifically on the idea that the truth is manipulated for political reasons, this can be true. Take this statement: “This CD, which contains explicit lyrics, shall not be sold to children under the age of 18. Unless it is censored.”
One side says, “Yay! I don’t want my innocent children to hear that naughty language!”
The other side says, “You are depriving the artist of their freedom of speech, particularly toward the age group they have targeted.”
The same sort of argument may be applied to political issues such as abortion, gay marriage, deforestation, health care, etc. none of which I will address.
Furthermore, it’s much the same for ownership. You make a song, it’s yours. I remix it, it’s mine. You write a paper on life in Zambia, it’s yours. I use information on death rates from your paper to write a dissertation on the effect mosquito nets have on malaria death rates, it’s mine. Just because some of the information was originally presented by you it does not mean you own a portion of my dissertation.
Enzensberger wrote this paper in 1970, when those who were not rolling in money could not generally produce new forms of media. Now, almost any (wo)man with an idea can get financial support to create a massive industry. Anyone can create media, and almost anyone else can manipulate it in some way.
Finally, can media be trusted? Perhaps, perhaps not.. A few general facts like “He was born in 1776” may be trusted, but that is not always the case, even for such a simple fact.
I can actually think of a celebrity who is so good at hiding his personal life that no one is certain of his real name or real birthday, much less age.
I was actually waited for this discussion to occur in class because I am extremely curious as to what everyone is going to say about it. I would have to say that there is no “owner” of the media. If anything the owner is the public. The media is driven by the masses; it’s all driven by demand. I do believe that the media hierarchy like the head honchos of the different media industries and the government twist the media in their favor. For example, many believe Fox to be a one sided republican news station while MSNBC, NBC, and CNN have all admitted to being liberal stations. Depending on what media the public decides to listen to has a great affect on their ideas about society. The greatest example was during the most recent Presidential election, the majority of the news channels favored Barack Obama over his opponent. Whenever I flipped on the channel, it was clear that Barack won in popularity because the media covered him 24/7.
ReplyDeleteI read George Orwell’s 1984 in high school and began to compare and contrast our society with that of the “Utopia” in 1984. The “Utopia” in 1984 was completely controlled by the government, censorship galore. I also read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury which was also about censorship. Both readings allowed me to view a little of the censorship in our country and countries like China and North Korea. Supposedly we have the freedom of speech and press yet I do believe that the government has an influence in our media. Thankfully, we live in a free country whose press is not as censored as the communist countries whose governments have complete control over the media. I do believe that we can trust the media but only to a certain extent. Many sources of media contradict one another which is why it is important for people to be more well rounded when deciding on what media to listen to. Due to the fact that we cannot fully trust the media, it is best to gather information from one or more source. If we didn’t have some sort of trust in the media, we would be lost and have no foundation for truth.
This summer I had the opportunity to stay 3 weeks in Europe and as a result, absorbed a wealth of different media than I was accustomed to. Most surprising was their television programming. Their news stations broadcasted in a much more worldly manner than our US stations do. Here, we're more inclined to hear about issues going on in our country, but in England, the news consisted mainly of issues pertaining to international affairs etc. It made me think of the quote in Enzensberger's "Democratic Manipulation" section in which he states, "There is no such thing as unmanipulated writing, filming, or broadcasting. The question is therefore not whether the media are manipulated, but who manipulates them" (265). After being able to compare differences in media in the UK and the US, I can confidently say that media is manipulated by the public by which is it most used. Like others have stated, the idea goes along with a market-economy which thrives upon the majority's approval. New Media must be manipulated in order for it to be successful. Manipulation results in popular media ratings, but can be detrimental when a society closes itself off from external events.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Heather's statement that media cannot be trusted, I agree with a slight caveat. I feel that media is neither inherently good or evil, but that any media can be manipulated for either purpose for a variety of different entities for many different reasons. Though according to Enzensberger there may be no un-manipulated media, any such medium is manipulated by people. Because of this, I feel that people are more deserving of mistrust than any particular medium. Like with anything else, any medium can be rendered dangerous when placed in the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, everyone has had amazing comments! I agree with the majority of them. I agree that the masses control media and influence those that have a greater control over media.
ReplyDeleteThe part about film struck me as a good way to discuss all the points in this prompt. The director or writer or producer of the film may "own" the direction of the media, but they are strongly influenced by the people who would go out and see their film. Why else would they make "Transformers 2", if they didn't believe that they would make a ton of money from those who want to see a meaningless action flick. Like many others, I think that ownership of media can go both ways, but it is dependent on the masses.
Now, referring to the manipulation of film media, like Enzensberger states "cutting, editing, dubbing...are techniques for conscious manipulation" (274). Filmmakers have control as to what their final product will be based on all the choices the they make in film production. They also control how the film is marketed and portrayed, manipulating the audience to pay $10 to see their film.
Finally, can we really trust what we see? It's hard to trust what is put out by the media because of the underlying manipulation and lack of proper citing on sites like Wikipedia. And in terms of film, well, I know that my car is definitely not Optimus Prime, so I blame the film industry for making me think that my car is way cooler than it is. ;)
Media is a critical part of today’s capitalist society. Due to this major role in this particular type of civilization there is of course the outcome of ownership and monopolies. Some of the wealthiest members of our society came into their money through their prevailing hold over media. When one thinks of success or power certain franchises or names come to mind; Disney, Ted Turner, Google, Bill Gates or Apple, so surely these names mean that there is indeed “owners” of media if not one true “ownership” of media. “The media produce no objects that can be hoarded and auctioned,” says Enzensberger yet it does produce something much more endearing than all that. With sites such as youtube and with the ever rising celebrity of the “blogger” media offers entirely different rewards nowadays, rewards that seem deliciously rich to the monetary minded capitalist. Due to this reason society will be forever trying to gain “ownership” of media even if it is never truly possible.
ReplyDeleteIt was so interesting reading what everyone had to say on the subject of media ownership. My initial response to this question was that there is definitely no owner, and as a result of that, media stands to be manipulated. Ben used a great example when he questioned the owner of this blog. Though I think that there is some truth to what the media has to offer, there is no way to get to that truth without second (or third or fourth) guessing what the media has to offer.
ReplyDeleteEnzensberger says on page 265 that the new media is "completely opposed to bourgeois culture" and that it elicits action without time constraints, tradition, or possession. Like most everyone else, I find it particularly interesting that Enzensberger held this view almost 40 years ago. I bet this was a revolutionary thought of the time. When I think of media that is manipulatable, and has no particular author, I think of the internet, a new media that didn't even exist at the time that he wrote this article. Its almost as if he was alluding to new media today before such a thing was even thought of.
The media is often without author and manipulative to meet the demands of society. Enzensberger states that the promises of the media "are an answer to the mass need for nonmaterial variety and mobility," (268). The new media of today's society reflects capitalism because that is what the mass public desires; something that is moldable and accessible to be what they want it to be.
-Sarah Kelsey
Today there is no one person or group of people that can be considered the “owner” of the media, but rather anyone who uses or contributes to the media could be said to own a part of it. Media is manipulated by its producers, because all media is created or shared for a purpose, whether it is simply to inform, or to persuade. Because of that fact, one must use judgment when interacting with the media, and decide whether or not a certain part of the media is trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteThere is no single "owner" of the media, but there are definitely established media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ...) that dominate the media scene and are seen as the authorities when it comes to news. This is being challenged today by the influx of online news sites and blogs, but the giants still have a long way to go before they are dethroned.
ReplyDeleteMedia is definitely a product of manipulation. The same story being reported by different sources can vary drastically as each source applies there own bias and motivation to the retelling of the story.
Because of the manipulation, there are some issues with media being trustworthy, but I believe that in order for the media outlets to maintain viewership, they must remain reliable and trustworthy, otherwise there would be no reason to listen to them.
Indeed, the media is often used to manipulate the public. Our capitalistic society has allowed for this to happen. The drive for profits and the drive for political influence is a direct result of a free-market system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think it is important to note that the free-market system has granted the public with many opportunities to educate ourselves on the important issues of today. Enzensberger states that, " the mass self-regulating learning process which is made possible by the electronic media" (265). The people have the power of choice. We can choose what to believe.
Like Enzeberger says, "old or new forms of censorship" cannot fix the dangers of media manipulation. To end the media's power to manipulate, is to end capitalism and the excluzive rights it permits. Instead, a more realistic solution is necessary. The only answer lies within the public. Social control and the demands of the people make the public media's "owner".
Lena A.
This seems like a very relevant question in today's society. I do feel as if the media is controlled by an elite few, and they determine what we hear and when we hear it. All media is biased in some way, and most of it cannot be completely trusted. As humans, we have our own biases, and it is almost impossible to rid ourselves of this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there is only one owner of media, but there are not more than a few. Huge corporations own most of the major news channels, and each channel skews the information in which ever way it pleases. I believe it is up to the viewers or consumers of the media to judge what is right and wrong. We must tune into multiple news institutions to obtain a more balanced few of a news story.
It is amazing how this essay is relevant today, almost 40 years later.
The answers to these questions depend heavily upon what countries we're discussing, mainly the type of political system that exists in these countries. In a relatively free country, one with minimal government censorship, I would argue that there is no "owner" of the media because its content is comprised by the masses and anyone wishing to contribute can. New media has been made extremely accessible, so that even those who are at a slight disadvantage (i.e. those who do not have a personal computer) can make their voices heard (i.e. by using computers at a public library). Thus, in these countries, the media is owned by the people. Overall, I believe that the "development from a mere distribution medium to a communication medium" has been the reason that the ownership has switched from the hands of a bourgeois sect to the hands of the public (262). The viewers of the media are now able to refute what they are being told and distribute their own media, which in turn can also be refuted.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in many countries, for example, as a few classmates have already noted, in China, the media is controlled mostly by the government and is used for direct political purposes.
In either case, the media cannot be fully trusted and must always be approached with a large degree of skepticism. In the free countries, the media cannot be trusted because anyone can say whatever s/he wishes to, even if s/he has little to no credibility on the subject being discussed. In the not so free countries, the media cannot be trusted because it cannot be assumed that all of the known information is being disclosed. In fact, many of the facts and reports may even be entirely fabricated, just as they can be in free countries, but for different reasons.
I agree, undoubtedly, with Enzensberger, and with many of my classmates, that "every use of the media presupposes manipulation" (265). Everything from the content to how the content is being presented is tailored to a specific audience and for a specific purpose. This is not, however, necessarily a bad thing. The breadth of the media provides for a counterargument for every argument. Thus, all sides of a story can be obtained and when one looks at the full picture, one can recognize and, as a result, can depreciate the ways in which the media has tried to exploit the reader.
There is no "owner" of the media, at least not in our democracy. However, there are several conglomerates that control the news we receive each day (e.g., Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, General Electric). While individuals are free to blog and tweet news freely, the media conglomerates remain the main sources of news.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, I would say that there is sort of an "owner" of the media: money. I know that sounds crass and pessimistic, but what is the one thing driving each conglomerate? Money. If newspapers aren't sold and broadcast news isn't watched, journalists are without jobs. Thus, they report what they know will sell. Sure, journalists might cover a story ethically and to the best of their ability. But, the topics and viewpoints are generally ones that will sell. (Why else would they track newspaper production and television ratings?)
These few sentences particularly stuck out to me: "…[new media] make it possible for the first time to record historical material so that it can be reproduced at will. By making this material available for present-day purposes, they make it obvious to anyone using it that the writing of history is always manipulation" (265).
I think I found that idea interesting because when reading about wars in elementary school, I often wondered what the other country's textbook might say about a certain battle or turning point in the war. Not to mention, history was traditionally written by white, land-owning men. What got left out? I don't agree that all history is manipulation, but I conceive that parts of it definitely are.
Several people have said that everyone, in fact, owns the media. I don’t agree. I think that there are certain groups or corporations that certainly have more say in what goes into the media. However, there are certain types of media, the internet for example, that can be contributed to by the masses. As such, it is difficult to trust what gets put into the media.
ReplyDeleteIt could be argued that the market societies and the ‘richer’ population of the world could be considered the owners of media, because while some developing/poorer countries have internet access or access to other media, it is largely the ‘upper class’ that is able to contribute to said media.
As far as trust goes, media has always been manipulated and biased and it always will be. However, with the introduction of the internet into society it became much easier to find a variety of differing opinions about any given subject. Granted the bare facts could be wrong from any one source. But that has always been the case. The human race is flawed. This just makes checking your own facts even more important.
The fact that media is biased makes it increasingly more important to seek varying opinions. It’s like seeking a second medical opinion when your doctor gives you devastating news or tells you that you need surgery. You really shouldn’t just take their word for it. The same is true of any opinion. You should never put all of your trust into a single person or entity.
I do believe that much of media is the product of manipulation. During Nazi Germany media was controlled by the Nazi Party so the information was skewed in the Nazi's favor. Media was not trustable, though many trusted it at the time. While the war and all pro Nazi efforts were presented as good/necessary things over media, that very thing was the cause of the death of numerous innocent people.
ReplyDeleteMedia on the news is manipulated to grasp the viewers attention. Books are written to be read. Art is often created to be bought. The media is manipulated to fit our consumer based society in America.
I think media is the product of manipulation of information to be soaked in through the people. Media can be trusted, but not fully. Many news stories, tv interviews, and internet sites are manipulated to get the reader/viewer/consumer to "consume" their product in whatever form that may be. Media is a great tool and resource, but should not be fully trusted as the end all be all.
I believe that the media is manipulated by the creators of it. The people who provide media for the public can always put their own opinion into what they create. Not all the information they provide is objective, and it is most definitely subjective to their views. If one looks at news, they can see that much of it is subject to the political views of the news station. Also, many times, the media provides information based on what will get the biggest reaction out of society. They might turn news around to serve their own purposes, and therefore manipulate it so they can profit the most. If one looks at the presidential races, some believe that news of this event was manipulated for political reasons. When the president is in favor, his political views are shared by the media, but when he is out of favor, the opposing political view becomes the most talked-about.
ReplyDeleteI believe the owner of media is the creator, and also the larger media entities, such as news stations.
Because we don't know better, we trust the media that we are provided with because we have no other means of information. But as it is known, some media contradicts each other, and we can see that it is manipulated. Because it is manipulated, I don't believe it should be trusted. Nonetheless, we have nothing else to trust, so I cannot think of a better alternative. We are forced to believe and trust the opinions and "information" of others.
I agree a lot with what Jennifer Pham stated in her blog response. Perhaps at the time Enzensberger's piece was written, it was much easier to say that higher sects of society were much more in control of media because they were the ones that had access to it. However, in today's society I would argue that nobody has complete control, but rather that the control is shared by everyone who has access to new media. I think one really great example of how users of media are in "control" of it is Youtube. Everyone has the ability to post their own videos on Youtube, regardless of their "quality." This type of media would not exist without the participation of its users. That is to say that in order to make this form of media successful, those who access it must contribute to it, otherwise it would cease to exist.
ReplyDeleteTo touch on the question of whether or not media can be trusted, this is entirely subjective in my opinion. Some sources of media can be trusted (such as peer-reviewed books), however many parts of new media can be trusted sometimes, but not others (such as internet websites), and then there are forms of media that can rarely be trusted without further investigation. Because media has become so accessible and so easily manipulated (Wikipedia, for example), it is hard to know whether or not the things that are being fed to you are trustworthy or not. It requires us, as scholars, to think critically about everything that we're told, which is what I consider to be the basis of a class like this. We cannot assume that everything we are told is true, especially with regards to what is fed to us by new media.
I believe that the “owner” of media still exists today, and media is a product of manipulation. As Enzensberger stated, “the question is therefore not whether the media are manipulated, but who manipulate them.”(265) In most situations, the government lead directions due to political reasons.
ReplyDeleteIn China, the government has made certain agreements with the Google, which forbid users there to find the result of some searches. For example, if one want to find out the details about Tian’an Men event, also known as “Tian’an Men massacre”, after he types the key word and clicks “Google search”, he will only get pictures of Tian’an Men square, but not the description of the event. Because Chinese government don’t want people to know that they killed many students in 1989. Another example is that in 2003 when SARS attacked many people in China, the government refused to tell people the truth and claimed on TV that such virus has not entered China yet, because they don’t want people to panic and lost confidence. Can media be trusted? I have to say no in some circumstances.
-Duoduo
I disagree with many of the posters' opinions that the web suddenly frees us of media outlets that are controlled by the interests of entities with specific interests, (whether religious, political, commercial). As every new media is introduced, these "controllers" evolve new ways to penetrate our increasingly cynical reception of these pitches and increasing desire not to be solicited. Many will argue that as we create and publish our own content we become the controllers, and in some vast way the sum of our individual opinions introduces us for the first time to a media with out controllers. But are you really publishing your own content? Is your content served by facebook, flickr, deviantart? These publishers that are in what people call the cloud. When you publish through these outlets you effectively give the publisher the right to do whatever you could do with the content. They can delete it, restrict access to it, deface it, merge it with other content, use it to promote their site. All without credit to you. But what of individuals who truly publish their own content. How freeing must it be to contribute to the collective consciousness of humanity. To make an impression on others across the world, unless, the government of a country decides to deny its citizens access to that content. Even then, information, self-expression, and by extension, we are still controlled.
ReplyDeleteIn today's society the media can no longer be completely trusted. There is no discretion on who is able to set up a webpage and what the webpage can say. If a person wanted, he or she would be able to post whatever he or she thought regardless if the thoughts are accurate or even in the slightest bit true. People are always going to have an opinion about an issue and this will change the way they report something or write about something no matter how hard they try to keep their opinion out of it. Even the way they use words could change the significance of something.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is because I recently saw Inglorious Basterds (awesome movie), but my mind traveled to the same place as Danica's. Joeseph Goebbels, who is an amusing character in Tarantino's film, was the man behind all of the anti-semetic and pro nazi party propaganda during WWII. He managed to convince almost an entire nation that practicers of Judaism could not be tolerated and that the Aryan race was supreme. It is incredible how powerful media is and what it can do if its ownership is placed in the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI believe different types of media are owned by different people. I liked what one of my peers said about Wikipedia being a form of media owned and manipulated by the public. (However, this site cannot always be trusted/truthful.) Television, on the other hand, is not owned by the public. To some extent, the people can manipulate the medium of television. If tomorrow the masses decide to enjoy sitcoms featuring talking horses, then you can bet TV Land will start playing many more reruns of Mr. Ed. However, TV in general is owned by a handful of media companies, and whether these companies decide to produce trustworthy programs is entirely up to them.
When I read the section "The Subversive Power of New Media", I instantly thought of chain letters. Not the "Hi, I'm the president of Uganda looking to give away a few billion dollars" but the ones that went around while G.W. Bush was in office. I received several emails throughout those years requesting I join petitions to encourage Congress to impeach the former president. One that was sent had almost a million signatures.
ReplyDeleteAs the article stated, television was one of the main reasons much of the American populace opposed the war in Vietnam so vehemently. In my opinion, media is not necessarily manipulated at first. It's only after people jump on the cultural bandwagon that other media see a potential target audience and shift their focus. Many people had no radical opinions about Vietnam (my dad included) until the media saw this potential shift in cultural attitudes and seized the opportunity to bombard America with their biased propaganda.