We're all at Aakansha's house for Diwali watching Cartoon Network, and we're watching these Godawful cartoons (SUSHI superheroes?!) preaching about how lying is bad and stuff, and I get to thinking that this would be a good example of mass media to blog about. Turns out that at least two of us had the same idea after seeing that show, so now, I'm going to focus on something else.
The main thing about the mass media that I wanted to address is the powerful effects theories and the magic bullet model. The magic bullet model of mass media states that the media is all powerful and the audience is completely passive. That is to say that the public is merely a mindless, opinionless body that takes in anything that is fed to them, or that would be what this theory seems to imply. However, man's opinion is based on his socializing agents and the information available to him. One can be highly mature and postconventional in his way of thinking, but if the only information made available to him is a skewed view on society provided by biased sources, then he would adopt that viewpoint, being the only viewpoint available to him. Such a scenario is highly unlikely and rather rarely observed today, but in certain situations where there is only one channel of information, it is still possible.
Take for example the Vietnam War. Communication between the troops in Vietnam and the White House were severely limited and primarily controlled by the media and intelligence wings of the army, and their will was enacted by the radio stations they ran. This gave them the ability to control the information coming in, going out and circulating Vietnam, which gave them a lot of power. They were able to withold information from the States so as to not incite panic amongst the American public, and they could filter out the pessimistic reports from the military strategists and the politicians in the States so as to not demoralize the troops. To some extent, they could also control the dissemination of local info, as can be seen in this clip from the 1987 movie Good Morning, Vietnam.
Brief storyline synopsis so far: Adrian Cronauer (played by Robin Williams) is a USAF airman sent to Vietnam as a DJ for the army's radio station. He is instantly a hit amongst listeners, due to his over the top humour, spontaneous personality and rock and roll playlist, although his superios are highly annoyed as they consider his humour and song selection inappropriate. They also hound him regarding censorship, and do not allow him to report any news they receive until it has been approved, much to his annoyance. In the second part of the video, he witnesses a local bar get blown up by VC insurgents, and when he returns to the station, makes a move to report it but is ordered not to do so by his superiors.
Once again, another self posted clip, so hope YouTube does not pull it down.
The main thing about the mass media that I wanted to address is the powerful effects theories and the magic bullet model. The magic bullet model of mass media states that the media is all powerful and the audience is completely passive. That is to say that the public is merely a mindless, opinionless body that takes in anything that is fed to them, or that would be what this theory seems to imply. However, man's opinion is based on his socializing agents and the information available to him. One can be highly mature and postconventional in his way of thinking, but if the only information made available to him is a skewed view on society provided by biased sources, then he would adopt that viewpoint, being the only viewpoint available to him. Such a scenario is highly unlikely and rather rarely observed today, but in certain situations where there is only one channel of information, it is still possible.
Take for example the Vietnam War. Communication between the troops in Vietnam and the White House were severely limited and primarily controlled by the media and intelligence wings of the army, and their will was enacted by the radio stations they ran. This gave them the ability to control the information coming in, going out and circulating Vietnam, which gave them a lot of power. They were able to withold information from the States so as to not incite panic amongst the American public, and they could filter out the pessimistic reports from the military strategists and the politicians in the States so as to not demoralize the troops. To some extent, they could also control the dissemination of local info, as can be seen in this clip from the 1987 movie Good Morning, Vietnam.
Brief storyline synopsis so far: Adrian Cronauer (played by Robin Williams) is a USAF airman sent to Vietnam as a DJ for the army's radio station. He is instantly a hit amongst listeners, due to his over the top humour, spontaneous personality and rock and roll playlist, although his superios are highly annoyed as they consider his humour and song selection inappropriate. They also hound him regarding censorship, and do not allow him to report any news they receive until it has been approved, much to his annoyance. In the second part of the video, he witnesses a local bar get blown up by VC insurgents, and when he returns to the station, makes a move to report it but is ordered not to do so by his superiors.
Once again, another self posted clip, so hope YouTube does not pull it down.
As can be seen in the clip, Cronauer is insistant on reporting the truth, as the media should. However, his superiors are more concerned about what efect the news will have on the public and the troops. At that point, the army is still operating under the euphemism of a "police action" in order to avoid admitting that they are actually going to war, as declaring such would cause panic and possibly drop troop morale. Thus, the media is actively controlling and witholding information for their own agenda.
This is where the magic bullet theory comes into play. By selectively choosing what to disclose to the public, amongside being the primary and perhaps only viable source of credible information, the media is effectively telling the public what to believe in the knowledge that they will just have to take in what they say as the truth. Media institutions that actively withold information from the public, as opposed to reporting everything from an unbiased point of view, obviously have their own agenda in moulding public opinion and perception to something analogous to their intentions and ideals.Additionally, when there is no transparency or opposing opinions, the media's biased view is the only view.
So today's question is: Is such control of information by the media justifiable? Should it disclose everything properly and potentially shake the public's view of the government, or should it disclose only what the public needs to hear while trusting themselves to maintain the illusion of peace?
This is where the magic bullet theory comes into play. By selectively choosing what to disclose to the public, amongside being the primary and perhaps only viable source of credible information, the media is effectively telling the public what to believe in the knowledge that they will just have to take in what they say as the truth. Media institutions that actively withold information from the public, as opposed to reporting everything from an unbiased point of view, obviously have their own agenda in moulding public opinion and perception to something analogous to their intentions and ideals.Additionally, when there is no transparency or opposing opinions, the media's biased view is the only view.
So today's question is: Is such control of information by the media justifiable? Should it disclose everything properly and potentially shake the public's view of the government, or should it disclose only what the public needs to hear while trusting themselves to maintain the illusion of peace?
RSS Feed (xml)
wah so cheeem!
ReplyDeleteokay, firstly, I think that the media can say all it wants, however, it MUST NOT DISTORT FACTS under all circumstances, whether it is to make better or make worse a scenario.
In that case, trying to attain objectivity would allow the people to judge for themselves, with a much greater deal of uncoloured or distorted vision. Hence,sieving out data would not be necessary.
However, because people put so much trust or are strongly (subtly) influenced by the media, the lack of moderation may lead to ubdesirable acs such as a civil war--conflict from miscommunication due to faulty perceptions...
Hmmm..that's a tough one. I guess there's no distinct 'black-and-white' concept when it comes to transparency and peace of a country. It depends. Even though we might argue that we've the right to know the 'truth' of it all, but in many things in life as well, we face this dilemma & we don't always get to know the truth. Or rather, we'll find out somehow, by observing,etc. Anyway, anything that 'cannot hold water' will eventually be poured out into the open.
ReplyDeleteThen again, if it were concerning the lives of the people, it would be wise for the authorities to not assume responsiblity for the lives of the people. That would be quite scary. (am i contradicting myself?)
Well I'm going to state a comment most likely frowned upon by conspiracy-thinkers and skeptics alike: If it helps us, why not?
ReplyDeleteI mean, if media was controlled in exchange for harmony and peace, I see no problem in it. It's not as if the government was spawning a devious plan that would directly and adversely affect us in anyway at all. Even if they were really hatching some plot, we really aren't seeing detrimental effects of it, really.
Conspiracy-theories are so yesteryear.
to me, i feel that for certain information that might bring harm to government bodies, the media will tend to either keep it from the public or change the whole meaning.
ReplyDeletei feel that the media has the reposibility to upload intergrity when releasing information to the public.
we have the right to know the truth and not be kept in the dark, especially when it comes to politics.
there is a notion from the government that any form of disclosure is of a need-to-know basis. because no information is bad, but little information could be fatal. simple.
ReplyDeleteisaac
http://pitstophere.wordpress.com
I feel that there is no reason for the press and e media to hold anything back from the public. That's their job after all, to tell everyone what's going on, good or bad. Should the weatherman only report the weather when it's sunny? The media owes it to the masses to report everything truthfully, and if you can't handle it then change the damn channel.
ReplyDeletei disagree with jimmy. while i feel that the news and the government shouldnt lie to us, they have the right to slightly censor certain facts. the world is definitely more screwed up than we know it to be, and yet there arent any people running around screaming the world is ending. the public cant handle the whole truth, so the news has to not panic them or its useless.
ReplyDeleteThe world is a lie, man, and so is the media. They're trickin us all, playing us like puppets to do their biddin. Tellin us wat to think n wat to feel, so they can use us how they wanna. Dont believe everythin. You didnt hear it from me.
ReplyDeleteDude I'm laughing my ass off at this anonymous assbag. Snort much?
ReplyDeleteAnywho, freedom of speech is a right here in the good ol' US of A. SG's media is highly restricted, it's stifling. Here, the press says what they wanna say. Except during the Bush Administration, when Fox news only said what Bush wanted to say. Glad that's over. Hope it stays that way.
Kessler, you're spot on about Fox News' bias towards Bush. They so blatantly defended Israel in the Gaza conflict, it's disgusting. Look at this and you'll know what I mean:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovugclIWMEk
Yeah that Fox News thing was disgusting. Totally not what a free press should be at all. That video raises some interesting questions, but I guess the main point is that the effects of a government-controlled media is very apparent.
ReplyDeleteAre they really apparent, the effects? A lot of people set store by whatever the media says, just because the media is supposed to be true. In the end, they end up sucking in whatever facts and opinions the media offers. That's how pro-Bush sentiments still lingered after all those blunders he made. Fox News is highly supportive of the Bush Administration, and people just take that stuff in just because Fox News is supposed to be truthful.
ReplyDelete