This is a fantastic article! I came here looking for information on the ownership of PBS (a PRIVATELY-owned not-for-profit organization like NPR, as I understand it--please correct me if wrong) after reading an article for class regarding media control of depictions of violence. It briefly mentions most of these companies, but your piece adds the deeper analysis and information I was left wanting.
Linda is absolutely right. It's important to know who controls media because it's those groups who determine, or at least approve, TV programming. Because of this, what we see and how it's depicted is essentially controlled by these commercially- and politically-affiliated groups. It's not their control of these TV stations, but that control in conjunction with their other interests (insurance for most, oil and consumer goods for many, and liquor for AOL/Time Warner)that determines these controls. According to proper capitalistic goals, these conglomerates must provide a service/good that sells, turn as much profit as possible to increase capital, and invest that capital back into their business interests to improve and better sell those products/services. This leads to the use of mass media as a marketing tool to increase profit, affecting programming. I'll argue that what can be perceived as restrictive or biased TV programming may not actually be from malicious intent--these companies may just be operating as they are intended to operate.
Now for something a little bit political. I try to follow news programs from a variety of sources, and really enjoy those that hold and express political views/tendencies because they allow us to see the source of the ways in which they cover the news. What's troubling to me is those that don't, especially in local news channels supported or owned by such media giants as ABC, NBC, CBS... Everything we see has political and social implications, and when news programs are promoted as politically neutral or, even more dangerous, don't address political affiliation at all, that type of news information becomes normalized as "just regular news" and we don't have a framework within which to inform our interpretations. This, not the overt censorship or conspiracies that some claim, is how our perception of the world and cultural ideologies are controlled. Again, I'm not going to say that this is of any conscious intent, because all I can see is the social implications of the above.
We can also talk about the ways in which this TV control perpetuates (I'll argue this is in part due to the success of the types of programs shown) the problematic normalization of heterosexuality; gender, race, and class inequality; and a variety of and the justification of many forms of violence. However, this is already a HUGE post and I'm starting to run out of steam! xP
So here are two closing observations. First, there is a huge discrepancy between the news shown on syndicate giants' stations and that shown on PBS (notably Democracy Now! and World Focus), both in form and substance. I've seem much more coverage of Iran's election drama and less of the North Korean issue on PBS than in other news sources. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of that, lol.
Second, something interesting brought up by the article that led me to this website. News coverage deeply affects our understanding of and reaction to war. The Vietnam War was, afaik, the first widely publicized war (again, please correct if wrong!). This may have influenced the (in)famous related anti-war movement and protests. The Gulf War was covered much more sparsely, and the first invasion of Afghanistan was almost entirely omitted. Neither of these military movements instigated the same outcry as the Vietnam War. The invasion of and war in Iraq has received voluminous coverage, possibly more than the Vietnam War (?), again inciting wide-ranging anti-war sentiments. Yet these sentiments have slowly dissipated and growing sense of ambivalence has been taking hold. I wonder if this is the result of "too much" media coverage--if we have become partially desensitized to the conflict. I'm not saying this is true of everybody, everywhere, but it's an undeniable presence in at least some communities.
Thanks to anybody who actually reads this instead of saying "tl;dr". I hope it makes some sort of sense. FYI, this is all coming from an undergrad sociology student disillusioned by but willing to work with both primary US political parties.
Linda is absolutely right. It's important to know who controls media because it's those groups who determine, or at least approve, TV programming. Because of this, what we see and how it's depicted is essentially controlled by these commercially- and politically-affiliated groups. It's not their control of these TV stations, but that control in conjunction with their other interests (insurance for most, oil and consumer goods for many, and liquor for AOL/Time Warner)that determines these controls. According to proper capitalistic goals, these conglomerates must provide a service/good that sells, turn as much profit as possible to increase capital, and invest that capital back into their business interests to improve and better sell those products/services. This leads to the use of mass media as a marketing tool to increase profit, affecting programming. I'll argue that what can be perceived as restrictive or biased TV programming may not actually be from malicious intent--these companies may just be operating as they are intended to operate.
Now for something a little bit political. I try to follow news programs from a variety of sources, and really enjoy those that hold and express political views/tendencies because they allow us to see the source of the ways in which they cover the news. What's troubling to me is those that don't, especially in local news channels supported or owned by such media giants as ABC, NBC, CBS... Everything we see has political and social implications, and when news programs are promoted as politically neutral or, even more dangerous, don't address political affiliation at all, that type of news information becomes normalized as "just regular news" and we don't have a framework within which to inform our interpretations. This, not the overt censorship or conspiracies that some claim, is how our perception of the world and cultural ideologies are controlled. Again, I'm not going to say that this is of any conscious intent, because all I can see is the social implications of the above.
We can also talk about the ways in which this TV control perpetuates (I'll argue this is in part due to the success of the types of programs shown) the problematic normalization of heterosexuality; gender, race, and class inequality; and a variety of and the justification of many forms of violence. However, this is already a HUGE post and I'm starting to run out of steam! xP
So here are two closing observations. First, there is a huge discrepancy between the news shown on syndicate giants' stations and that shown on PBS (notably Democracy Now! and World Focus), both in form and substance. I've seem much more coverage of Iran's election drama and less of the North Korean issue on PBS than in other news sources. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of that, lol.
Second, something interesting brought up by the article that led me to this website. News coverage deeply affects our understanding of and reaction to war. The Vietnam War was, afaik, the first widely publicized war (again, please correct if wrong!). This may have influenced the (in)famous related anti-war movement and protests. The Gulf War was covered much more sparsely, and the first invasion of Afghanistan was almost entirely omitted. Neither of these military movements instigated the same outcry as the Vietnam War. The invasion of and war in Iraq has received voluminous coverage, possibly more than the Vietnam War (?), again inciting wide-ranging anti-war sentiments. Yet these sentiments have slowly dissipated and growing sense of ambivalence has been taking hold. I wonder if this is the result of "too much" media coverage--if we have become partially desensitized to the conflict. I'm not saying this is true of everybody, everywhere, but it's an undeniable presence in at least some communities.
Thanks to anybody who actually reads this instead of saying "tl;dr". I hope it makes some sort of sense. FYI, this is all coming from an undergrad sociology student disillusioned by but willing to work with both primary US political parties.