headshot
There has been much debate within certain circles of society as to the precise effects of media upon their audiences. Do media create certain values and behaviors within their audiences or do they mirror existing values and behaviors according to audience demand? Are media simply reporting on the world at large, or in their selection, omission and portrayal are they helping to shape that world?
Hyper-sexualized and gratuitously violent television, music and video games abound, and are the most frequently discussed media elements due to their overtly controversial nature and accessibility to children. But outside seemingly isolated pockets of concerned parents, educators, and a small but growing group of media literati, there is precious little discussion about the potential effects of such media upon their audiences.
It seems unlikely that we will ever know the precise long-term effects of media upon our mental and emotional development, but lack of certainty in no way warrants the blatant lack of concern displayed by today’s media. It’s not as if there isn’t already a consensus that media can and do effectively alter the mindset of even grown adults. Consider the advertising or public relations industries, your company’s marketing department, or just take a moment and ponder the phrase “winning hearts and minds.”
In an age of carefully staged political events, propagandistic news reporting, and a near media blackout on our own military operations abroad, it seems worthwhile to consider again this one simple question: Do the media act primarily as a cause or as an effect in today’s society?
govt + watchdog: bff
It’s been more than two weeks now since The New York Times revealed that corporate network news had played willing partners in a government propaganda campaign directed by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the American people. Retired military brass were used as “message force multipliers,” briefed by Rumsfeld himself and expected to carry the administration’s pro-war ideology into network newsrooms where they were paid as expert analysts to repeat administration talking points as if they were their own opinions or objective facts. This conflict of interest was kept from the viewing public. Also kept from the public: Many generals turned analysts were concurrently being employed by companies who profit from war. It’s been more than two weeks since all this was made public, and not a word has been uttered by any of the big three networks.
According to a study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in the 1,300 news stories that ran on 48 different outlets the week after the NYT story broke, only two mentioned the story — both on PBS’ “Newshour.”
After being harangued by citizens in the know about his nightly blackout on the issue, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams wrote–on his blog, 10 days after the NYT story ran– that he could vouch for two of the analysts employed by NBC, as they were both “passionate patriots” and close personal friends of his:
“I’ve worked with two men since I’ve had this job — both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals — Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I’m sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men.”
How’s that for staunch journalistic objectivity. The government propagandist and the watchdog together at long last… and best friends forever no less.
leave a comment