 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
January 23, 2004
| More on: Big business' agendas |
Opinions like John's represent the opposite extreme from the masses of perfectly content consumers. To his point, our media is largely controlled by five rich old white guys who probably all belong to the same country club. And thanks to Bush and the conservative leader of the FCC, the amount of media any one corporation can control in a single market is increasing even more.
But this is something that isn't likely to change. Many people I know are aware of these facts, and the many ways the media -- or more commonly the companies that advertise through the media -- manipulates us with images of sex, acceptance, coolness, etc.. As well, they know how media sets the unconscious standard of "American life" by which we live, and creates a collective image of America being like Friends, or us all being one question away from being a millionaire, not actually a country struggling with racism, poverty, overcrowded prisons, and landfills packed with plastic singing fish.
But really, what's the option? To not enjoy television, movies, and radio? For most people there's just no motivating reason to do that -- in fact, boredom and increased isolationism, as well as the cost or effort involved in alternatives, actually makes it very unmotivating to do so. So most people get their news, information, and culture all largely from media sources that conform to their already existing tastes and beliefs.
"Corporate mind control," as real as it may be, is a pretty vague concept, sounding more like a conspiracy theory than a real danger. And it isn't a danger, if you dismiss its influence on rampant consumerism or stereotypes, on largely misinformed voters, or a lack of true social awareness.
And it is in the interest of corporations to influence political thought. They want us to elect whoever will give them the greatest corporate welfare, tax breaks, and monopoly, and the least amount of environmental restrictions, health insurance demands, labor protections or liability. They play both sides of the fence, but typically donate larger amounts to Republicans for these reasons, who then spend far more on advertising then their Democratic opponents. There are exceptions, of course, but this is the general rule. And as media ownership becomes consolidated, the messages and programming will increasingly become biased and influenced by similar goals.
It is through idealist anger like John's that we can hope the FCC will be forced to put tighter restrictions back on media ownership and encourage greater variety and true competition in programming, and people will occasionally question why they feel the need to go deeper into debt to by a bigger, shinier SUV when their current one is working just fine. Political financing and Republican corporate favoritism is another mess altogether.
Written by Randy Henderson
a regular contributor to NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Cal Blethen at January 23, 2004 05:17 PM |
|
Back to top