Media

Reply to Enrique People are to blame.

The mass media is driven by a demand to be entertained and to stare at as many car wrecks as possible.

If we’re going to blame someone or something else for our ‘ethical’ position then we’ve admitted to shirking responsibility and essentially avoided making any serious ethical stance.

The function of governments is the same. People have the power, but we’ve always had a hard time directing it and using it with responsibility. More access to information in the current age means we’ve been burden with greater responsibilities than previous generations - the truth is people tend to hate this as they cannot defend their ignorance with any reasonable excuse beyond being idle and lazy.

Reply to Enrique I tend to agree with you, and try to limit my exposure to it. I think there are a couple points to keep in mind. One is that on an evolutionary timeframe, the ability to mass communicate is pretty recent. We haven’t had time to adapt to this new style psychologically. As a result, being constantly bombarded with “information” is mentally exhausting, and has the effect of desensitizing us to tragedy in whatever form, especially since that is the vast majority of what is consumed. The other point is that with this much access, virtually all opinions are competing with each other to become public opinion. This results in the constant mixup of facts with opinions, which in turn makes it that much harder to determine the truth of anything that is being said. The consequences of this? A combination of widespread skepticism and fanaticism, both of which are ruled by fear.

Reply to Enrique The function of mass media in my opinion is to give the people what we want and what we think we want. Media is humanities window to the rest of the world and in turn informs us on how to view society as a whole. When I say "what we think we want" I mean to point out that we have to realize who controls the media, and certain motives they may possibly have to indoctrinate ways of life and perception.

Media in the past and currently has always had two sides to it; media/art from a genuine place of human expression and media/art that has a purpose to persuade and confuse the subject. The recent development in technology within the past few decades is an incredible progression to globalization and posses multiple outcomes in the realm of media. Either to liberate humanity (the essence of art) or to impose authority over the ways we consume media and therefore interpret the world. With the assistance of this globalization of media leads to more open minded content being spread but also leads to exponentially more misinforming and indoctrinating media. with the massive influx of this indoctrinating media barraging us 24/7 in the form of; ads, constructed songs, shows, social media, pornography etc. Now also targeting children, is domesticating humanity into docileness.

the truth is, indoctrinating media is here and that the rapid growth of it will indefinitely, shroud people's ability to discern what is good and what is bad for them to consume. I feel to combat this, is to recognize media consumption for what it is, and communicate as much as possible about it. Media is not evil, just maybe the people profiting from indoctrinating are. It gives me hope for humanity seeing the art that is being produced today. Entropy is on both sides of the problem rising exponentially in power and volume simultaneously and the unstable balance of creative expression and indoctrinating control is bound to break eventually. It is up to us when it will happen.

Reply to Enrique Mass media has always been big business. As a business, it's primary function is to make money for the media owners. The way mass media makes money is to sell advertising to other businesses. Programming -- whether splendid or vile -- is the bait which attracts audiences to see the advertising.

Of course, media presents itself as an instrument of free expression, or a means to entertain the masses, or a way of presenting dramas which enrich the culture, or to present the NEWS so that the public will be well informed. By coincidence, mass media occasionally achieves its goals. Some of the programming is actually entertaining. Once in a while mass media facilitates free expression of opinion. Some of the programming resonates with broad audiences. At times mass media does actually present news stories of value.

But remember: good programming is gravy. The meat and potatoes of mass media is selling and delivering advertising messages.

Does mass media suck? Absolutely.

I am afraid the current function of the mass media is entertainment.
It is all about ratings and about making money.
The news is mostly commentary and opinion (I hesitate to call it analysis).
The 24 hr news cycle and fracturing of the media is not healthy for our society.
The proper role of the media is to present the facts, give background perspective and hold elected officials accountable. Give the public the information they need to make informed choices.
The media has become an "echo chamber" reinforcing already held views, failing to present all sides and this has contributed strongly to the "polarization" of society. We do not listen to, comprehend or consider the viewpoint of others.

I blame that Caxton fellow. When everything had to be hand written, one copy at a time, folks were more careful about what was being promulgated.

Mass media projects itself as a source of accurate, impartial, and relevant information. These three qualities underpin the function of mass media. The word "reporter" says it all - no advices, no opinions, no analysis, no perspectives, but just reports which, to my knowledge, simply means accounts of news material untainted by the reporter's preferences, interests, hopes, fears, judgements, and anything else that might identify with the reporter. In esence the reporter must not leave his footprints in the report.

Does mass media live up to this image that it takes great pains to create among its consumers? Yes, reporters may distance themselves from the news in order to claim their disinterested observer status but there seems to be so many ways personal bias can creep into the news - which images you display, the background music, which people get their voices heard, etc.