I thought this was a very interesting story because it deals with the government trying to diversify media by tracking it and subsequently regulating it. Does that make sense?
The FCC’s survey proposition was met with opposition and will not be enacted, but skeptics of the proposal are nonetheless upset. Would this government insight into media affairs lead to it having a more prominent role in the news?…(as if it could get any more prevalent.) Or, on the plus side, would regulations promoting women and minorities create a newsroom with less of a “locker room mentality” and open the doors for a more unbiased take on the news?
I find it interesting that in independent media minority opinions are the backbone of many outlets, but in the mainstream these voices are silenced so much that the government would feel the need to intervene.
While I do dislike the lack of diversity in traditional media outlets, I do not think it is the government’s duty to diversify these corporations. The government is already too cozy with reporters, and if they are allowed to regulate one aspect of the media then I fear that it would soon spread to other management and content related specifications.
Independent media has the strength of thousands of voices already involved with sharing the most important stories in the most meaningful ways, regardless of gender and ethnicity. If the government really wanted to diversify the news we receive, they would increase their support for other outlets like NPR, instead of threatening to take away their funding.
“Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?” -Kurt Vonnegut
This was an interesting article because it dealt specifically with how the mainstream media limits the news distributed to the public. Vonnegut expressed that the public needs to question and fear authority, but according to the “Yo Soy 132” movement, we also need to be weary of those who are responsible for distributing crucial information. “They’re working to stage a democratic revolt against an almighty establishment of another order: television,” said Flannery. I have always been interested in how information is filtered by the mainstream media to conform to their politics, agendas and sponsors but I had no idea to the extent of their willingness to sell out.
This specific instance was a blatant manipulation of the media by a candidate because his party had the means to pay off the television stations. Independent media sources were able to band together against this tyranny and form a more level playing field. The movement was made possible because of social media platforms on the internet. Even tough many households did not have access to the internet, college students and those who did were able to spread the word about the dismissed candidates. By looking for information outside of traditional media they are educating themselves about the actual truth and real issues facing Mexico.
The resolution to the story is hopeful, because the TV stations eventually agreed to host an actual debate… but I am left with many unsettling questions. Blogging is a necessary element to the political world today because we are fed so many half-truths and opinions, but with many still left in the television era, how can the actual truth survive? I am uncomfortable with the friendliness between money and media, and this furthers my speculation that we are all being brain washed into “perfect citizens” in order to fit society’s standards. Does blogging really have the staying power to fight these media giants? How will the dismissal of the Net Neutrality law affect how we are able to find information for ourselves?
This article was a more in depth look at the issue of millennials and how we use the news. 2008 was the fist election that I could legally participate in, and like many others of my generation, I was very excited. We had the opportunity to discuss issues that were important to us like healthcare and women’s rights, and to do so we went to the internet. We shared, liked and commented on social media websites because we actually had a chance to make a difference in the outcome of the election.
In a book I am reading for another class, Poindexter’s “Millennials” she also documents the vast impact of the internet on the 2008 elections. People were enticed to follow the candidates because they were interesting, and relevant. Democrats and Republicans brought out their best news connections to feature their best attributes and the shortcomings of their opponents, but in the end CNN, FOX and other traditional media sources had no affect on the outcome. Bloggers, social media enthusiasts and behind the curtain reporters were able to bring us the true meaning of the candidates in a way that allowed us to make informed decisions better than in the past.
Independent Media is not motivated by the power of money or fame, but by curiosity. Where the mainstream left a gray area, the bloggers were able to fill it with their own reporting and honesty. Would we have ever heard Obama’s backhanded comment about the Midwest if it weren’t for Fowler? Would it have been a much more debated contest if “McCain’s Mansions” wasn’t released? How did these leaks affect the outcome of the elections? We can’t be sure of the answers, but in my opinion we would have had a much different election if it weren’t for social media and independent reporters.