Module 5 Reflection

In his article, The Rise and Fall of Professional Journalism, McChesney discusses how the media has progressed to be what it is today. He claims that there are two fundamental roles that the media was built on: (1) to be a watchdog of those who are in power and those who want to be in power and (2)to provide reliable information from a wide range of sources and opinions. As media began to develop in the 18th century, there were a few things that were understood to be crucial values that the media was expected to maintain no matter what. First, the media should be politically neutral. It was also understood that if the government had the ability to outlaw or circumscribe newspapers, it would kill democracy. The press has a lot to offer democracy as long as there are numerous, well subsidized media, providing a broad range of opinions (McChesney, 2002). By the 19th century, it was clear that the commercial press system was being dominated by the political ideology and agendas of wealthy individuals. By the 20th century, the 1st Amendment right of a “free press” was being seriously questioned as it became more and more obvious that the press worked best for corporate interest. American author, journalist, and political advisor, Naomi Wolf argues that “The First Amendment was designed to allow disruption of business as usual. It is not a quiet and subdued amendment or right.” The First Amendment was created to allow us to speak out against injustices, to give us a voice in the communities that we are an interconnected part of. When the media is controlled by those who have little interest in communicating the truth, we are being robbed of our First Amendment. McChesney believes that journalists are often oblivious to the compromises they are constantly making with authorities. It has just become an accepted part of professional journalism. I think that it is interesting that even back in the 18th century, far before they could have ever predicted the technology that we would have today, it was widely known that it would be very dangerous if the press did not hold up its moral responsibility of being an objective watchdog and source of credible information.  It has been somewhat of a gradual progression, but the biases we currently see in the news are the exact traits that our founding fathers warned us against.

In an article published on FAIR, Peter Hart discusses the findings of a study done on who speaks most frequently on major cable news networks. The results showed an astonishing lack of diversity among those who made it on screen of these networks. The networks were all dominated by white males, who were responsible for delivering the news to a country that is over half female and filled with people of all different ethnicities. While women and people of color did make the occasional appearance on these news networks, they were seriously underrepresented in terms of their actual demographics in society. Global Media Marketing Project explored the question: What does a snapshot of gender in one ordinary news day look like? In their 2015 video, Who Makes the News, GMMP explains how women are seriously underrepresented and misrepresented in the news. Even though women make up over half the world’s population, only 24% of people who appear on the news are women. When they do appear, they are also inaccurately representing. This reinforces stereotypes about gender roles in an incredibly unprogressive way. Furthermore, only 6% of stories on the news discuss gender inequality, resulting in missed opportunities for awareness and advocacy. Even though these injustices are difficult to change, it is not impossible. So why is it important to monitor the news in the first place? Well, the news is the most dominant source of information that the public receives. As the most dominant source of information, we accept it as truth. This gives it the power to not only influence our personal views, but also the power to change local and foreign policies as well.

In his 2003 Article, Benjamin Radford discusses how the news distorts reality and the biases that make it what it is. As Radford ironically states, “The news is what news people say it is” (2003, p.67). News stories do not just happen, they are created. There are many steps that journalists use to create stories, including judgment, selection, and interpreting actual events into the versions that the audience will receive. Radford argues that journalists strive to find and create stories of fear and sensationalism because these are the stories that get the most views. When more views correlate with more profit, the selection and interpretation process tend to be skewed towards what will grab the most attention. It is more like campfire storytelling or a bad game of telephone for journalists. Which wouldn’t be a big deal if it was widely known and accepted that many stories become somewhat fictional after they have been manipulated and retold. However, the public does accept the news as truth. This leads to warped worldviews about irrational threats that are incredibly rare, while the public remains uninformed about the real threats that are actually present in our everyday lives. Radford also argues that “not everything on the news is newsworthy and not everything newsworthy is on the news” (2003). News directors and editors select what is “newsworthy” based on competing stories, the amount of time available, and coverage area. This leads to only a small, carefully selected, set of bizarre events getting attention from the media while far more relevant stories get ignored. How facts are filtered and presented have a powerful impact on how an audience will interpret an event. By doing this, the news changes the meaning and significance of events. They do not just inform about events, they turn events into stories. In order to avoid being manipulated by the biases of the news, FAIR provides us with questions we must ask before accepting media messages as truth: Who are the sources? Is there a lack of diversity? From whose point of view is the news reported? Are there double standards? Do stereotypes skew coverage? What are the unchallenged assumptions? Is the language loaded? Is there lack of context? Do the headlines and stories match? Are stories on important issues featured prominently?

In chapter 10, Sternheimer discusses how and why we focus concern about advertising and consumption onto youth and the social/economic factors that have lead our excessively materialistic culture. Sternheimer explains that “The fear that children are lured into our hyper-consumerist society too soon draws on romantic nations of childhood innocence, in which children are somehow untainted by consumer culture until advertisers enter their allegedly pure space” (2013, p.249). However, consumerism is something that most of us are born into. To simply blame parents for spoiling their children and having corrupt values is not quite enough either. Our consumer centered society has been deeply rooted in our culture since WWII ended and the postindustrial period began. Instead of blaming individuals for their materialistic habits, we must recognize the massive structural foundation of consumerism that our economy has been built on. Another easy scapegoat for materialism is advertising. Many people argue that advertising is unfair to children and that they are too vulnerable to be exposed to persuasive messages. However, this oversimplifies children and their abilities. While of course they can be manipulated by advertisers, so can adults. Although they are contributing factors, advertising and individual personal values are not solely responsible for children’s materialism. If we want to find what created these high levels of materialism, we must recognize the structural patterns that have occurred over time in our society.

In the last chapter of Sternheimer’s book, she concludes all of her arguments that the media and popular culture are not to blame for all of society’s flaws. She argues that if we want to move towards a more healthy society, we must understand what the “big picture” causes of social issues are.  Although it is not always perfect, “media analysis is a great tool for exposing the complexities of issues like violence, gender and sexuality, racism, and homophobia. Our media culture provides great text for both artistic and social criticism” (2013, p. 283). Instead of being afraid of media, we should embrace it as a way to explore and understand the world around us. Since the media and popular culture are not going anywhere, we might as well learn how to critically use it as a tool to educate ourselves and generate new ways of thinking. It is easy to fall into believing that children need protection from it and must learn how to avoid being manipulated by it. However, it is just as crucial that adults learn to navigate their way through media messages as well. Sternheimer compares the media to a sheep in Wolf’s clothing. It is attention grabbing and seemingly very powerful which can make it appear to be harmful. Yet underneath the wolf clothing, media is far more of a follower than a leader of change.  Sternheimer argues that media phobia is counterproductive in addressing the central problems that are prevalent in our society. In her closing argument she explains, “It would be a mistake to focus only on the negative in these changing times, overlooking the positive aspects of both media culture and the next generation…we can’t be distracted by the lure of popular culture, which is ultimately not the key problem, nor is its control the solution” (2013, p. 286).