 |
| ( http://www.winmentalhealth.com) |
- Before fantasising my empire, I feel it’s necessary to outline how political climates can help media sources both prosper and erode.
- I find myself morally opposed to the idea of a global media empire.
You see, one
of the defining features of big media is that it has the ability to “limit
diversity” because of the power it holds (Steven, P 2003). Not only can it influence our
knowledge but it can control exactly what is or isn’t our knowledge, what we
hear and what we don’t. We see this in companies such as Murdoch’s News Corporation
and
Fairfax Media.
Fairfax Media.
While most of the world enjoys a level of diversity
within the media, some nations are subject to news in a manner that can be
compared to a dictatorship or a one-party state. Mexico’s ‘Televisa’ holds ties to the authoritarian rule of Mexico’s
government, the PRI and Brazil’s ‘Globo TV’
was able to rise to prominence alongside the nation’s military dictatorship.
So how do we stop this? To me, the clearest answer is
government intervention. Countries such as Britain and France play a stronger
role in their own media service and insist on certain principles the media must
uphold. But relying on a government creates its own issues. Much like
media empires, they have a bias and an agenda. It seems the power and effect of the
two can be closely compared.
 |
| Credit: Robert Milner |
References
Singer, JB 2007, ‘Bloggers and other “participatory journalists”’, in C Friend & JB Singer (eds), Online journalism ethics: traditions and transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp. 115–50.
Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.
No comments:
Post a Comment