Media in society Essay Example

constantly reiterating and reanalyzing the media system's messages. In my research on Internet news, I found evidence supporting the views of Manheim, Rushkoff, and Bennett. While most of my findings directly align with Manheim's perspectives on the media, I did find support for Rushkoff's notion that the media is a reactionary creation by society. In terms of Bennett's biases, the portrayal of news on the Internet exhibited all four: dramatization, normalization, fragmentation, and some elements of personalization. When covering non-controversial political topics, the elite viewpoint was often favored, but public perspectives were included when the subject matter became more contentious. For example, in comparing coverage of the presidential nominees' campaign finances and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura's controversial interview with Playboy magazine, a biased elite slant was evident in the campaign finance coverage, disregarding public opinions on candidates' actual platforms. Conversely, coverage of the Ventura interview prominently featured public views and reactions.This evidence pertains to the views of Manheim and Bennett regarding how the media presents news. The news stories about campaign finance contain a significant amount of dramatization, as they focus on portraying finances as the most crucial aspect of the campaign, while neglecting to mention other campaign elements. According to Manheim, many Americans prefer to be entertained rather than informed, despite the need for information. When I shared my initial findings with friends, they were interested and felt the need to know more. However, when I delved deeper into my research and explained different political platforms, they showed disinterest and walked away dismissively. These personal findings contradict Rushkoff's belief that GenXers understand the media's portrayal and are not easily influenced by its entertainment value.

Further examination of the media revealed that while stories are attention-grabbing, they lack in-depth coverage of the underlying political and institutional factors that contribute to these stories. For instance, an article about a treaty aiming to ban nuclear testing only briefly mentioned reasons why the treaty might fail. Instead, more emphasis was placed on how signing the treaty could impact President Clinton's popularity ratings at that moment. The articles available online provided evidence supporting Manheim's idea that the news communicates in a language of cynicism.If one were to solely base their opinions on the news displayed on the Internet, it would be reasonable to believe that the world was on the verge of a standstill due to politicians making "bad" decisions regarding both society and their personal lives. It is also not far-fetched to think that if viewers trust everything they read, the elite will handle everything. This concept of normalization, as suggested by Bennett, is evident in articles discussing natural disasters and "crisis" situations (which, in many cases, have also been fabricated by the media). Rushkoff's idea that the media is a product of society is valid in this regard. Society desires conflict resolution, and the media provides the public with the chance for resolution gratification (Rushkoff, 1994). Moreover, news coverage often overlooks long-term trends and historical patterns. To gain a comprehensive understanding, draw informed conclusions, and deduce logical solutions, one must uncover the truth behind the presented stories (Manheim, 1991). Even when exploring additional online sources of information, the media establishes a system that keeps readers trapped in a cycle of recycled information presented in different formats. For instance, in an article addressing

the Social Security trust fund, viewers are only informed that Congress and the White House are disputing who will withdraw money from the fund.The trust fund's actual figure and the amount of money borrowed by both the House and Congress are not given in detail, nor are the reasons for the repeated plundering of the trust fund. The effects of this borrowing are also not disclosed. In conclusion, the media has led the public to believe that the political and other institutional systems are functional, when in reality, it is the mass media system that is working effectively. The media distorts events by providing a skewed view to the public without providing the underlying causes. This leaves the public ill-equipped to make accurate political judgments. The media claims to be objective, but it engages in false objectivity. News coverage, whether through television, radio, internet, or newspapers, is inevitably selective in both the stories it reports and how it presents them. The media cannot cover everything that happens in a day, so editors and reporters must decide what to include in their reports. Additionally, reporters are human and their objectivity may be clouded by emotions like anger, jealousy, anxiety, impatience, and ambition. These reporters belong to large, complex organizations that have their own diverse and sometimes conflicting goals and needs.Giving the public news is more than just reporting the facts. It is a human activity, and the way reporters portray events impacts how the public understands them. This can be harmful to democracy because it prevents the public from having a complete understanding of events and making informed decisions, leaving those in power with an advantage.

As Cass R. Sunstein stated, focusing excessively on the personal lives of famous people hinders democracy by overshadowing more important issues. There is a difference between what serves the public interest and what interests the public, a distinction that seems to be forgotten by many today. Americans have never been particularly fond of the media, but their dislike has grown stronger in the past decade. They perceive the media as arrogant, cynical, scandal-oriented, and destructive. This public hostility is evident in opinion polls, talk show comments, decreasing support for news organizations in conflicts with government officials, and even in a quiet boycott of the press by consumers.Year after year, a decreasing percentage of Americans bother with reading newspapers or watching news broadcasts on TV. This not only impacts the news media but also the entire public. Neglecting the news means individuals have no way to anticipate trends they may not personally observe, no understanding of global or even local events, and no tools to make informed decisions about public figures or policies. It seems that many people believe these losses are a smaller sacrifice compared to the exposure the news offers. The major American institutions that have failed in recent times often wasted years pointing fingers at others for their problems. Following the Vietnam war, the U.S. military was almost on the verge of collapse. Many military personnel felt betrayed and blamed their problems on ineffective political leaders and unappreciative fellow citizens. Detroit's Big Three automobile manufacturers, with their outdated vehicles, were caught off guard in the 1970s by the sudden increase in global oil prices and competition from Japan. They complained about the unfairness

of Middle Eastern oil producers, Washington regulators, and Japanese car manufacturers. While there may have been some truth in these complaints, the larger truth is that these institutions were able to turn things around only when they acknowledged and rectified flaws in their own internal values.In the early 1970s, control of the auto companies shifted from "car men" to "money men." The "car men" were skilled in designing and building automobiles, while the "money men" had expertise in quarterly profits and stock options but lacked knowledge about car manufacturing. This transition caused the Big Three auto companies to struggle against Japanese competition. However, they regained stability when they placed "car men" back in charge.

Similarly, the American military during this time suffered from a culture of careerism that contradicted its traditional values of service. Officers sought promotions by pleasing their superiors and assisting with the approval of defense contracts. Enlisted soldiers in Vietnam focused on surviving their time "in country," while officers prioritized obtaining combat-command assignments. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the military conducted a thorough examination of its ethics, identifying and rectifying many existing issues.

On the other hand, the media establishment has yet to confront its challenges honestly. Journalists today are well aware of the pressures that push their profession in unwanted directions. However, they haven't genuinely addressed external criticisms to initiate reform. When confronted with accusations of failing to fulfill their public responsibilities, many journalists instinctively fall back on citing the "First Amendment," much like the military's reflexive use of "national security" to defend against any critique of its practices.Critics who blame reporters or editors for their negative coverage often hear the

response that they are simply reflecting the reality of the world. The press denies any responsibility for the portrayal of the world in their news. When publications are accused of having a left-wing bias, they counter by saying they are accused of having right-wing bias or bias in other ways as well. They believe that if criticism is coming from all sides, they must be striking the right balance. Reporters argue that they already provide extensive and thoughtful news analysis, which goes unnoticed by a lazy public. If they don't include crime, gore, or celebrity profiles in their news, they risk losing their audience to competitors who do. When reporters are criticized for being insulated and elitist, favoring the values of powerful politicians over those of the audience, they dismiss it as irrelevant. They argue that they are merely like research scientists, completely dedicated to understanding a complex subject.The media can better serve the public by gaining a firsthand experience of those in power, rather than maintaining a distance from their sources. While there is some truth to the criticisms and excuses made by journalists, the larger truth is that influential media establishments have lost sight of their core values or have been pushed away from them. This book aims to explain the reasons behind this shift in journalist values, how their current practices undermine the credibility of the press, and how it impacts the future prospects of every American by distorting our political processes and problem-solving. Many journalists have recognized the crisis within their profession and have initiated reform efforts, which are described in this book. It is commonly known that prominent journalists have

gained power. We witness their confrontations with presidents during White House press conferences and their instant evaluations right after politicians complete their speeches. We are aware of how they hastily move from one major news event to another, whether it's attending a press conference by Gennifer Flowers, covering a riot in Los Angeles, reporting on Congressional hearings concerning a Supreme Court nominee, or documenting the arraignment of Tonya Harding. However, for those outside the industry, it can be challenging to grasp the combination of financial, social, and professional incentives that have led to this self-promoting behavior.The changes that have occurred in elite journalism over the past few decades and years have completely transformed its core values. For any organization to thrive, it is crucial that the actions benefiting individuals also benefit the entire organization. Conversely, when individual gains come at the expense of the group, the organization suffers. In the evolving landscape of journalism, individual journalists now have the potential to achieve power, wealth, and prestige that previous generations could only dream of. However, this newfound success comes at a great cost. The more prominent these star journalists become, the more they are compelled to relinquish the fundamental principles of true journalism, which involve seeking out valuable information for the public. This compromise has its most significant impact at the pinnacle of the journalism hierarchy, resulting in its destructive consequences. The influential and highly paid figures in journalism now serve as a model that undermines the quality of news we receive and jeopardizes the public's trust in journalism. The harm extends beyond that, posing a threat to the long-term viability of our political system. Gradually,

mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of presenting public life in America as an ongoing competition where conniving and insincere politicians continuously try to outmaneuver one another, contributing to a race to the bottom.In the 1990s, American democracy faced a significant challenge as people had little trust in elected leaders or the legislative system to achieve anything meaningful. Politicians were viewed as untrustworthy during their campaigns and often disappointed their supporters once they took office. Upon leaving office, they would make excuses for their failures. While deep-rooted issues in the political and economic structure of America largely contributed to the frustration in politics, the media's attitudes played a surprisingly destructive role. Topics that impacted the collective interests of Americans, such as crime, healthcare, education, and economic growth, were presented as battlegrounds for politicians. The press is often referred to as the "Fourth Branch of Government" because it should provide essential information to help the public understand public problems. However, rather than facilitating the management of these issues, the press often complicates matters. By portraying public life as a competition among deceitful political leaders who should be viewed skeptically by the public, the press inadvertently contributes to this outcome. Additionally, today's media has created new obstacles for American politics and has put itself in an impossible situation. Instead of presenting public life as an essential activity that citizens can and should engage in, it increasingly depicts it as a demoralizing spectacle.The main idea of this approach is that in order for people to pay attention to public affairs, politics needs to be made as interesting as other entertainment options such as celebrity scandals and daytime

talk programs. However, if the "serious" news media tries to directly compete with pure entertainment programs, it will inevitably lose. This also increases the likelihood of its own eventual extinction. Ultimately, people will only pay attention to journalism if they believe it is informing them about something important. The less interest people have in public life, the less they will be interested in any form of journalism. This book primarily assesses the impact of journalists' behavior on our society, but as a reporter for over 20 years, it also reflects the author's personal concerns about the industry. The author stumbled into journalism but stayed because they enjoyed various aspects of it, such as the craft of storytelling and the teamwork required to produce news. They also believed in the value of journalism.Journalists have not always been popular, but their work is highly valued as it provides others with the means to comprehend the world beyond their immediate environment. There are few Americans who possess firsthand knowledge about countries like China or Bosnia, or the conditions in Mexico that impact immigration, or those in Japan that impact trade policies. Additionally, very few individuals are familiar with life on aircraft carriers, life inside the White House, or even life on the outskirts of their own town. However, despite this limited knowledge, Americans are expected to form opinions on these matters or at least choose among potential officeholders who have opinions. Thus, our understanding of these subjects primarily relies on what journalists inform us. Being a reporter comes with tremendous potential power. Reporters possess the negative power to publicly make statements about others, where those individuals cannot adequately

respond in kind. On the positive side, reporters have the ability to broaden people's understanding of reality by bringing new aspects of the world to their attention. Taking this power seriously necessitates taking one's role seriously and recognizing the impact of the tool or weapon one wields. Similar to teachers, soldiers, nurses, or parents, journalists carry out a job whose true value cannot be equated to their compensation. A multitude of people benefit when journalists fulfill their duties effectively; conversely, when they behave irresponsibly and negligent with their power, the resulting damage extends beyond their immediate perception. Currently, the journalism institution is failing to perform its role effectively.It is irresponsible with its power, and the damage has spread to the public life all Americans share. Journalism must come to terms with what it has done in order to correct the damage. The most influential factor in news coverage is the audience, as mass media relies on advertising revenues for profit. Advertisers, especially those promoting expensive products, typically prefer younger, upscale consumers. As a result, the upper and middle class segments of the audience hold significant influence over the media's news, public affairs, and political coverage. This is evident in the topics covered, the style of coverage, and the types of reporters and newscasters featured. Political and social topics primarily cater to the interests of well-educated professionals, executives, and intellectuals. From the nuclear arms race to real estate costs, these topics reflect their preferences. The New York Times serves as an example of this phenomenon. According to Noam Chomsky's article "What makes Mainstream Media Mainstream," the Times is viewed as a corporation that sells a product,

namely the audience or "privileged people." This privileged audience resembles those who write for the newspapers.The media holds significant power due to the freedom they possess. They have the ability to influence public opinion and shape societal norms. The content they choose to present, as well as the way it is presented, reflects the interests of those who control and fund the media outlets. This includes the buyers, sellers, institutions, and power systems that surround them. The media's influence is not limited to shaping public perception; it extends to making or breaking reputations, impacting political careers, and garnering support or opposition for various programs and institutions. Despite efforts to remain unbiased, the freedom enjoyed by reporters, along with the influence of interest groups and politicians, as well as the preferences of the audience, makes it difficult for news coverage to be completely neutral and objective.