Scotteh Scotteh

In an ideal world Fox News would be considered a criminal organisation.

▼

In an ideal world Fox News would be considered a criminal organisation.

The failure of media corporations in modern democracy

from JoeUser Forums

Democracy and Sufferage is all about giving the people the power to decide for themselves.

Many consider democracy the final form of goverement, that it is the most evolved and sophisticated form of how a society should distribute its power and decisions.

While democracy as a notition is very sound and more importantly noble, being a democractic country doesn't neccisarily remove you the issue of corruption of power.  What it doesn't addres is the issue of how those whom vote form their opinions.

We have a wonderful tool in our society that allows us to get information across to millions, upon billions of people across states, countries and the entire globe if need be.

Television (as well as the Internet and News papers) could be used to provide the popluation of countries that use a democratic system to elect their leaders or make decisions for themselves with a fully non-judgemental (what some may call objective) view of scenario's that effect them directley or indirectley.

This would allow for a true democracy to work, it would allow for people to decide for themselves.

What if however, a few individuals had control over this tool? What if they were able to use this tool to ensure more people had the very same political opinion as they did? Would that be considered wrong? Would it not negagte the whole point of demcracy and plunge us back into what is in essense a dictatorship, the desires of one or few, overshaddowign the desires of many?

Let me show you an interesting correlation between the elected goverements of the UK and the owner of the most media assets political opinion over the past few decades:

Between 1980-1992 Rupert Murdoch was generally favourable towards the Conservative party in Britain.

Between 1980-1992 The Conservative party goverened Britain.

In 1992, The Sun News paper, owned by Rupert Murdoch, published an article damining opposition candidate Neil Kinnock, it's probably the most definiative example of media influence over a election and something the paper itself is highly proud of.

Between 1992 and 1997 - The Conservative party continued to govern Britain.

In 1997, Tony Blair met Rupert Murdoch in a private meeting to discuss the future of Britain and how Murdoch would help Blair achieve his aim by wining over public opinion through the press.

In 1997 Rupert Murdochs publications became favourable to that of the Labour Party.

In 1997 the Labout Party became the governing party in Britain.

In 2008 Rupert Murdochs publications, free from the agreement with Blair, are now leaning towards the Conservative Party.

It will be interesting to see whom will win the next British General election.

Rupert Murdoch owns 7, yes 7, national news papers here in the united kingdom, it owns an entire broadcasting company (premium TV, like the american version fo cable). As well as other publications.

In 1985 Murdoch became a citzen of the United States in order to purchase a Television company, namely Fox.

Ok, everyones got a political opinion, even the owners of news corporations, whats Fox Done wrong?

 Fox does two things, hand in hand, that go against what the media should do in terms of political coverage in a democratic society. The first thing it does is offer a subjective view, that is it is a view which has passed judgement on a particular issue. The second and perhaps most contreversial (and to it's viewers insulting) of all is that it has the audacity to say it is putting across as objective (non-judgemental) view point of political scenario's.

So in short, Fox News is gathering news and information and then showing you particular aspects of it in order to impose the political opinion of itself as a corporation on to it's viewers.  Instead of actually giving their viewiers the entire situation and allowing them to decide, it does the decision bit for them.

You, after being told what to think effectivley, then go off to the voting booth.

Maybe the media don't want to own up to the responsiblity of informing society of what is going on, maybe they want to just make the arguement of 'We just want to sell news papers!' or 'We just want to get viewers!'. That may be so, but at the same time we as a society have to recognise the power that the media has over us and as such it needs to be heavily scrutinized especially when it comes to claims of impartiality.

In an ideal world, saying your impartial, then presentialy a highly subjective opion across should be illegal, it is a crime against society and it is an insult to anyone watching.

While organisations such as these exist, we have no right to go to any other country in the world and challenge their view on how a country should be ran or how it should treat its citizens and in a world where you have the likes of the Burmese Junta, Zimbawae and Norther Korea then it becomes a rather large issue.

Cheers for reading, any opinions are most welcome.

media fox news corruption politics rupert murdoch
110,551 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Recent events suggest that Fox's approach is becoming contagious. Ratings being the current driver of revenue, other media outlets are noticing.

Newsweek has seen its readership plummet & fired seemingly half its staff. Their newest hire? Karl Rove.

Nancy dis-Grace is an outlier so she doesn't count, but there's Beck on CNN.

What we've traditionally called the "MSM" are going to have to become more balanced in the delivery of their product in order to survive. Fox "News" is largely fair & balanced. Fox News Channel "Commentary" is also largely balanced, though less so, but it is anything be a wolf in sheep's clothing - there is no mistaking their bias. I would contend it is the mainstream media that have been doing the pretending about neutrality for decades; I don't think Fox News would exist were that not the case.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would contend it is the mainstream media that have been doing the pretending about neutrality for decades; I don't think Fox News would exist were that not the case.


I agree with you here. I don’t see Fox News being blatant about where they stand. Rather than club you over the head with their views they just tell it like it is and let you believe what you want. That is the selling point for Fox. Keep in mind they only have access to 2 million people while the other networks have access to over 300 million people and fox has higher ratings.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

Sir, I must take issue with you here. First America is different from the UK in many ways. The most important is that America is a republic not a democracy, wait you have a representative government as well don’t you? One of your ministers is a former customer of mine. I sold him a house in Florida. We had some great discussions on the differences between our two countries. Grant it I have only spoken to one MP but he seemed good enough for a Tory. Hoped I spelled that correctly.

Sure, but the fact that you are a republic doesn't neccisarily mean you do not practice a representative form of democracy.

There are some differences naturally between the UK and the US, your secular for one and another is as we have already mentioned you have no monarchy. Yet we still have a similar notion of voting for those of whom, to some extent at least, we want in power.

My point is that we are no longer in the era of divine right, and that even if its just in theory, the (re)public choose itself whom governs it.

On a side note, i was raised in North East England, an area devestated under Tory leadership. So their not my favourite party, to say the least, that isn't to say that they haven't come along way since those days. ;P  

To the person that said the Scotteh did not bring up CBS or other liberal media, it may be because he does not get those shows. Last time I was in the UK they only had 4 channels. BBC 1 through 4 I am sure they have more now but they are still controlled by the government. Do they still have a TV tax?

Yes we do, i remember in my student days of hearing of stories of people throwing their TV out of the window when the inland revenue came a knocking :-). We do not unfortunatley get the likes of CBS, thats not say i haven't seen video footage of it or during my study of American media come across it. Again this article could be about any news outlet that tries to mislead people on their subjectivity of articles they cover.

In the UK they have strict laws for presenters, we call them anchormen or hosts, and they are not allowed any comment on the news good or bad. For our cousin across the pond the fact that anyone on a news program stating opinion is criminal because in his country it is criminal.

Quite true, much to the dismay of Mr Murdoch, :).

 

 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure, but the fact that you are a republic doesn't neccisarily mean you do not practice a representative form of democracy.


Please allow me to clear things up a bit.
In a democracy everyone votes on every issue that the government does.
In a republic we elect representatives that will vote on these issues. Both of our governments are democratic republics.

My point is that we are no longer in the era of divine right, and that even if its just in theory, the (re)public choose itself whom governs it.


YES!

On a side note, i was raised in North East England, an area devestated under Tory leadership. So their not my favourite party, to say the least, that isn't to say that they haven't come along way since those days.


Yes, but each side has evolved to the point that they should just switch names if you could forget the history you might notice that the Tories are not the hateful people they used to be.

We had the same thing happen in the States. In the 1800’s republicans were the radical liberals and democrats were the conservatives. That is how Lincoln got elected because he was liberal. Over time liberals acted like conservatives and conservatives acted like liberals now the democrats are the liberals with the same views they had as conservatives and republicans are the conservatives with the same views they had as liberals. The names have changed but the goals and ideas have not. I believe that has happened in your great nation as well.

i remember in my student days of hearing of stories of people throwing their TV out of the window when the inland revenue came a knocking


Okay for those that don’t have a clue what we are talking about. In the UK they have a tax on television ownership. Every year Inland Revenue comes around and checks who has a television and they pay as much as 100 pounds to use their television each year. I am not sure of the actual taxes and doing this from memory several decades old. Our cousin can correct me where I stray. In America if they try that there would be a second American revolution!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
In a republic we elect representatives that will vote on these issues. Both of our governments are democratic republics.


Not quite - the UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. It's different, mainly in that there is a royal family instead of a president. The theoretical advantage is that a single person doesn't have a great deal of power, but in practice a prime minister is vastly more powerful than a president if he can keep his party in line.

It's interesting the way it affects the media. With a royal family to stalk, there's slightly less criticism of the actual holders of power. Not a great deal less, but with such a soft target most of the cheaper press tend to go for the royals first, political figures second.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
The theoretical advantage


Dont forget the real advantages - you get the Queen's birthday as a holiday too. ;)
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
there is a royal family instead of a president

I think that would be a PM instead of a President, wouldn't it? Does the monarch have authority to overrule (veto) Parliament? Been awhile since I focused on that (say 40 years) but I don't think so.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does the monarch have authority to overrule (veto) Parliament? Been awhile since I focused on that (say 40 years) but I don't think so.


She can do one better than overrule parliament; she can dissolve it. As you can probably imagine, it's not a power that gets much use. She wielded it in Australia in 1975 through the Governor-General, John Kerr. I'm not sure when it was last used in Great Britain proper.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
She can do one better than overrule parliament; she can dissolve it.


With a congress rating of 9%, a lot of americans envy that power. ;)
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
She can do one better than overrule parliament; she can dissolve it.

Man, what a concept! I could go for that.

Trouble is, I believe the monarch then has to form another one. Same here, so to speak... we have to keep electing these crackheads. ;p