"Amen" to the first two paragraphs. I skipped that question because neither answer made sense. The job of the media is neither to lead us nor to pander to us; it's to REPORT THE GODDAMN NEWS.
That said, everyone spins stuff, unconsciously if no other way. It's part of being human. But media outlets become dangerous when they start seeing themselves as righteous crusaders for social justice, or as the vanguard of correctthink leading the lumpenproletariat to the right viewpoint. And they become irrelevant when Britney's latest muff flash and the Brangelina breakup take the place of what's happening in Congress this week.
I don't believe in "social purposes" at all. Which is to say, I believe that all attempts to justify activities or roles in terms of "social good" are necessarily incoherent, and I'm outraged that, in a nominally free society, anyone is ever asked to justify themselves, their activities, or their freedoms in such terms.
So the role of the media is whatever role best serves the purposes of the owner of each respective medium. If the owner of a newspaper or TV station is a profit-making business, then the role is to earn this biggest profit possible, which is going to involve being responsive to the market place. If the owner wishes to pursue something other than profit-and don't get me wrong, it's perfectly legitimate to decide that something is more important to you in a particular context than money-then the role is whatever best effectuates that purpose, be it leading, teaching, invigorating, lathering, rinsing, and/or repeating.
I would fine-tune your "profit is god" argument just slightly - this is only absolutely true in publically-traded corporations, where profitability is incumbent upon the company management by dint of their obligation to the shareholders.
Privately-owned entities can prioritize however the hell they want.
I'll note that I feel unemployment is worse because it's a lot easier to face life -- including inequality and unfairness -- when you have a job than it is when you don't have a job.
A press underwritten by the state has to be the worst idea I've heard this year. I'm sure that wouldn't bias reporting in the slightest! Oh wait. [facepalm] What fourth estate?
Comments 14
You didn't leave any "none of the above" or "other" choices. I think the issues in the 2012 election will be which candidate looks better in a suit.
Reply
Reply
This. I didn't select either radio button.
Reply
That said, everyone spins stuff, unconsciously if no other way. It's part of being human. But media outlets become dangerous when they start seeing themselves as righteous crusaders for social justice, or as the vanguard of correctthink leading the lumpenproletariat to the right viewpoint. And they become irrelevant when Britney's latest muff flash and the Brangelina breakup take the place of what's happening in Congress this week.
Reply
Reply
So the role of the media is whatever role best serves the purposes of the owner of each respective medium. If the owner of a newspaper or TV station is a profit-making business, then the role is to earn this biggest profit possible, which is going to involve being responsive to the market place. If the owner wishes to pursue something other than profit-and don't get me wrong, it's perfectly legitimate to decide that something is more important to you in a particular context than money-then the role is whatever best effectuates that purpose, be it leading, teaching, invigorating, lathering, rinsing, and/or repeating.
Reply
Privately-owned entities can prioritize however the hell they want.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment