Content deleted Content added
m v2.04b - Bot T20 CW#61 - Fix errors for CW project (Reference before punctuation - Link equal to linktext - Internal link written as an external link) |
Larry Knox (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 131:
Critics of the role of the media in liberal democracies allege that [[concentration of media ownership]] leads to major distortions of democratic processes. In ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'', [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]] argue via their [[Propaganda Model]]<ref>Edward S. Herman [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm "The Propaganda Model Revisited"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106195120/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm |date=6 January 2012 }}, ''Monthly Review'', July 1996, as reproduced on the Chomsky.info website</ref> that the corporate media limits the availability of contesting views and assert this creates a narrow spectrum of elite opinion. This is a natural consequence, they say, of the close ties between powerful [[corporation]]s and the media and thus limited and restricted to the explicit views of those who can afford it.<ref>James Curran and [[Jean Seaton]] ''[[Power Without Responsibility: the Press and Broadcasting in Britain]]'', London: Routledge, 1997, p. 1</ref> Furthermore, the media's negative influence can be seen in social media where vast numbers of individuals seek their political information which is not always correct and may be controlled. For example, as of 2017, two-thirds (67%) of Americans report that they get at least some of their news from social media,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shearer|first=Elisa|last2=Gottfried|first2=Jeffrey|date=2017-09-07|title=News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017|url=https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/|access-date=2021-01-14|website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project|language=en-US}}</ref> as well as a rising number of countries are exercising extreme control over the flow of information.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Chapman|first=Terri|date=2019-10-27|title=Liberal democracy is under threat from digitisation as govts, tech firms gain more power|url=https://theprint.in/opinion/liberal-democracy-is-under-threat-from-digitisation-as-govts-tech-firms-gain-more-power/312081/|access-date=2021-01-14|website=ThePrint|language=en-US}}</ref> This may contribute to large numbers of individuals using social media platforms but not always gaining correct political information. This may cause conflict with liberal democracy and some of its core principles, such as freedom, if individuals are not entirely free since their governments are seizing that level of control on media sites
Media commentators also point out that the influential early champions of the media industry held fundamentally anti-democratic views, opposing the general population's involvement in creating policy.<ref>Noam Chomsky and Gabor Steingart [http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm "The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100128113437/http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm |date=28 January 2010 }}, ''Der Spiegel Online'', 10 October 2008, as reproduced on the Chomsky.info website</ref> [[Walter Lippmann]] writing in ''[[The Phantom Public]]'' (1925) sought to "put the public in its place" so that those in power would be "free of the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd"<ref>Lippmann cited by Henry Beissel [http://thehumananimal.com/usa/?p=381 "Mutation or Demise: The Democratization of Democracy"] ''Living with Democracy'', #155, Winter 2005, as reproduced on the ''Humanist Persrpectives'' website</ref> while [[Edward Bernays]], originator of public relations, sought to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies".<ref>[http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100319141306/http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html |date=19 March 2010 }}. Historyisaweapon.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-29.</ref> Furthermore, the notion that the media is used to indoctrinate the public is also sheared by
Defenders responding to such arguments assert that constitutionally protected [[freedom of speech]] makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organisations to debate the issues. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences and does not entail censorship. Especially with new forms of media such as the Internet, it is not expensive to reach a wide audience, if there is an interest for the ideas presented.
| |||