Concentration in the Media

Upon occasion I have referred to the "Elitist Media" in posts. There is an article concerning the concentration of media ownership that might be of interest to some readers. It is linked below.

Anup Shah, Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, GlobalIssues.org, Last updated: Sunday, April 29, 2007

When we talk about "Freedom of the Press" we have in mind the idea that government should not control the news. What about control in other hands? Is the media truly free when a handful of large corporations control the bulk of the content -- either through "friendliness" toward advertising revenue or through their own corporate and institutional biases?

The Internet has changed the shape of media in regard to news stories, however, one must consider where most content is generated. Often, bloggers merely take stories generated by existing main line media sources and present commentary. Investigations by bloggers are often primarily Internet searches. Often, information, or worse, misinformation, is promulgated throughout the "blogosphere" by individuals with agendas. Where is the public to find unbiased information?

I would never advocate government control of the media, however, it may be time to examine who does control news content and consider breaking the monopolization of the news. Better yet, new entries into the media business that do not carry the existing biases that appear to be inherent in current media sources would potentially return some balance.

In the early days of our country, every small town had a newspaper and most larger ones had multiple newspapers. Often, those newspapers were aligned with political factions within a community. Over the years, media companies have consolidated until, as the article examines, only a few companies control the bulk of news sources. Perhaps the question is, "How can new venues, such as the Internet, be shaped in such a way as to prevent the consolidation of news sources and thus insure balance?"

A Good Man Takes His New Assignment

He was a good one.

Tony Snow, Former White House Press Secretary and FOX News Anchor, Dies at 53

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, has died after a long bout with cancer. He was 53. (see story here)

Photo source: Fox News

Bias Within Agenda Within Bias or Good Country Living

It seems to me there is often a disconnect between the title of articles and the content of the articles. That disconnect continues to deepen when the article reflects a biased view from the author. I'm sure that I'm guilty of such in my posts, but my real target is the mainstream media -- especially concerning research about health, the environment or the economy.

Titles by their very nature are designed to capture the attention -- to sensationalize. They generally give insight into the biases of the editor or the author (sometimes you don't know which). They usually reflect the perceived key issue in the article -- according to the title writer. The article itself often "fastens onto" something out of a research paper that fits an agenda or particular area of concern of the author. Of course, the author is usually reading the research paper because it is within an area of interest for the author. So, what we have is a "piling on" of biases through the journalistic process that ultimately results in a sensational title designed to elicit an emotional response.

All of this totally ignores the inherent biases of the researcher who wrote the original paper. He starts with biases as well. They come from his funding source and they come from the framing of his original hypothesis which arises from his own personal agenda.

It is difficult for the general public therefore to obtain a reasonably unbiased account of research. First, they likely don't have the technical skills to analyze the data generated by the research and second, they probably cannot easily obtain access to the data if they so desired. So, they are left to attempt extraction of relevant bits of information from their entry point into the process (probably a news account) and then if it is of high interest, their ability to dig deeper.

This is something that I've felt is a root difficulty in sifting through the hype surrounding "Global Warming." However, what put me on the subject today is something totally unrelated. It concerns this article about the connection between Vitamin D and health risks.

I wonder if the researchers fully considered that the true connection might be that humans are made for a period of daily outdoor activity in which they naturally obtain exercise and soak up a reasonable amount of sunshine. It's another one of the chicken or the egg problems. Is it the exercise, the sunshine or the combination of both that provides the health benefit? The issue is further complicated by air quality issues. If the study subject breathed good, clean pure air while exercising/working outdoors in the sunshine, would that make a difference? In my mind, there's no substitute for good clean country living. Sorry for the ramble.

If ET Searched Earth for Intelligence Would He Find Any?

Have you noticed how lack of reasoning doesn't prevent the anti-Bush main-stream media from going on a tirade about what they claim is a lack of intelligence in the current administration? Some "talking heads" might need to consider professional counseling for outbursts such as this one concerning the FDA and salmonella-tainted tomatoes.

Will the Media Call Obama to Task?

Occasionally you see a story or commentary from a national left-leaning publication that points the finger at the hypocrisy in the media. I was pleased to see just such a story today regarding Obama's rejection of Federal campaign funds. Interesting.

Biased Treatment? Never!

It is interesting to me how we aren't hearing much about policy differences in the campaigns. We hear of age differences, of style differences, of speaking ability differences -- but we're not debating the merits of policy positions.

Is it a press bias that is seeking to enhance the favorable aspects of their chosen candidate? Or, is it because there is little difference in their positions? Or, is it an avoidance of substance by the candidates themselves because of the fear of alienating a particular interest group? I suspect the latter.