It's no secret that people use media in vastly different ways today compared to even twenty years ago. Not only is media use different, so is production and ownership. With globalization has come more condensed ownership of media outlets, with three companies controlling the majority of traditional communications methods. In this week's readings, I was particularly intrigued by McChesney's claim that communications companies dictate content with the goal of preserving the established political systems in the countries in which they are headquartered and operate - to further their own business interests.
While the corporate media is conservative as far as preserving the status quo for business purposes, I hardly think McChesney is correct when he says it inspires political apathy. If anything, I think the growing niche markets inspire more conversation and action amongst the populace. One can hardly attribute a lack of total social/economic/political revolution to a conspiring media conglomerate executive sitting behind his desk evilly plotting (then again, NewsCorp and Rupert Murdoch could be the potential exception with the evil plotting) to prevent political change for the purpose of profit.
Time Warner, Disney, and News Corporation dominate the global media scene, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. As long as the market and regulations (or lack thereof) allow for oligopoly in the media industry, it will exist. Over time the trend has run towards corporate media consolidation, and while having so few yet powerful organizations in charge of the media industry may not be in the best interest of the global population, I've had to just sigh and say, "it is what is."
Part of the reason I'm not more personally bothered by the corporate media structure is the ways in which people circumvent their influence. People no longer rely on content "from above" for news, they make their own. A theme I keep coming back to while blogging is the ability of people around the world to use the Internet to generate their own news, and have a space to debate information which is provided by the major media outlets. Media corporations may set the information agenda, but consumers ultimately determine what's done with their new knowledge.
I really appreciate the way that you give power to the consumer -- I also like to think that we are not simply cultural dupes and apathetic, passive consumers.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the demographic we are in as Masters' students plays into our personal more active approaches to media consumption. I think though that the rest of the population deserves more credit. I personally accepted, as you stated, that "it is what it is" a long time ago well before I was even a college student. While children may watch television, see something, and take it as it is, I would definitely say that part of the maturity process includes an ability to critically evaluate the messages one is presented with -- this includes those messages in the media.
I do believe that there is a lot lacking in our society in terms of media literacy preparation, but I don't think that people are left completely indifferent to what they are shown from large corporations as a result. Like you said, people have ways to both get their news elsewhere and to generate their own. In any case, I think people are underestimated.