Home > Politics, News & Issues > News > News Industry
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 84% | 108 votes | Total: 129 votes | |
| No | 16% | 21 votes |
Yes
Created on: April 17, 2008 Last Updated: March 02, 2011
Exposure is the only way to curb government abuse. The problem is the media, not the abusive government. The media is big cooperate business. The manner in which the government abuses its citizens is looking the other way as big business abuses its customers, the public and its stock holders. It is the big cooperations that spend the millions of dollars at every election to put the most cooperative candidates in public office. After serving a couple of session and are defeated, the cooperations reward them with positions stock option and the like.
In the ancient days of investigative reporting there was such an thing as a monopoly. That was when a cooperation controls over 50% of the market. It was made illegal by congress. What comes to mind is Ma Bell/Standard oil. The government broke them up in the interest of the public good so that they could not control the market price of the good or services marketed to the public. We were not to be held hostage by corporate take overs.
To continue, radio stations were way back then limited to the number of minutes they could devote to advertising because the Radio was to be operated in the best interest of the public. Further radio stations could only operate in one market area, nor could the same owners operate more than one station in the same market area. When television came along, the TV station could operate only in one market and their marketing minutes were limited further and they could only operate one Radio station. When FM came, the operators were granted the operation of one FM station, one AM station and one TV station in the same market. No market area was limited to only one station. In order to keep the news media open and competitive, radio stations and TV stations could not own newspapers in the same market area.
I am sure you get the picture of what the last part of the 20th century looked like media wise. We look at this today. We are down to 3 major oil companies controlling 90% of the world's market. Did government protect us from the oil cartels. Of course they did not. That's why we are paying $4.00 a gallon for gas. In 1950 when Standard oil was divided up, gasoline was about .30 cents a gallon. Ma Bell is back to where it was 60 years ago holding 75% of local and long distant calling. Radio stations in many markets are owned and controlled by a TV station in the same market. Many are also owned and operated by the local newspaper which also owns multiple radio TV station in contiguous markets, some controlling the media in whole sections of the country. As for the marketing minutes stipulated by the government is nothing more than a shame. What use to be 10 minutes per hour has turned into 20 minutes per hour.
The psychological outcome of that practice has taught the American public to turn off their attention mechanism automatically after 8 and 1/2 minutes of TV. The whole process we call the media has by reason of the advancements in the electronic industry, has put a great deal of power in the hands of the few. I am speaking about corporate America were the corporate boards are made up of people who hold fast amounts of stock and sit on the boards of several corporations at the same time. There is not an elected official in Washington that is not up to their ears in the corporate workings of the Nation.
Can the Media expose government abuse? It could but it's not in their best interest to do so. The real issue is can government expose the abuses of Corporate America as it did a half century ago. The media determines the out come of wars; Viet Nam, Iraq trade take overs in the United States. We have been invaded by Japan, China, Germany, England, France and Saudi Arabia. They own more of the country than we do. Corporate America is selling and they are buying. The government permitted foreign nations to buy up our land, our business, and our financial assets. Yet a United States citizen is not allowed to do those things in the lands of which I speak. No the media keeps our eyes on the work starved Mexican and away from the abuses of corporations and of Government. The media controls what we are told about the candidates, the issues, but not necessarily the truth.
There is a portion of the Declaration of Independence that should be read again.
Among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure those rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government.
The media is not or will expose the abuses of Government. As citizens we have no control over corporate America as we once did through the market place. Our only control is over those we elect to office. We can not really trust the Media to tell us the facts about any candidate as they once did. One though - if you want to change the look of government change the faces in government. No reelection for anyone in Government for the next 8 years. The Declaration of Independence says we can do it. We have a few hundred million votes to do it.
Test my thesis for yourself. Send in a letter to the editor critical of the Media.
Guaranteed it will not be published.
Learn more about this author, Charles Sousa.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Created on: April 18, 2008
Media exposes have been a vital cog in the exposure of government abuses all around the world, but one cannot say that media exposes alone can and have lead to governmental and political reform. Exposing human rights violations through the media has always been an important way to internationally embarrass governments enough to try and make some changes in their internal policies. The flood of information we receive each day informing us of some new and brutal event in the world would make us think that changes are being made as a result of worldwide awareness. However, the changes quite simply, and very sadly, are not happening on the ground, as they should be.
Let's take the war in Iraq, for example. In the years after the government of the United States and others initiated the war in Iraq, a scandal involving the abuse and sexualized torture of detainees was exposed regarding Abu-Ghraib prison. While it was extremely important that those horrors emerged into the light, it has done nothing to change the American government's continued illegal policies on the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners not only abroad, but at home too. While the government was indeed embarrassed and a slew of resignations were tendered, the expose has done nothing to actually change any of the US government's policies regarding torture.
Another example is Zimbabwe. When Robert Mugabe first took power about 20 years ago, the press was welcomed into the nation so they could show everyone in the world what freedom could look like in a former colonial nation who had decided to expel its white citizens and give white-owned lands to back to the indigenous Africans. As Mugabe descended into his Napoleonic megalomania, he expelled all of the journalists so that there would be no one in his country criticizing him or his policies. Of course, journalists always find a way and now many journalists report from border towns in South Africa and are still able to expose the horrific economic situation within the country. Even when Zimbabwe's opposition leader was brutally beaten and tortured, with images of his swollen and broken face plastered all over worldwide media, this did absolutely nothing to change the situation within the country even though it may have been considered Pulitzer Prize material.
A positive example would be the case of the Canadian government with regards to the recent United Nations adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of the World's Indigenous People. The Canadian government had been a staunch advocate against this declaration for two decades, during which UN working groups were drafting texts and trying to gain governmental and indigenous peoples' consensus. Embarrassingly, the Canadian government was one of four governments (including the USA, New Zealand and Australia) with high indigenous populations who in fact voted against this non-binding resolution. In the aftermath of the historic vote on the Declaration on the Rights of the World's Indigenous People, the Canadian government was slammed by human rights and indigenous peoples' groups around the world. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released cutting statements regarding the four nations who voted against this Declaration. On April 8, seven months after the initial adoption of the Declaration by the UN, the Canadian Parliament has indeed made a motion to endorse the Declaration and begin to implement the standards noted within it accordingly.
Sadly, the case of Canada is one of the more rare occasions where media exposes have begun a process of change. Most times, upon the exposure of a human rights violation, the government will make grand speeches about how the reforms are on their way, but then in a year's time we hear the same old story once again.
It would seem that as important as media exposes are in letting the world know about the horrors going on inside nations, the only thing that actually makes reforms happen is when a government itself exercises its political will to make the necessary changes. Hard-hitting journalism is not enough, although it can indeed play a very important role as the impetus for dialogue on how to actually make the necessary reforms happen. Once governments see the media and global citizens as entities they must be held accountable to, only then will we start to see reforms that happen as a result of media exposes alone.
Learn more about this author, Sezin Koehler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.