However, this concept works because even if the media upheld high standards of objectivity, the audience is not expected to be objective and they will flock to the programs that seem to share their similar views (Iskandar 2005). By embodying this concept and giving the people what they wanted the FNC was able to grow and pull ahead of other news media. Therefore, because we live in a capitalist society that prioritizes profits, in order to maximize profits journalist programs need to maintain a constant high number of viewers. In order to do so, these programs will try to give the people what they want in order to maintain their loyalty as FNC has done. This concept of contextual objectivity seems
The positive side is that for the most part, new stations will broadcast the truth. This helps insures that the people know the true pros and cons of the two major candidates, instead of just the paid advertising. News reporting also has adverse effects, they tend to only display and talk about the democratic and republican parties and thus only show two or even only one side on a specific issue. This can be extremely bad for the American people. If the people don't know all the different potential solutions, how can they be expected to choose the best one?
Should the government have that much power over the newspapers? This chain can lead to the public also. The press has so much power over the general public too – they believe everything that they read so in a way, using a political angle, is somewhat brainwashing, which I believe also to be immoral. Newspapers today, are filled with glossy pictures. Some would say that they are there to entertain?
Elected officials are influenced greatly by these monopolies as well, and it seems as though one has no chance in politics without some affiliation with these corporations. The media’s misinformation to the public, a media greatly owned by one of the Big Five – Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, or Bertelsmann – combined with the growing influence of these corporations on politicians, is compromising American democracy. Bagdikian refers to the actions of the Big Five as cartel-like. While controlling most of the media we come in contact with daily, from newspapers to movie studios, they often sit one another’s board of directors and work with one another because it is mutually helpful in their expansion and continued power. If another corporation begins to grow to mammoth proportions, it most likely still cannot compete with the Big Five, but will probably be bought out by one of them.
Just as the government influences the media, the media can help set the political agenda by focusing on specific issues and influencing what issues the public and government should be concerned with. The media can greatly influence the public by limiting coverage of certain candidates. The media has the discretion to cover only the candidates it feels are legitimate candidates and have a viable chance of winning the election. In this way, the media acts as a filter, by narrowing down candidates and sifting out lesser-known candidates and giving more coverage to the better-known. Although the public should ultimately decide on its own who they feel is a viable candidate.
The daily deadlines sometimes entail taking abrasive shortcuts, to climb the ladder of success in the face of limited editorial monitoring. Sometimes, fabricated stories by government agents themselves with hidden agendas and are unwittingly passed off by the journalists. Other instances of generous gifts, remuneration or discounts from agents in return for favorable tilts in the stories also dent correspondent’s integrity. The off beaten track Political upheavals in several countries across the globe like the Philippines, Egypt, Libya Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco and Yemen have shown the potential of media access in the hands of politically sound citizens. Dynamic actions were the results of mass protests brought together and spurred on by social media participation.
When we think about American culture and the pieces of the puzzle that comprise it, many things come to mind. In that box of puzzle pieces lie the front runners: television, music, the internet, and film, or to sum it all up, media. People are overly exposed day in day out to media and the points of view it portrays. Sometimes, the points of view media knows to be true shift into the thoughts and minds of its audience. We cannot solely blame this on media because ultimately it is up to the American public to decide what they indulge in and when.
It will look at controls the media may have imposed upon them, and will also discuss whether the media can challenge government decisions. Moreover it will examine evidence from the public about whether the media can shape public perceptions. The Media seldom supply impartial information; their discourses are molded to fit world-views or the interests of those creating the media. Their work is not fictional but carefully selected to create different ‘realities’. (Banks, 2008) Terrorists use the media, as publicity is central to furthering their objectives, and governments use the media to ensure favorable coverage of their actions regarding the ‘war on terror’.
Typically, media relations involve coordinating directly with the people responsible for producing the news and features in the mass media. The goal of media relations is to maximize positive coverage in the mass media without paying for it directly through advertising. Many people use the terms "public relations" and "media relations" interchangeably; however, doing so is incorrect. The definition of media relations is somewhat narrower. Media relations refer to the relationship that a company or organization develops with journalists, while public relations extend that relationship beyond the media to the general public.
1- "Celebrity breakdowns" may have existed as long as the star system but are now investigated and exposed to a degree arguably considered excessive. In this digital era, it is not difficult to find information about celebrities, no matter how personal. Private addresses of stars have been posted in both gossip columns and traditional media outlets like USA Today. And now, thanks to uncensored weblogs like that of celebrity-basher Perez Hilton, those in the spotlight suffer the humiliation and disgrace of having statements about them - true or untrue - broadcast for millions to find. 2- The extent and quality of celebrity news in the media appears especially unreasonable today, multiplying and intensifying at such a rate that "legitimate" news has fallen in precedence.