The News: Controlled by Few, Criticized by Many

Who determines the news or sets the agenda?

Although many people think the news is a very public thing, it really isn't. I've known for quite some time that few companies controll the media. It is not a very well-known fact, but unfortunately it's true. The handful of mega corporations own all of the news channels, so their personal agenda is seen throughout all of the news stations. They decide how the news will be told, what will be said, what the public should see and feel in reaction to those news broadcasts. It almost seems kind of socialist to me, seeing that a select few control the majority of the media. The sad part is, since most people don't know about the extent of ownership, they are sort of being deceived by the media.

Why do we need a media that specifically represents difference interests of people of color?  Aren’t those interests everyone’s interests?  What can be done to increase the mainstream media’s interest in other topics and concerns?  Aren’t those interests everyone’s interests?

Today there are very very few media outlets for the minorities. Their voices are not being heard as much as they should be, and minorites are not passionate about the mainstream media. They are underrepresented by all forms of media. Having minority-based media gives the minorites a chance to come out and be recognized, rather than always being in the shadows of mainstream media. But, if the media were more diverse, there would be no need for different media outlets for minorities. If the mainstream media simply voiced the concerns and opinions of people of color, then all would be solved. But the world isn't so simple, is it? We have reached a point where most people think our country has equal opportunities for everybody, but somehow we've plateaued. There aren't equal opportunities for everybody, specifically minorities. 

How was the war initially reported by the media?

After the attacks of 9/11, there was an overwhelming sense of patriotism that flooded America. People were putting flags up, wearing flag pins, supporting the troops, supporting anybody who was doing anything patriotic. We were gleaming with American pride on the surface. But behind the scenes, it was much different. In the media, Bush was not criticized. He was not questioned. Nobody in government positions were questioned. There was absolutely no tolerance for journalists who questioned the actions or the government. President Bush was placed on a pedestal, as well as the rest of the governing body, because we were fighting together. We were fighting terrorism. Nobody besides the terrorists could do any harm. Patriotism all the way. But are meticulously crafted speeches the right way to go? Are press conferences where certain reporters are pre-chosen to be asked questions--so nobody asks too hard of a question--moral? We'll never know. 

What has the media covered recent social protests? 

The question is, what has the media NOT covered in recent social protests. The media do not give protests a second glance. Some stations don't even tell about protests, others simply stick a small segment in the middle of the newscast, hidden from Americans to see. They have had some coverage on recent protests in the past few years pertaining to the war in Iraq, but there is not near as much coverage about those events as the capacity of the events. They treat it like there was 10 people standing on a street corner protesting. No, these events have been hundreds of thousands of people gathering in large metropolitan cities, as well as some smaller ones, taking up entire blocks. That, is newsworthy.

Was the media beneficial for the Civil Rights Movement? 

The media was sort of beneficial for the Civil Rights Movement. Stories were shown on television, such as the sit-ins and riots. People saw the reactions of people, right on their television screens. Although the reporting might have been negative towards these events, people still saw them. Some people became famous simply from news coverage. Voices were heard. Negative and positive images were shown. It was important enough to make it on the main news story or the front page of newspapers. Why aren't issues like that today publicized?