鱼肉喜成语It Is Time to Change: Let the Freedom Be Free
Abstract: The conglomerates control veral types of media. “freedom of the press” was enshrined as a cornerstone of American society. Freedom of the press is only guaranteed to tho that own one. In most instances, the ethical journalist has been replaced by that which best address the desires of the media owner. It is an age when profit trumps public interest. What appears as news is shaped by the need to make money. Even more destructive to the citizen’s needs of a free press is that such giant conglomerates are unattached to any communities. There is a mechanism of bias in news with the ri of propaganda. Becau of Americans’ lf-involvement, when foreign affairs are prented, it is in the trademark snappy headline followed by a superficial, short recitation that again, includes no context in which to place the story. We should clearly realize the challenges America are facing whatever in the freedom of speech or in the freedom of press, and how to minimize the bad influence becomes a priority for America.(173 words)
童鞋十大品牌
A free society is dependent upon the press for information, plain and simple, as few individu
卞玉京als have firsthand access to what their government and other public bodies are doing. For most of us, information about tho powers that directly affect our lives is learned through the press and we rely on that profession’s integrity to do so in a truthful and neutral manner.
如何快速减肥学生
The conglomerates control veral types of media. Prently, there are fewer than 1,500 daily papers and 1,200 commercial stations in the United States. At the turn of the millennium, Gannett owned 93 daily papers, 15 television stations, and 19 radio stations. Cox Broadcasting owned 11 radio stations, 3 television stations, 4 cable vision systems, and nine newspaper companies. The New York Times Company owned 35 daily newspapers, 8 weeklies, 2 radio stations, five television stations, and numerous magazines. Disney (following their purcha of Capital Cities/ABC) owned two television networks, 7 television mega-stations, 7 radio networks rving more than 3,000 affiliated radio stations, 18 radio stations, 75 weekly newspapers, and numerous trade magazines.
Why is freedom of speech so solidly entrenched in our constitutional law, and why is it so
widely embraced by the general public? Over the years many philosophers, historians, legal scholars and judges have offered theoretical justifications for strong protection of freedom of speech, and in the justifications we may also find explanatory clues. Freedom of speech is also an esntial contributor to the American belief in government confined by a system of checks and balances, operating as a restraint on tyranny, corruption and ineptitude. with mass media controlled by a small number of conglomerates in the United States, America is on the loss of freedom of speech. In the wake of the sixties counter culture coming into its own, other battles were fought, vying for our rights to read and hear and watch what we would like, to make our own decisions. From x to violence, the venties especially were an era of expanding rights in media. As such movies as Last Tango in Paris and Midnight Cowboy pushed the boundaries as to what is permissible to watch, open and legal sales of both pornography and erotica became the norm.
In lobbying for legislative change that resulted in the passage of the Telecommunications Act (1996,) $40 million were spent by the telecommunications industry and $4 million in di
rect contributions to lawmakers. The result of this clod-door meeting was the relaxation of the anti-trust laws that allowed the conglomerates to concentrate control of the media in what can only be called an oligarchy or a monopoly.
猪脚姜醋广东正宗做法One would think such a radical change to the structure of the media industry, one deemed to be of primary importance to the functioning of a democratic state would be big news. It wasn't. The mainstream media did not report it.
Corporate owners need the media they own to not only be profitable divisions in their own right, but to support the interests of their vast holdings No longer is the media’s objective the prentation of events for the educational need of a democratic society, but a tailoring of news that not only attracts the necessary profits for the media division, but for the corporate entity as a whole. For example, is it likely that General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC) will air anti-war opinions in their news considering they are a major military contractor/supplier? Or if they do a story on such dissident protests, will it be unbiad, or will it be colored by editorial disapproval? Was it by sheer coincidence that NBC never on
ce broadcast the story of New York’s lawsuit with General Electric over that corporation’s massive pollution of the Hudson River, even when all rival news groups did?
In most instances, the ethical journalist has been replaced by that which best address the desires of the media owner.
Consider the situation in the tiny town of Minot, North Dakota, where a train carrying anhydrous ammonia overturned putting the entire population at risk. Several people died. Yet, the local radio station did not even carry the story, having no reporters and no authority to broadcast anything other than the news feed from the corporate center. They offered no warnings, no guidance, no explanations during the crisis. The story broke in Minot at the same time as the rest of the country, on the national news.
Centralization of the media to a few very large conglomerates leads to less diversity in the information available. Gandhi once said the heart of a community is found in its newspaper. But what happens when that news is no longer rooted in our nation’s communities but in corporate headquarters far away?
