Who owns and runs the mass media?

 Who owns and runs the mass media?

Initially governments owned the mass media. Their purposes were to use the media as a tool for change, to shape and change societal values, as a way to “de-emphasize differences and emphasize a sense of commonality.” The plan was to create a sense of unity within a community (Opubor, 2000: 1). The ultimate visions were to encapsulate the aspiration for a society in which all rights are protected, and enhanced, and in which one is allowed the space to work towards overcoming inequalities in society that derives from social economic, political, and cultural power imbalances (Kellen, 2003). National televisions, news agencies, and national newspapers have often reflected this view, at least, where the mass media is concerned. The shift from governments-owned media to privately owned media led most governments towards different phases of de-regulations- in order to encourage competition. But during the process, governments have also relinquished their powers, as they paved the way to privatization. Their powers became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few men- largely whites wealthy minority, well educated who shared similar values (Profit). The role of governments shifted from gatekeepers to tax-earners, leaving the door wide open for privatization to determine how to address future societal issues in the media.

Unfortunately, these changes from government owned to privately owned also forced the mass media, from coast to coast, to inherit the title of “mass media apartheid.” In their pursuit for profit, they neglected to include ethnic communities as a part of the collective power-sharing. The reflection of the mass media ownerships became homogenous, with total disregard of the social, cultural, and economic diversity of societies.

Today, ethnic communities are under-represented and unable to take advantage of the mass media. They have difficulties in communicating their perspectives on the issues that affect them the most because of this exclusion. Yet, what is ignored is that it is usually in these communities that we find the country’s best stories- since every community has its politicians, musicians, artists, rich, poor, and, of course, a story to tell. The only time information about ethnic communities are shown on television is during times of crisis or when a politician passes-by, and once they have left, the problems of the community are also forgotten.

Day (2003: 411) asserts that, “the media are powerful institutions. Their selection of symbols and images can sanctify some lifestyles and disparage others.” He tells us that, “the primary harm that accrues from stereotyping is that it leads to discrimination and prejudice.” He thinks that, “in a pluralistic culture such as ours, media practitioners have an obligation to consider the fundamental fairness of a system that has traditionally projected stereotypical images of certain segments of society. Poole (Griffin, 2006: 265-272) suggests that:

 “ethnic communities should step up from a passive role to having an active voice within their group. Low-power members should become agents of change within their groups. If actors are unaware of a factor or do not understand how it operates, then it is likely to be a strong influence. Small moves won’t threaten high-power members who often tend to resist change. Yet if you are consistent and persistent, these small changes can shift the direction of the group and your role in it.” He also said, “If the structure of the group stays the same, it is because members are acting in such a way that the same structure is created and maintained with every act.” Therefore from what we know, we can understand that we have to be careful of the mass media. We cannot just be “passive audiences” because we can now see how the mass media have a direct impact into our minds. But how should “low-powered members step up from passive role to having an active voice”? And what “small moves” should they do to distract high-power members?

Poole’s remarks point fingers at community media. Previously known as serving the community they operate, today community media that have done well have also been brought by mainstream media. Many community members have also criticized this move because they feel that mainstream media do not reflect their community therefore cannot serve them in the same capacity as members of the community. 

While the scenarios chosen do not represent a comprehensive examination of all cases of stereotypes in the mass media, they provide us a rich soil to understand how the mass media have the ability to change our perceptions of others using a process called “the agenda setting” and “framing.” How this affects relationships between nations and societies, thereby also “making salient seem more important” for our society (Real, August, 18).

3

Previous page   Next page