The outer limits, We control all that you see and here. Options

[Witless]

How much does the government control the media? I have always wondered that. My old friend from work had the firm belief the government had total control of the media.

That thought has buzzed around my head ever since. I personally have no doubt that the government influences the media. But total control? I'm sceptical. I do believe the news and papers, and more so the internet have quite a lot of autonomy, and that things the government would be happier not being known occasionally get found out and printed before anythings said. I just believe the vast majority of what we'd like to know never does get found out.
I'd also happily believe the government almost encourages mis information to make the truth the media portrays become a rather hazy truth that isn't all that reliable.

It's like the situation in Iraq for example. Currently no reporters are being allowed there, yet somehow you can get fairly daily reports on the situation. The reason for this is that the media is getting it's information from the military. The media is giving this image that everything's calming down over there based on second hand logic from a source that is going to blatently be biased. Most people that know anything of the situation in Iraq have been fed so many different versions of the truth that now everything appears kinda hazy. There's no one that really knows how things are there except the people there by now.

I still wouldn't call that 100% media control, like my friend believes, but I'd call it media manipluation.

There's a big difference between manipulation and control. Under media manipluation, the truth will occasionally get through.. though you can never be sure of it's accuracy. Under control you can be pretty sure all those "scandals" and "slipped information" weren't slipped at all, and were put there on purpose.

What do you guys think about the media, do you think there is a level of autonomy in it that allows things to slip into the public eye when no one wants it too? Or is it too much under wraps by world governments for that to be true.
I'm not even gonna ask if anyone thinks the media always gets it right, because that's been proved over and over to be a complete falsehood.

[CommieBastard]

It's like the situation in Iraq for example. Currently no reporters are being allowed there

Um, are you sure about that? I know there have been journalists in Iraq, because I've read articles written from there. And I don't know how you'd seal the borders off from reporters, never mind all the reporters (like al Jazeera) who were already in Iraq. There were certainly journalists in Iraq as of March 2005, that was when the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was fatally shot by American troops at a security checkpoint. Where are you getting this from?

[Witless]

I should have been clear, the military isn't allowing reporters in, though since iraqs borders aren't closed, nothings stopping people doing their own thing. Sadly they get targetted quite a lot for kidnapping and murder. Hence the reason why the military doesn't want them coming back over in the first place. Most of what the BBC now tells us is the military account of Iraq. Anyone over there now is freelance, and likely extremely vunerable to attack without military escorts. Which they won't get because as I said, the military don't want them there.

[Calantyr]

Journalists in Iraq are gently pursuaded to keep their heads down, but I don't think there has been any media black out. I have BBC News 24 on all night (if I can't find a decent film) and there's always reports from there. Now North Korea, that's a media blackout...

But yes, governments are masters of media manipulation. 'Leaks' can simply be the backstabbing of rival peers, or they could be to sway the population of nations. In this country we also do not have freedom of speech enshrined in law. The government and the monarch can pick and choose what is published and what isn't. And if they choose for something to not become public knowledge, how will we find out it isn't?

It all comes down to faith in government I suppose. We say we have transparency, but I really don't think that many of us can see the forest for the trees. We are given commissions and public debates to give people an illusion of peering inside the workings of government, but it's anyones guess what goes on behind closed doors.

This isn't all rampant conspiracy theory either. See what happenned with all the 'leaked' info during the Iraq War v2.0. Government span it all quite successfully while coming down like a tonne of bricks on those involved.

But an even murkier side to all this is to what extent government and rich powerful individuals external to it are somehow entwined. I'm talking the big media moghuls like Rupert Murdoch. He can release information to the press that can shake governments and destroy politicians. You know how news agencies like Fox News are so blatantly slanted to one political view or another? Well what happens if they come into posestion of information critical to their agendas?

Who is in control? Our elected officials, or those with big bank accounts? You only have to look through history to see that the public face isn't necessarily the 'true truth'.

There are suppossed to be checks and balances through our legal systems, but you do not have to look far to see times where they have fallen on their arse. I suppose all you can do is go out and seek the truth for yourself. And dodge the crazies on internet forums like the plague.

[Calantyr]

I should have been clear, the military isn't allowing reporters in, though since iraqs borders aren't closed, nothings stopping people doing their own thing. Sadly they get targetted quite a lot for kidnapping and murder. Hence the reason why the military doesn't want them coming back over in the first place. Most of what the BBC now tells us is the military account of Iraq. Anyone over there now is freelance, and likely extremely vunerable to attack without military escorts. Which they won't get because as I said, the military don't want them there.

If that is true then it hasn't made headlines.. aha! The plot thickens! And who is to say that it isn't the 'insurgents' doing the kidnapping? Maybe some people got too close to the truth!

You can see where all this ends up. Paranoia can be a wonderful thing.

I heard that many were freelance, and the major broadcasters got their news from the military (DURING action I thought, not during the occupation) but it really is news to me if people are being told to stay out.

There's also the case of the al-Jaziera news buildings being destroyed. Once they said it was an accident. Fair enough. The second time, al-Jaziera made contact with US military personnel telling them the EXACT coordinated of the building and to please not attack it. 15 minutes later they got an artillery barrage precisely on their persition. Ooops? Well that's what the US said... makes you wonder...

Not to mention the 'leaks' about how Blair had to pursuade Bush not to airstrike the al-Jaziera headquarters.

But perhaps we shouldn't talk about this. A strange unmarked van has just pulled up outside my house...

[Astarael]

I think that the government does occasionally manipulate the news to try to control what gets through to people and what doesn't, but I don't believe that it has total control of the media. Some of the paranoia theories probably have a touch of truth to them, and some media is blatantly slanted in the direction of the government, but total control would be very difficult to conceal.

[CommieBastard]

Well, if you want blatant government media manipulation, in the UK we have something called a D-notice. When the government issues a D-notice to a newspaper (or TV station or other media outlet), it means that they are forbidden from talking about a particular subject or revealing particular information. The issue of a D-notice itself is secret, so there's no telling how often this happens.

[Phyllis]

Hmmm....interesting this would come up. I just so happen to be taking a course this term called Politics and Media.

A year after I was born, the number of people who controlled the various corporations that ran the mainstream media in America could've comfortably filled a ballroom, as if they were at a party. Now that number is 5...and it's pretty difficult for anyone to take these giants on. They risk a hostile takeover if they try.

So...it may not be a case of the government interfering with it here so much as it's these 5 men slanting the media a certain way to keep the party they want to be in power firmly there.

But that's just the opinion of a few authors I've read so far. I haven't quite formed my own opinion on it just yet (the class only started a week ago)...but I do find it quite disturbing that it's only 5 people who are in charge of the mainstream media here.

[Calantyr]

It's a new aristocracy. The media moghuls and top business men are the Dukes and Princes of the modern age. They pull the strings, call the shots, create policy, influence people all the way through the hierarchy.

In an age when information is currency, power, security... they really are top dogs.

[pgrmdave]

I don't know much about British media, but American media (the large networks/newspapers at least) can be controlled by the government by invitations to press conferences. The Bush administration only allows reporters who agree to stay away from certain topics in to its press conferences, and if a network/newspaper reports too unfavorably, they may not be invited back. This means that if any media source wants to stay competative with the other sources, it needs to bend to the white house rules. If a media source is particularly favorable to the government, they often receive more leaks, allowing them to have a story no other media has.

[Calantyr]

I don't know much about British media, but American media (the large networks/newspapers at least) can be controlled by the government by invitations to press conferences.  The Bush administration only allows reporters who agree to stay away from certain topics in to its press conferences, and if a network/newspaper reports too unfavorably, they may not be invited back.  This means that if any media source wants to stay competative with the other sources, it needs to bend to the white house rules.  If a media source is particularly favorable to the government, they often receive more leaks, allowing them to have a story no other media has.

The same happens here. If a newspaper/tv station etc. plays by the governments rules then they will get 'leaks'. Recently there was a big commotion with... was it the News of the World? They were promised a load of leaks because they were doing what the government said, and instead they were given to a rival. I think it was during the build up to the WAR. This all came out and the public found out about just how 'free' the press was. Then promptly decided not to care about it.

Sheesh. Some people just don't care if they are being fed shit all their lives, just as long as they don't ned to think about it.