Blog 5

“EMHE” and “Oprah” basically focus on individuals in society that are in some way deprived or lacking.  Particularly with EMHE, the program focuses on how the state has failed families that are deserving of more in life.  Oprah focuses on people like this as well, but also teaches people “The Secret”, being that people must embrace their situation instead of blaming society and accept responsibility for their fate and move forward.  The ideas behind these shows is based on capitalist ideals.  Capitalism teaches society that we are responsible for our place, and that every individual has the opportunity to be successful, while is not necessarily true of America today. Neoliberalism focuses on economic liberation and privatization, which leads to a divide in economic classes. Peck emphasizes the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in our society, and how economic divisions have been exacerbated by these ideas of capitalism.  American politics asserts that those at the top are rewarded for their hard work, and that those on the bottom are there because of their own will.  EMHE looks at individuals who are on the latter end of this, but paints them as not responsible for their class standing.  Oprah looks at these individuals too, but tries to teach them “The Secret” implying that they can attain greater standing if they adhere to the “law of attraction”.

The authors of both readings critique the ways these programs engage with their guests and audeinces. EMHE shows audiences about “real people” in society, who appear to be deserving of rewards.  The community is drawn together, and Christian principles paint a caring, giving community that wants to help out a deserving family.  Palmer makes the point that may people benefit from this process, but that the program creates the illusion that only the subject family is being helped.  Commercial interests are still at the heart of this program, and businesses like Sears, local businesses, and the ABC network receive arguably the best kind of PR for their involvement.  They are seen as charitable, as giving back and inspiring people with a ‘can-do’ attitude.  Although EMHE seems socially responsible, it is using mutual exploitation to benefit each side, and ultimately is still produced to be sold to an audience.  Oprah is criticized for her ideological message in Winfrey’s Leadership Academy project and in her promotion of The Secret. She is criticized for simplifying how to teach people how to lead a successful life, and teaching people that they can overcome inequality by just being positive.  She has been criticized for helping a small group of South African girls while there are many impoverished U.S. communities.  Oprah, like EMHE, focuses on individuals that are “deserving”.  She says that she selected those girls in Africa because they showed they were willing and eager to learn.

I think that Oprah definitely ignores a lot of the inequalities people are faced with, and this whole concept behind “The Secret” is far-fetched.  Its nice to believe that if we take advantage of our disadvantages and exert more positive energy we will receive it, but I don't think this can really be applied (at least to this economic extent) in our society today.  As the readings made clear, it takes more than a positive attitude to succeed in American society, and may people are deprived the resources to do so.

Blog 4: Rich Media, Poor Democracy

McChesney describes each of the three tiers of the media industry.  The first tier are the huge giants, like Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Sony, and Vivendi.  The second tier is one notch down, and consists of companies like Comcast or GE, and major newspaper giants like the NYT.  The third and final tier consists of hundreds of thousands of very small companies that fill some local need that the top tiers don't find profitable. The distinction is that the few media companies on the top tiers dominate the entire system, as a result of few remaining media regulations to stop these companies from merging to form these giant companies. Consolidation of companies spans across different media, and eliminate smaller firms.

McChesney claims that the “logic of corporate enterprise flows from the top” and that this shapes what ends up getting produced, how it gets produced, and what doesn't get produced.  “Media conglomeration” or “synergy” is a highly profitable tactic being used by these mega corporations.  They span across all different types of media forms and make for sensible business moves for these big businesses.  One reason they do this is for cross-promotion. A major company produces a movie in their film studio, and then they can use the cable channels, newspapers, and magazines they own to promote their product.  They also benefit from cross-production, which can be seen with commercial media content, that might start off as just a motion picture, but is then made into a TV show, and then a book, and then a soundtrack, and so on. They also are able to drive out smaller companies by offering major advertisers billion dollar deals for their advertisements to appear on all the different media that company owns.  The larger corporations drive out smaller, independent studios and dominate the industry entirely, dictating which movies will be talked about and promoted, which advertisements will be aired, and which will not be acknowledged at all. The selection of this material is contingent on profits and motives.

McChesney states that in this age of media consolidation, conflicts between commercial interests and the public interest arise. In a democracy, citizens are supposed to be well-informed and provided with unbiased information, so that they can effectively exercise their rights and duties as citizens. Media conglomerates are concerned with their private, profit-driven interests, and regulations that would be in the best interest of preserving the interests of democracy have been lifted. This can be seen in any news sources today. All news sources are somewhat biased, and they report selectively on issues that best serve the company as a whole. News networks like FoxNews are almost deliberately promoting a particular agenda, and thus defeating the real purpose behind journalism in the first place. Citizens are not being given objective news stories and then independently forming their own opinion on it; we are instead being told from a particular point of view that will inevitably frame news stories in ways that will sway opinion. Also, networks like FoxNews and MSNBC are not encouraging citizens to challenge and evaluate their beliefs.  Most of these viewers subscribe to a news outlet depending on what they already believe, and consumption of that news outlet reinforces those beliefs, instead of getting another perspective to make the most informed, well-rounded decisions.

It makes perfect sense to McChesney that our major media sources of journalism would dedicate more coverage to sensationalistic stories than to stories that should most affect people’s lives because those media outlets will report on the stories that will draw the most attention and generate the most profits. Professional journalism doesn’t make sense in a commercial sense because its not always the most profitable route. Journalism is increasingly less investigative and less controversial, because those stories don’t fit this mold that corporations want to follow to keep their ratings up, while using fewer resources and cutting costs at the same time.  They report more “puff” pieces, more trivia, entertainment, and celebrity coverage. Journalism is much weaker as a result, with reporters claiming “fair and balanced” political reporting, that does not seek to figure out whose telling the truth or if the claims made are true, it simply reports them as fact. Viewers are becoming more passive citizens, consuming news that gives them a ready-made opinion, and teaches them not to challenge things like the War on Terrorism. McChesney notes that journalism in other countries covers a much wider range of issues, because they don't have the stipulations from corporate bosses to report in a particular way. Their papers say things that would get a media outlet here in trouble with our government, and so news outlets in other countries tend to give more objective points of view, uninfluenced by big business or the government. Their journalists stay true to the real purpose of investigative journalism, that being that they should give people the facts that challenge every side of an issue.