Who decides what news is?

There's always someone behind a story. Regardless of how hard one tries, it is impossible for anyone to totally remove them self from a report and make it totally objective. It is easier to more closely reach this impossibility when a subject is vanilla, but on subjects such as war, which Moyer confronts in his essay, it becomes exceedingly difficult. In the video, Moyer does not make a direct statement that the Iraq War is like the previous conflict in Vietnam, but he juxtaposes the two and the American public's reactions to both. He is trying to make a correlation. In my opinion, there has been less public outrage and demonstration concerning the Iraq War because of the times. During the Vietnam years, the fabric of our country was changing. There were movements on many fronts. This stimulated a sub-culture of "radicals" that took to the streets, confronting authority and acting out on their perceived trampled rights. As a country, we have settled in, it seems. As many changes have been made, we hit the 80's and 90's and put the proverbial car on cruise control. Many people simply got comfortable, and members of my generation were raised in a climate that has created a general sense of malaise towards any sort of cause. It took the candidacy of a black man to get us to vote. We needed a reason to roll out and exercise our most basic democratic right. Though I find the line drawn between Iraq and Vietnam to be quite thin indeed, I believe sheer laziness to be the causation for less public displays of opposition. People got comfy, and raised their kids that way.

Now, whether the media covers what does occur is another issue. The news is owned by someone. Its job is to report truth, but can it do this completely if a story conflicts with the ownerships interests? In the case of the Iraq War, the coverage of the push towards Baghdad was so rah-rah you'd have thought you were watching the liberation of Paris circa 1944. Why was no one discussing the potential pratfalls of this conflict? Even as someone who supported the war, I would have welcomed more opposing views. An important role of the media is not only to accurately report information, but to discuss its merits and downsides (commentary). One of the negatives of 9/11 was its affect on the media. Just like the public, the media jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and lost view of its duties. How can this be avoided? What caused it? I do not think the ownership of many of our major media outlets helped. One example is GE. They manufacture weapons for the government, but they also own NBC. Does this not seem like a slight conflict of interest? Would their coverage of the war change because of this? Interesting points to discuss.

In fact, there are only six entities that own all of our news. Does this seem right? All seem to be dominated by the presence of white males. Is this indicative of our countries racial composition? Not at all. Is it fair? Absolutely. No one has done anything wrong to gain these positions. They have played the game and become successful. Right or wrong do not come into this discussion. Is this a good thing? That can be broken down. The simple answer: NO. In a country where the majority/minority coin will be flipped by 2050, it seems that the news is still very centralized on only certain people and places. Though certain issues are not important to everyone, they are important to someone. Are we alienating people by not acknowledging them? I personally think stories on minority issues concern me just as much as anything else. If America is a quilt, they're a chunk and every bit as important as I am. Coverage of these different cultures would illuminate their struggles and successes, but most importantly, it would promote understanding. One of the lesser focused upon aspects of the media is to educate. This is a key area where they could certainly do some good.

Somewhat in the same vein, you have how the media portrayed the Civil Rights Movement. Even though they shot many of the stories from the point of view of the white law enforcement, and no doubt showed their bias in doing so, the images coming through people's TV screens did all the talking needed for many to understand the brutality of the struggle for equality. Seeing with their own eyes the fire hoses spraying women and children, and dogs viciously attacking people simply standing in the street helped many make up their minds around the country. It really did not matter what the broadcaster said, or the tone of the report. Images hold great power, and those were some of the most powerful.

It is time to use the media as a tool to promote knowledge of all the types of people we have in our country, and the place to start are the controlling interests. This is one of the biggest issues facing the media today. Who is pulling the strings?