Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Rupert Murdoch's influence on US public opinion.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't have the answer to this discussion because I don't know what American media was like before the Fox Network. But recently, I was watching the Fox Network and my dad said something like: "just wanna point out that you are looking at a very conservative broadcaster. (Dad was a Clinton/Gore man.)

But during the last few years, the Fox Network became this outspoken, pro-American, pro-Bush network. Even I've now noticed how much they mix news with commentary. They were the first to call Palestinians, terrorists.

Murdoch also owns the NY POST...which has no where's near the circulation of the very liberal NY Times.

So my debate question is this: could a major conservative influence in the media, influence public opinion. The news people are on t.v., doesn't it sound like they should know and are telling you the facts?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats the nature of the corporate owned media. Most publications and broadcast media controlled by too few mega corporations. Independent thought is sacrificed in favour of sensationalism, politcal bias and ratings.

    Thats why I constantly remind you not to accept so readily what you are being fed about the world by the news.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes the media can influence public opinion, it is afterall where the public get their information from. Hence the reason to take in as many different news sources as weel, whilst remembering what their particular bias will be.

    It's a little like the situation here. It is rare to get Geenhat, Myself, Aladdin and Clandestine to agree on a subject because we all start and view things from a different angle. We may even be commenting on the same speech but each will put their own spin on what was said...

    If we all started from the same point, you would only get one opinion.

    It's the reason why many of us over here are worried about Murdoch's influence on our media. He owns far too many newspapers, plus several TV channels.

    If you want a good idea of how bad a situation this can create do a little research on Silvio Berlusconi (sp?) in Italy. He's now their PM...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I see. I also wonder if fear has made governments become more conservative.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Oh I see. I also wonder if fear has made governments become more conservative.

    No, it makes the population more conservative. Hence the rise in right wing feelings over here with regards immigration. People are fearful of immigrants and so take a hard line against them.

    Problem today is that the public don't feel the fear that the Govts do and (with the added dimension of too much spin recently) no longer trust what they are being told. Problem is that the messages being sent out don't reflect what the general public can see and feel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd put a little different "spin" on it, but I think the idea is the same.

    The general population reacts to their own fears, and want their government to do something about those fears.

    In the US, that might be fear of another terrorist attack like 9/11.
    In Europe, that might be fear of another World War.

    The specific actions the members of the population want vary, but generally are somehow linked to their fear.

    In the US, that might be controlling immigration, or maybe completely cutting it off.
    In Europe, that might be an expectation to avoid military solutions.

    The "Government" is made up of people who have to take action to actually alleviate these fears, and to actually deal with perceived threats.

    In the US, that means that it probably becomes immediately obvious that attempting to exert too much control on the immigration issue is a waste of effort. Instead, interdiction of threats is considered.
    In Europe, that might mean a recognition that military solutions are sometimes necessary, but should be entered at a last resort. As a result, appeasement is considered.
Sign In or Register to comment.