A good example for this point of view is the BILD-Zeitung. Who don’t know the famous and at the same time notorious Bildzeitung. It doesn’t matter who you ask everyone knows this newspaper. They are working with big letters and much pictures. The publishing in such a way is founded in America. They are the pioneer of screaming and scare bannerlines. The headlines are designed with strong statements in an emotional background. Everything is personalized. In a more and more technical world they search for something personal and on the other hand they don’t’ have to read so much because the information is already filtered in short articles. They want to attract the reader with emotional, scaring or shocking headlines or pictures. The more effect it has on the reader, the better it is.
The actors in that play are public figures, athletes and politicians. The one who brings the highest circulation gets the biggest part of the side and it doesn’t matter if they destroy/ruin a life as long as they sell their newspaper. And one important factor is almost not decisive: the truth. The behaviour of the media during the war in Iraq is frightened. They swamped us with information which were faked. They showed us scenes in which they bombed a city, but it was only an unoccupied house somewhere in the desert.
Therefore the question comes up, when do we know that it’s the truth, that it’s real. Can we discover it at all?? And who are the persons which remove the stitches???
I don’t know and I fear we will never know…
When looking back in the history the main goal of communication is the understanding of every single individual. Through the development into the days of the internet , it is getting more and more difficult to reach a consensus within the society.
The globalization of the communication increases the alienation of everyone’s as well as the communication determines everyone’s life. As a single person it is quite impossible to influence the global stream of communication or to keep them under control.
Especially when we hear what occurs in Italy, it might bring us to the opinion that even though we would like to change something we haven’t the power to do so.
Because while some European lawmakers fret about Silvio Berlusconi’s conflict of interests, his government is pushing through legislation which will allow his business empire to take an even bigger chunk of Italy’s media. Berlusconi effectively controls 90 % of the Italian TV market via his family interests in private broadcaster Mediaset and his influence over state-broadcaster RAI in his capacity as Premier. His family holding company Fininvest controls the nation’s largest publishing company Mondadori and its biggest film distributor, Medusa, while his brother Paolo runs one of the country’s most widely sold newspaper, Il Giornale.
Other family interests include an indirect stake in Telecom Italia and a host of other interests.
The size of Mr Berlusconi's grip on business and political power prompted protests from left-wing members of the European Parliament last week when the Premier outlined Italy's plans for its presidency of the European Union.
For the Berlusconis, expansion into other media areas is banned at present, but if the media bill becomes law, there will be no limit to the number of media any firm can own.
So who can defend against such a development?
It’s an objective fact that for example parties try to have an influence on the media.
Some people say that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. But do they keep this opinion if this is all handled through one person?
In the West elections increasingly focus around television, with the emphasis on spin and marketing. Democratic politics places emphasis on the mass media as a site for democratic demand and the formation of 'public opinion'. The media are seen to empower citizens, and subject government to restraint and redress.
Yet the media are not just neutral observers but are political actors themselves.
Contrasting with this is a liberal tradition which sees the mass media as essential to the development of democracy. The mass media is seen, in this view, as helping to secure rights of citizenship by disseminating information and a pluralism of views.
By this process 'public opinion' forms and influences government. The media are seen as essential to the operation of a public sphere of open debate. The press constituted a public sphere in which an open political debate could take place. But this is a fallacy if politicians control/manage the media.
To the extent it fulfills the watchdog function, the commercial media catalyzes
and, to a degree, embodies public opinion in the face of both government authority and
private centers of power. It serves to check the power -- and abuse of power -- of
government, business, political parties, interest groups, and associations.
The media acts as watchdog, first, by providing the public with information that
the public can then use to judge the politically and economically powerful. Significantly
in that regard, the media engages in investigative reporting. It aggressively seeks out
information and scrutinizes those in positions of power, rather than merely acting as a
passive conduit for relaying the information given to it by the powerful. Armed with that
information, the public can then vote out elected officials whom the press exposes as
incompetent, corrupt, or out-of-touch with majority views. Citizens can also boycott or
otherwise organize against businesses or other associations that the press exposes as
unworthy (as those citizens would define it). A prime, recent example is the reaction of
the public and elected officials to media reporting of tobacco company executives’
perjurous denials that they long knew of nicotine’s addictive properties.10
In addition, the media fulfills its watchdog role by, in some sense, representing
the public before public and private officials. Officials react to media reporting with the
assumption that it reflects public opinion.11 They also alter their conduct out of concern
for the possibility of that conduct coming under press scrutiny. Thus, the mere presence
of the media helps check public and private power. At times, of course, officials simply
try to cover-up illicit activity. But overall the ever-present glare of the media gives
officials a strong incentive to desist from abuse of power.
Information has little or no value for either public discourse or individual
autonomy if it is inaccurate.16 Indeed, false and misleading statements of fact can be
highly damaging to liberal democratic governance and individual well-being.
Trustworthiness and accuracy in the provision of news and information has long
been a central component of journalists’ professional standards.17 Within the mainstream
news media, the provision of “a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the
day’s events” is seen as the most important responsibility of the press,18 and the principle
of objectivity forms the core of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional
Journalists.19 In line with those principles, commercial news media devote considerable
resources and professional commitment to checking facts and verifying sources.
As numerous critics have pointed out, the commercial media’s actual performance
falls short – some would say “far short” -- of the ideal we have just described. In
performing its watchdog, discourse-enabling, and information-providing functions, the
commercial media skews as well as narrows public debate. Commercial media, critics
assert, routinely produce bland, uncontroversial expression, designed to put audiences in
a buying mood and to attract a broad cross-section of viewers, readers, and listeners
without unduly offending any of them.20 At the very least, such mainstreaming is
unlikely to provide adequate expression to minority interests and concerns. More
insidiously, it might help to engender a widespread sense of complacency and a
diminished capacity to envision potential challenges to the status quo.21
Part of the reason for media’s failure to live up to the Fourth Estate Ideal, and one
that appears increasingly to be so as media enterprises consolidate into conglomerates
with non-media corporate parents, is that media enterprise self-interest and concern for
the bottom line pushes coverage to favor commercial interests.22 Media’s skewing also
grows out of market dictate, both real and perceived. Sensationalism, mainstream
worldview, and reporting that focuses on current political leaders and dominant
institutions sells better to broader audiences than alternative content.23 Moreover, media
exhibit considerable herd behavior, imitating the format of existing commercially
successful movies, books, and TV shows, thus exacerbating the homogenized, uniform
character of much media content.24 In addition, reporters’ dependence on government
officials and prominent, well-organized associations for raw material might also vitiate
the media’s watchdog bite.25 Some commentators claim, indeed, that government
officials exert such a powerful, albeit informal, influence on news coverage and thus on
public perceptions and debate that the notion of autonomous media production and
distribution of ideas is little more than a pipe dream.26
As a result of these factors and others, while the mainstream mass media may often
exhibit moderate-reform-oriented norms, it rarely challenges our basic social, economic,
and political structures.27 Nor, for better or for worse, does it provide a full spectrum of
fathomable expression and opinion.
