The distribution of information in forms of mass communication (media) has always been an integral part of society. In the sphere of contemporary ‘western media’, the norm for the last century has been a handful of conglomerates controlling the majority of this communication, giving their version of what is happening in the world, heavily influenced by corporate interests and political biases.
The advent of social media brought with it the potential to put the power of media back in the hands of the people. Instead, we have seen the growth of an even bigger misinformation machine, where anyone can share unverified information instantly to thousands if not millions of people, and these tech giants, for the most part, don’t mind because they’re more concerned with capturing and selling our attention to the highest bidder. It’s the same profit-first mentality in both forms, a mentality which is not conducive to what true media should be.
Manufacturing Consent
If your sources of information are controlled by vested interests, you can be quite sure you’re not getting the full picture of what’s going on in the world. 100 years ago, the term ‘manufacturing consent’ was coined by professor Walter Lippman, referring to the need for the powerful elite to guide the ‘bewildered herd’ towards a desired outcome, or in his own words, “the common interests elude public opinion entirely”, and need to be left in the hands of a “specialized class “of “responsible men”. Condescending? Yes. Undemocratic? Absolutely. And yet, to this day, the media’s effectiveness in manipulating public opinion through omission and misrepresentation of information has not faltered. Where a totalitarian society keeps the population under control with force, a ‘democratic’ one uses propaganda and the media.
American media: A case study
While a certain former US president took the term ‘Fake News’ and ran with it (150 tweets in his first year in office), the fact of the matter is that misinformation in the media is real. The media landscape in the US is engineered for a divided population. The two most viewed news networks are Fox News and MSNBC. A 2019 study found that Fox News viewership was 93% Republican, while MSNBC viewership was 95% Democrat. If you were looking for a cause for the political chaos we have seen there in the last 10 years, look no further. After all, what better way to keep a freedom-loving population under control than by splitting it right down the middle? This dramatic division of the news has led to completely different pictures being painted for both sides, and a wedge being driven deeper between them with every headline. But who’s behind it all?
The Big Six conglomerates (Disney, AT&T, Comcast, CBS, Newscorp & Viacom) own 90% of media in the US. Now I don’t know about you, but giant corporations don’t strike me as likely proprietors of honest, unbiased reporting on, well, anything. If money is priority number one, surely the promotion of new, alternative ideas and views that go against the status quo would be seen as ‘bad for business’ and therefore stifled. This is not, however, just an American issue. Across the pond, three UK publishers control 90% of print reach and 40% of online reach, while in mainland Europe these consolidation trends can be seen as well. Independent media companies are finding it harder and harder to stay competitive without taking investments from or just flat-out selling to the bigger fish.
VICE: Damned if I don’t
Take the story of VICE Media, who, for many years, produced some of the most in-depth reporting on controversial topics in the global political landscape. At the peak of its powers, VICE media boasted a $5.7billion valuation and looked to be paving the way for a new kind of mainstream media, unencumbered by political and corporate interests. Today, however, VICE is a company on the verge of collapse.
See, VICE’s biggest attraction from an engagement standpoint, would also be the cause of their downfall. They found their success creating fringe content which, for the most part, was not family-friendly. For a company whose main source of revenue would come from monetization, this was a problem. Despite racking up tens of millions of views each year for their raw, uncensored, documentary-style content, they were making frighteningly little in advertising revenue. All this led to them having to compromise their brand, producing more mainstream, ad-friendly fluff pieces, and pandering to their corporate overlords, such as Disney, HBO and Fox. This led to a steep decline in popularity, and the company declared bankruptcy earlier this year. What this downfall shows, is that even those with intentions of producing independent, uncompromising media content, are often helpless against the growth-driven corporate machine which tramples everything in its path.
Social media: Same, but different
If only there was a different kind of media, uninhibited by these restraints. One which replaces the top-down distribution of information with a more accessible and horizontal system, where opposing views can be shared and corporations can’t censor what you see. Perhaps that was the intention with social media. Unfortunately, its inclusive nature is a double-edged sword. The reality of social media is that anyone can say anything, with no need for fact-checking or due diligence, and little to no consequences for promoting false and damaging rhetoric. Humans are drawn to novelty, and in the world of social media, attention-grabbing garbage beats out honest journalism every time.
A paper titled “The Spread of True and False News Online” found that fake news on social media diffuses faster, further, and deeper than real news and is 70% more likely to be reposted. And before you go blaming bots, results are consistent with or without the spam accounts that plague these platforms. To go back quickly to Mr. Fake News, during the time around Trump’s election campaign, it has been estimated that 1 in 2 eligible US voters were exposed to Russian-backed propaganda on Facebook. In Sweden, 1 in 3 news stories on SM leading up to the 2018 election were determined to be ‘junk news’, and both sides of the 2019 UK general election were found to be propagating misinformation online in the weeks approaching the vote. More recently, there has been growing global concern about AI-powered misinformation campaigns permeating political discourse on these platforms. All this to say, social media has not been the saviour of truth we all hoped it would be, and its divisive nature has been the root cause of a host of political and social issues since its inception.
The Echo Chamber
The biased nature of traditional media manifests itself online just as much. We all can appreciate the convenience of the algorithm. We open up our feeds to personalised, tailored content that is relevant to us. But as with many of life’s conveniences, we’re giving something up for that luxury. In the case of social media, we are giving up exposure to new ideas. We see content the algorithm knows we like, and when we go into the comments, we see mostly opinions which align with our own, further entrenching our beliefs. This phenomenon is known as an echo chamber, and it is dangerous due to its ability to polarise groups of people and limit openness to other points of view.
So… media bad?
Well, no. The intention here is not to condemn the media, but to highlight its flawed nature. There are plenty of people who produce media and news reporting with integrity and responsibility, but the ownership structure of the media is undeniably cause for concern. In the world of traditional media, we are given the illusion of choice, with hundreds of outlets from which to get our information. The problem is, in most cases, they’re owned by the same few powerful people, so our exposure to alternative perspectives is worryingly limited. On the flip side, social media is home to every perspective, true, false, and everything in between. Not to mention, massive corporations own and control these platforms too. The phrase ‘a rock and a hard place’ springs to mind.
One thing social media has changed for the better, is that it has allowed for these hidden corporate and political agendas which lie beneath much of the news reporting we see today to be highlighted and discussed. The first step to fixing any problem is to be aware of it. The best outcome of this discourse would be highlighting the importance of taking an active role in the sourcing, verification and dissemination of the information we are presented with. So next time you read about certain groups of people being killed by rockets, while those on the opposite side simply die, question this difference in phrasing. Or when you read something outrageous, posted by an account with just a handful of followers, don’t take their word for it without doing some digging yourself. Recognising the biases and motivations behind the stories we read, regardless of where they come from, is a good start. For better or worse, the media is designed to influence our minds. We need to stop making it so easy.