Control of Media and Technology

Media and Technology SOCI 1306 Control of Media and Technology The kinds of media that are available for public consumption, as well as the timing and location of technological releases, are greatly influenced by powerful people and societal institutions. This control procedure is a kind of gatekeeping. Shoemaker and Vos (2009) claim that gatekeeping is a sifting process that condenses hundreds of potential messages into a manageable quantity and shapes them into a form acceptable for the mass media. Essentially, the media's gatekeepers determine what the public is exposed to, and this control is fundamental to the media, as emphasised by C. Wright Mills in 1956. This power dynamic is evident in the way new media have evolved to supplant conventional forms of hegemonic media. When one race, gender, or class dominates a culturally diverse community and uses the media to enforce its perspective as the standard, this is referred to as hegemonic media. In the past, this type of media control has been used to uphold the status quo and strengthen established power hierarchies. New media has, however, begun to undermine the conventional gatekeeper position in the dissemination of knowledge. Social media sites and other platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have democratised the flow of information by enabling more people to openly express their opinions and participate in public debates. These new media platforms participate in a kind of self-policing in addition to giving a platform to a greater variety of viewpoints. It is recommended for users to report improper behaviour, which moderators then deal with. The centralised control used by gatekeepers in conventional media is drastically different from this decentralised method of content management. Though new media platforms have the potential to create a more varied and inclusive media environment, they also bring with them new difficulties, such the echo chamber effect, which occurs when users are exposed to content that mostly confirms their own opinions, and the dissemination of false information. Conflict theorists, who see society through the prism of power conflicts and inequality, contend that the gatekeeping role is not totally eliminated by the transition from conventional to new media. Rather, it changes it. Although new media channels are supposed to level the playing field, in practice those with more resources can still have a big impact. For example, individuals with the means to spend in advanced marketing and content strategies may take advantage of the algorithmic structure of social media sites like Facebook and YouTube. Conflict theorists would emphasise how important financial resources are to media coverage and political clout in the political sphere. The capacity to purchase media coverage and execute massive marketing operations enables affluent individuals and organisations to control the political conversation. Decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee worsen this disparity. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case upheld outside organisations' unlimited funding rights for political advertisements, even for Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs) with secret donor lists, so long as they don't openly support or collaborate with a particular candidate's campaign. This decision has significantly changed the political environment by essentially guaranteeing that the wealthiest may influence politics the most. A conflict perspective theorist would contend that under this situation, there is far less chance for the underprivileged to be heard in politics. The richest groups have the ability to sway political narratives, control media coverage, and silence critics due to their vast financial resources. Because of this dynamic, there is an imbalance in politics, with the rich's interests taking precedence and the voices of the less wealthy being suppressed. Conflict theorists would also contend that the democratic process is weakened by this concentration of media power. The ideals of fair competition and equitable representation are jeopardised when media exposure is decided by financial power. Political power is strongly correlated with economic power in this scenario due to SuperPACs' unrestricted capacity to influence elections. This correlation between political power and money exacerbates already-existing disparities and obstructs attempts to build a more just society. The process of formulating policies is likewise subject to the sway of money in politics. Politicians who depend on large donations and SuperPAC funding may feel pressured to put their funders' interests ahead of those of their larger constituent base. This may lead to the implementation of policies that worsen social and economic inequality in favour of the rich. Public opinion is significantly shaped by media narrative control in addition to financial power. Rich people and organisations can provide funding to advocacy groups, think tanks, and media outlets that support their favoured ideologies. They may impact the policy agenda and frame problems in ways that serve their interests by influencing the public discourse. The voices of the underprivileged are further marginalised by this control on media narratives, which also restricts the variety of viewpoints that may be expressed in public discourse. Although new media has changed the mechanics of gatekeeping, the influence of influential people and social institutions has not diminished. Although social media sites like Facebook and YouTube provide more voices a chance to be heard, they also pose problems with false information, algorithmic prejudice, and power consolidation among those who can afford to spend money on digital marketing. Money's power continues to be a major obstacle to democratic participation and equitable representation in politics. In conclusion, a conflict perspective theorist would contend that the wealthy's financial and media clout substantially limits the non-rich's ability to be heard in politics. The democratic process is weakened and existing inequities are perpetuated by the capacity to control media exposure and political narratives through financial means. Although there is some hope for more inclusion with new media platforms, there are new issues that need to be resolved in order to guarantee a more just and democratic society. Those who want to comprehend and confront the underlying causes of social inequality must continue to pay close attention to the interactions that exist between the media, money, and political power.