The capitalist system deeply influences the media landscape today. The economics are driven by profit and competition, and there is a profound impact on everything from the news consumed to the entertainment everyone enjoys. While most of the time, this goes unnoticed by the uninformed public; it has severe consequences on our daily lifestyle, our actions, our choices and our lives in general. And when it comes to the political landscape, things get even more serious.
There have been concerns regarding the press and the bias it not only adheres to but also (mis)leads the public toward. What does a free press entail in a society that is largely capitalistic? Our perception of a free press often overlooks the limitations inherent to a capitalist system where journalists and the press are oftentimes forced to prioritize profit over providing accurate and unbiased information.
It can create a conflict with journalistic ideals of serving the public good. Newsrooms may prioritize stories that generate clicks or ad revenue, often at the expense of the truth.
The political realm has undergone a significant transformation with the waning influence of traditional media. The era of restricted communication channels is now a thing of the past. In today’s world, any candidate has the ability to circumvent traditional media and directly reach millions through social media platforms. This change has sparked intense competition, where individuals, not just established media entities, hold the power to disseminate information as publishers. However, this democratization of information comes with its own set of challenges; misinformation and sensationalism can spread just as rapidly as credible news, further muddying the waters of public understanding.
Furthermore, social media is distinct in its ability to foster connections. Unlike traditional media’s one-way communication, social media facilitates rapid and organic message sharing. Imagine the difference between sharing a T.V. ad and a tweet – the latter’s potential for virality is unmatched.
As media companies merge and consolidate, there are fewer outlets overall. This reduces the diversity of voices and perspectives and can make it harder for investigative journalism that challenges powerful interests to get funded. The issue of media ownership is multifaceted. While certain owners directly influence content, others adopt a more hands-off stance. The choice to publish a critical story about a parent corporation depends on various factors, including the publication in question, the company’s culture, and, most importantly, the journalists’ dedication to ethical reporting.
In a world like today’s, it becomes very challenging for the media to fulfill the monitorial, radical, facilitative and collaborative roles in society.
The history of U.S. media is largely characterized by misrepresentation, exclusion, rampant commercialism, and systemic market failures. The core of this crisis is rooted in commercialism; its removal has the potential to bring about transformative change.
It may seem like a new dark age, but change is possible, and an alternative media system is achievable, one that is democratically managed and open to all. However, any public media system must establish a barrier to shield it from government and other influential forces. There definitely must arise complexities, but as long as people’s needs are met and the truth is guaranteed, there is always a way to be found.
To explore more on this topic, read “First Battle: Inside the Mainstream Media’s War on Trump’s Presidency” by Johannes Kriek. This book showcases how capitalism has ruled the U.S. media, specifically during the Presidential electoral process, to meet its gain at the cost of the public’s right to truth. By understanding these dynamics, readers can become more discerning consumers of news and advocate for a media system that serves the public interest rather than corporate agendas.