Access Points and Social Costs of Media

I have found myself covering articles dealing with income inequality over the past months, and really recognized that the ability to control wealth brings many perks.  The number of access points to influence is potentially the most powerful source that the wealthy have in America, specifically being through the media. 

Jack Shafer writes an article via Reuters on a recent incident where former governor, former mayor, former district attorney, and former head of the Democratic National Committee Ed Rendell bought the Philadelphia Media Network.  This is a serious purchase, allowing Rendell to control many of the large access points for news in the Philadelphia region.

So what seems to be the biggest problem with this?  Shafer believes that the influence on the news will be skewed, and he continues to provide support to his argument through historical incidents and the statistics of campaign budgets from the past. 

The big point is that these media companies are hurting pretty bad.  In the article, a statistic is provided stating that newspaper advertising revenues have been cut in half since 2005.  The Philadelphia Media Network saw a decrease in net profits from $120 million to $4 million dollars last year, stated by journalist Tom Ferrick.

We have seen our communications grow exponentially over the past decade in a manner.  People are finding ways to access news for cheaper and newspapers are becoming more and more obsolete.  But there is still plenty of reason to worry about biased ownership.  The credibility will be tarnished by Rendell’s likely skewed beliefs towards news, and overall, the ones who are most affected are those who are less educated and still establishing a valid opinion towards situations in America.  This is a harmful social cost that could bite America in the ass, and really further damage the world of journalism in the future.

If people see brokers are untrustworthy, and many even question the ethics and moral consciousness of politicians, what happens if we see numerous media networks becoming overly biased and run by those merely trying to put their own twist on the news?

Fox News shows a prime example of skewed and untrustworthy reports, and while this statement may be controversial, the acts of shady journalism leave people unsure and unwilling to believe the network.  However, there are those who may not know better and, as stated previously, are easily swayed into a mindset that doesn’t receive the entire truth.  And in all honesty, this goes for both sides of the political parties, and for any issue that could lead to biased reporting.  It is not healthy for our society.

This is another case that I feel social costs are higher than the benefits.  I believe it is too early to tell what affect Rendell will have on the Philadelphia Media Network, but the truth is that people are going to have trouble deciphering the biased opinions that may soon creep onto the teleprompter.  I truly hope this doesn’t steer too far from the truth.  Most of us don’t trust half the people in America; let’s not try to avoid more swindlers.

Reference:

1. Shafer, Jack. “Who Cares if a Politician Buys a Newspaper?” Reuters. http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/02/23/who-cares-if-a-politician-buys-a-newspaper/