There is, I think, not that much of a question in its utility. In the blogs, and in most discussions on media, it generally refers to media that is both easily accessible and has a wide audience. But to stick a label on the multitude of news outlets is dangerously unthoughtful, perhaps even analogous with the erroneous claim that Jews control the media.
Instead of getting routed into such a mindset, maybe it would be best to allow for a working assumption. There is no mainstream media. True, it makes discussions more difficult, and perhaps more obscure, however it does not do a disservice to thought.
You see, there are a number of large news outlets, and a number of different mediums, each with (and this is the important part) different audiences and thus different constituents. Perhaps the only governing generalization we can make about media is that it most sell. To echo pop culture critic, the media generally has a bias to whatever sells more papers. To qualify that, however, this is not always true, and with the advent and usage of relatively low costs communication forums (read: the internet) media has fractured into small, niche outlets addressing the attitudes of fewer and fewer groups of people.
Either way there is a complex relationship between media and its audience. Even in the news outlets that try to appeal to a number of different audiences. Foxnews, is perhaps, the best example of this sort of complex dichotomy. It is, after all, a mainstream media outlet, however its attitude is generally different than most other forms of mainstream media. And that, my friends, is where the phrase "mainstream media" breaks down and ceases its usefulness - if it ever had any to begin with.
2 comments:
I think it is fair to say that the term "mainstream media" refers to those branches of the media that actively seek to make themselves "both easily accessible and has a wide audience." As such, outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. can be classified as mainstream. I think the term is useful in distinguishing the different forms of media. For example, a blob may focus on reporting the news, but it isn't neccesseraliy "mainstream."
Just a side question: who is claiming "that Jews control the media?" Also, why is it dangerous to stick a label on the "multitude of news outlets?"
I agree completely. The word can be used to distinguish between different forms of media. However, it becomes dangerous when we begin to discuss ethical responsibilities. Mainstream is a cliche after all. And like all cliches, it prevents insight. Our minds halt at the oft heard phrase. Kind of like the scientific studies that say we only see about 20% of what we view, since our brain is familiar with everything else it fills in the rest. So what happens when we start bunching news outlets under such a cliche driven title, we run a major risk of assigning properties that might belong to just one to all of them.
I wasn't saying anyone is claiming that Jews control the media (although it certainly does happen). My point was that the two are analogous in that they both can prevent thoughtful discourse. Just like all cliches. I was also having a bit of fun with a dramatic style of writing.
I hope I answered your questions
Post a Comment