The Architects

Alexander Abedine

English 101: Political Rhetorics

Mrs. Matthews

December 5, 2008

The Architects

The media’s influence is one of the most widely palpable today. There is an underlying necessity in peoples’ lives for information, and the media fulfills this need. The media takes on several faces in the world today. No longer is a news source merely a supplier of a commodity; it has become its own entity with multiple facades, each with its own unique persona. Like any other entity, there are no clear lines of separation between these sides. At times the boundaries become increasingly blurry and convoluted, which supports the notion that they are all in some way inherently connected to one another. Most readily apparent, the media functions as a corporation that encompasses a broad range of multimedia sources and generates enormous revenues. The media is also the sole provider of information for the world. With these two functions, the media becomes a powerful interest group which is able to change opinions. The media possesses a gross amount of power and influence over society and everyday life. It is imperative that the public does not allow itself to be subject to every piece of news that the media puts forth.
Each media group is a corporation, and the primary function of any corporation is to make a profit. As a business, first and foremost, the media operates on the basic economic principle of supply and demand. The more the consumers wish to hear about a certain story, or issue, the more stories are published. This, in turn, generates greater profits for the corporation. With news outlets such as NBC reporting revenues of $155 million in 2004, it is obvious that the money that can be made is astronomical (Network TV Economics). Another example, according to estimates made by SNL Kagan, a financial research firm, showed that CNN and CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC were projected to earn a combined $791 million in 2007. This represents a 20% growth of the $657 million in profits made by the three cable news networks in 2006 (Economics). The brilliance of the media is that everyone wants to be informed. The public will always desire knowledge, and the fact is, that there will always be something to report. The media has become so efficient at delivering information that they never seem to have a dearth of it. Thanks to the media’s efforts, it is now almost effortless to become informed of the day’s occurrences. All it takes is the press of a button, the click of a mouse, or the turn of a page. This creates a knowledgeable, modern member of society who is well-versed in the recent news. He or she can hold his or her own in a conversation about global warming in an elevator or about Barack Obama’s healthcare policy on the train back from work. The media brings the world to society’s fingertips and makes huge sums of money while doing so. The media does have some tricks of the trade that increase its necessity in everyday life. These tricks become very useful to news executives because they help increase the corporation’s revenues.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_economics.php?cat=3&media=7


The media cannot provide such a vast amount of information without one of the cleverest policies news groups implement today: bipartisanship. The value of unbiased reporting cannot go unnoticed. The reasons behind why the news media does not readily choose sides are just another illustration of its genius. The media attempts to be bipartisan in order to maintain its large consumer base. If a media outlet overtly admitted being liberal, or conservative, an entire portion of the market would be locked out. For example, liberals would not prefer to watch a conservative news station, or read a conservative newspaper, and vice versa. Bipartisanship gives the illusion of a conciliatory attitude towards the news and puts on a friendly smile to address questionable arguments. If the media takes sides, then they will make less money. This thought process is plain and simple to understand. The media acts as a business in a stunningly cunning fashion. All of its actions are calculated in order to make astonishing sums of money, while providing information for the masses. The media’s ability to consistently rake in huge profits identifies them as institutions with great networking capabilities that are present all over the world.

The next of the three functions of the media is its operation as a provider of information. With the broadening of globalization and media expansionism in full force, the news divulges more information than people can imagine. Every news source maintains a staff of correspondents, reporters, writers, and editors on call in large cities all around the world. Indeed, the world is truly becoming a smaller place thanks to the media’s influence. For example, CNN currently employees more than 100 reporters for its television shows aired in the United States alone (Anchors and Reporters). There are well over 100 other reporters that work for CNN, broadcasting the news for other nations. Reporting the news is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week job; it never ends. When the sun is setting in one part of the world, the sun is rising in another. The media will never have a shortage of information to provide its audiences. The media is a purveyor of a good that can never be depleted. This fact not only contributes to the media’s business aspect of making money, it creates a new, more vociferous persona for the media entirely.
The media’s expansive networks all over the globe, combined with its ability to report on nearly anything it or the public deems newsworthy, makes the media a powerful interest group. News sources take this interest group persona to an entirely new level. Since there are news mediums that tend to naturally be more liberal or conservative than others, the interest group mentality becomes much stronger. This means that an underlying tone is present in how each specific news outlet reports. As an interest group, with the means to provide information comes a motive. The media can easily spin stories in ways that benefit one political party over another. The title of “interest group” only catalyzes the media’s capability to become one of the most influential forces on the opinions of a nation’s citizens, especially during Presidential elections.
The final, most crucial role, of the media is that it is an almost omnipotent sculptor of opinions. The media clearly exercises an enormous amount of influential strength. They are able to reach every person on this planet with access to a newspaper, computer, or television. This ability to influence such a large audience of people is something that Presidential candidates cannot do, at least as effectively, even if they tried. The media can undoubtedly alter the opinions of a nation because they wield such a vast amount of power. This authority is most evident during election years. The media functions as a gatekeeper, deciding what to report and broadcast in the news. This role enables the media to keep a tight reign over what becomes main stream for the public (Hall and Hardy 118). Thus, during an election, the media controls what the voters will become cognizant of. Even at this elementary stage of reporting the news, the media can mold public thought. For example, during the 2008 United States Presidential Election, the media, for the most part, decided to focus more on Barack Obama’s connection to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and not to make as noteworthy Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers (Obama Outraged). Operating as a gatekeeper is just one part of what makes the media a molder of opinions during and beyond election seasons. Thanks to media groups’ networking capabilities, they bring the world to the voters with ease and with their own opinions mixed in. Simply put, the media does something that the general public cannot easily do: research.
The media also alters opinions due to the simple fact that a majority of voters lack the time, energy, and resources to conduct their own inquiry and research into a candidate or an issue. This inadequacy on the part of the voter leaves him or her to succumb to whatever information is laid out by the news outlets. This unfortunate truth demonstrates the concept of information costs. The basic tenants of information costs work in cohort with the concept of the gatekeeper. The media decides what the main issue of an election will be (Hall and Hardy 117). If we look past an election year, the media can even define the ideals of a generation through what they decide to report. For example, during the Vietnam War, the media could not get enough of the rebellious actions of anti-war protestors. This issue, in retrospect, came to define that generation (Vietnam Protests). The media uses a basic concept to generate mighty influence. Yet, there is another piece to the puzzle, which further solidifies the media’s predominance in public opinion.
The principle of agenda setting ties into the principle of information costs to define what the issue of an election will be. The media can dramatize an issue to the point that voters will formulate their own thoughts on it. Typically, this issue goes on to define the election and manifest its repercussions. For example, the focus on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during the 2004 United States Presidential Election came to the forefront of ideological battles during that period. The wars became the underlying issues that were constantly on the minds of voters thanks to the media’s ability to agenda set (War’s Rationales). Likewise, during the 2008 United States Presidential Election, the economic crisis received much of the media’s, and therefore the candidates’ and voters’ attention. Though it may be a little too early to tell what the defining debate issue of the election will be, the economic crisis U.S. citizens and businesses faced in the waning moments of the election may come to define it (Issues). Agenda setting plays a complementary role to the presidential campaign ad in that it highlights the key concern of an election. Furthermore, this concept ties in with every other aspect of the media’s role as an influential entity and an architect of opinions. These concepts blend together harmoniously to give the media unlimited access to the minds of the public. This limitless access may be a very dangerous end to reach. For the sake of the voters, the media must not become a near almighty being.



It is very easy for the media to engender information in the minds of the public and for the public to accept what they are told as truth. This is a fact that the media is well aware of. The pubic cannot break free from the media’s influence even if it tried to do so. This is a disconcerting thought. To know that the world is subject to what they can see and hear through the media is frightening. In reality, society is at the whim of the media’s word. Collectively, the news outlets hold a monopoly on information itself. They can charge us what they want to use it, broadcast what they deem worthy, and twist stories in any way they wish. With all of the media’s basic principles and business strategies working together, endless influence exists. It is vital that we, as members of society, formulate our own opinions. We cannot continue to absorb what the media lays out. It is dangerous on a myriad of levels. Most conspicuously, becoming a slave to the media will alter our own beliefs, perhaps for the worst. We may no longer think for ourselves if the media is allowed to run rampant. Just as importantly, the foundations of society as a whole may be shaken, due to the media’s vast authority. If the media can change our opinions, then it has the innate ability to change who we vote for. All the general public can do in order to change the current state of the government, short of a revolution, is to vote for change. The media may very well shape our opinions in such a way that we end up voting for someone who is not beneficial for us in the long run. The politician does not control who we vote for, the media does. The media is the middle man between the politician and the voter. Due to this position between the leader and the people, the media can interpret what the politician is conveying for the citizen. This would, in turn, alter the course society is taking, possibly for the worst. We must be wary of the power we allow the media to wield so casually; it may hurt us in the end. The media’s burgeoning command over our thoughts takes hold during not only election years, but at any given point of our lives.
Election years aside, the media controls thoughts and opinions in everyday life as well. For example, if a newspaper chooses to print an image of flag-burning protestors on the front page, along with a lurid headline, it will provoke thoughts of confrontation and destruction among its readers. The newspaper could have easily published a similar story, but instead of images of violence, printed images of peaceful protestors, fighting for the same cause. If this newspaper chooses to deliver the image of violence, it is only perpetuating conflict (YouTube). From beating the drum of bloodshed extends a fundamental fact. The media publishes headlines that sell. A newspaper with the cover image of a burning flag is far more eye-catching to the consumer than an image of peaceful demonstration. The media can deliberately fan the flames of protest if it means they can grab your attention. Unfortunately, the media not only makes money off of publishing deliberately obscene headlines, it uses them to shift our opinions to the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum.
Consumers cannot deny that the media plays a key role in the lives of an increasingly massive number of individuals. The media functions as a business, a provider of information, and a molder of opinions. News groups earn more money than the average person can fathom, and with riches comes its inherent ability to influence the world. The media not only provides us with the facts of an issue, it sets forth its own interpretation. The media changes governments and more importantly alters perceptions of reality. The media changes society far surer than any political leader. The media is available at your fingertips every second of every day, and they know it. An interest group that wields this much power, money, and ideological influence will undoubtedly be around for a long time to come. It is up to us as consumers, and more importantly members of society, to formulate our own thoughts when we consume the information that is laid out before us. We must not become slaves to the media. This, however, is much easier said than done.