Blog #8- Article questions

Article questions

Question 1: The main thesis of the article is that the Time Warner Merger is "a civic and journalist issue" as well as a "nightmare for those who believe in historic notions of a free, diverse and independent press.” In your own words, describe why the author feels the merger is so harmful. Try to touch on the three main arguments: civic issue, journalist issue and an issue with a free and independent press.

The author feels that the merge would be very harmful because then the majority of our information will be coming from only a few sources and is potentially at stake of not fairly representing different or unpopular points of view. This would be very harmful, as it will give the public a biased point of view, and therefore negates the historic notions of having a free, diverse, and independent press. This is a civic issue, as one may question if this corporation will really care about the public’s interest, or rather about which story will give them the biggest profit. Will they fairly represent unpopular points of view, or challenge the government and political agencies that they are lobbying? If this is not the case, then this is the exact opposite of having a free, diverse, and independent press. This is also a journalistic issue, as journalists must report on stories based on the view of that corporation. This will limit free expression and diversity if the majority of journalists are reporting for one big corporation. Do we want mass marketing and the bottom line to be the only ethos of journalism? This will also make it difficult for smaller, independent media companies to compete with them, going against the very notion of having a free and independent press.

Question 2: What is the danger of not having a free and independent press?

If there was not a free and independent press everyone would not be giving their input or having the opportunity to think their own thoughts, believe what they choose and do what they feel like is right (not what the media/advertisers say to do, feel, buy, believe). When there is not free and independent press society will become run and ONLY influenced by media and advertisers. Therefore, the danger is the media and advertisers will be influencing people on biased opinions, with only money in mind, not the best interest of the people in mind.

Why is it a central aspect of democracy?

Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially:  rule of the majority, or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Democracy allows freedom of speech and input from the people. We live in a democratic society, so with not having a free and independent press then we would not be being democratic. We would be being drived and influenced by only one high power, that being the media and advertisers.

Question 3: The author argues that ideas and opinion on the Internet have stayed relatively free and outspoken. Do you agree? Can you list some examples of alternate ways to get news on the Internet?

Yes, I do agree. I think though the Internet contains many things that are biased, it still contains information, ideas and opinions of everyone. So yes it has not restricted certain people from saying things, and the Internet lets everyone freely write and speak their minds. Some alternate ways to get news on the Internet are through blogs and, Facebook and MySpace. Also websites like Wikipedia lets anyone freely post information to pages.