So Herman and Chomsky weren’t exactly the most engaging writers I’ve ever had the opportunity to come across, but the article itself was kind of interesting. But the most interesting thing about it—at least to me—is the fact that it was written twenty years ago, and still holds a great deal of validity, which is kind of sad because you would think that we would have changed more of this by now.
I thought the most interesting part was the second filter. Let’s look at the reliance on advertising first. When opening a newspaper, ads seem to cover about seventy percent of the paper. When you think about it, it is kind of ridiculous, but it works for the corporations, who not only advertise, but put coupons and incentives in the papers to urge the consumer to test their product. When I was thinking about this, the memory of a certain high school substitute teacher kept popping in and out of my mind. This woman (I don’t even know her name because she was only ever addressed as “Coupon Lady”) would buy five/six local and national newspapers each day, and just cut every coupon out of it. She never read the news, but she bought a lot of newspapers. And I guess that’s what the CEOs care about ($$$). The news is important to them also, but the ads do have an impact on the sales and that’s what matters.
And I’m sure some of you would say that you don’t care about the ads and just ignore them. But the ads are there, and they are usually can manage to grab your attention enough to make you skim it. And even if you don’t scour the ad, the name is still embedded freshly in your brain, so when you pass the store on the highway you have that association.
The only thing that I think has evolved a little is the first filter. With all of the technology we have now, it is much easier for alternative news services to from. Actually I think now there are more news services available than ever before. That’s not to say that they are going to sell as well as the Washington Post, but they are available.
No comments:
Post a Comment