If you are in Wakefield's Class please read the following article for tomorrow:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInamxkQy1Jd21NWms/edit
Callahan--Ok, we are kind of in a holding pattern. On Tues we will have our report on Disneyification. On Thursday we will begin discussing global news and wire services. For Thurs, please read the following article (The Roles of Global News Agencies):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInamxkQy1Jd21NWms/edit
A small part of the conclusion is not available, but it's free (and free is a very good price).
Two main issues are discussed in this chapter. First, global news is controlled by western organizations. Second, there is a focus on negative or bizarre news. What is your response to these two arguments? Do you think that global news is working under these pressures? If so, what are the consequences to this system? If not, what mitigating factors are in play? I'm looking forward to your responses.
I think the first argument that global news is controlled by western organizations is valid. The article describe many major news agencies which developed from core countries. These western organizations in comparison to peripheral nations had the resources and means to progress and become viable media outlets. I think the news that is produced and shared is influence by the intended audience and because of this I do feel that global news is working under the pressure of the control of western organizations. The news that most affects a specific target audience will be focused on rather than stories concerning less prevalent information.
ReplyDeleteEven though the article described the goals and intentions of many agencies to provide objective and unbiased news I think the influence of profit and business is impossible to avoid. Business is business and at the end of the day, no matter what type of organization, money is what drives decisions. The consequences of this model are the negligence of peripheral nations and stories that might not have an immediate impact despite appeals in other areas.
Good comment, Ethan.
ReplyDeleteI think that both arguments are extremely accurate and are fair assessments of the current situation. Organizations originating from western nations saw a need for global news and filled it to make a profit. They all originated from western nations because these nations had the means and the interest necessary to adequately fill that need. While these organizations report news, they tend to report news that is pertinent to their listeners, while remaining competitive for a profit. I don’t doubt that some attempt to remain unbiased, but the fact remains that they will report news that increases their earnings, meaning that they will report news about developed nations, because that is predominantly where their audience is from. The market lies in residents of western nations, and the market has set its quota for how much news outside of the western world should be reported. This results in non-western news that pertains directly to the western world, or is just weird enough to become newsworthy in the market’s eyes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first argument that the article addresses. I do think that global news is controlled by western organizations. These global systems started in Europe and North America, and western organizations are able to dominate because of financial means. These media outlets found success and progressed, and today remain the dominate media outlets. The global news that comes from major outlets are under the influence of these western organizations, and the viewers they target. This causes the bias we see in global media, we sometimes don't get a clear view of what is going on beyond western civilizations. And our view of the world is based of the things we hear from the media.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting the five Reuters principles. I commend the media outlets for trying to provide a fair, unbiased news service. I just don't know if there is a clear cut way to do that. The media is always going to run into bias because of the pressures of money and the business industry media has become.
My thoughts on the issue of negative and bizarre news is that those events that are bizarre are newsworthy. Yes, sometimes positive things are interesting to report, but I can see how people would be more interested in the weird things going on around the world, or the awful things that people are concerned with. It is personally the reason why I dislike watching the news sometimes. It makes me worry about what is going on. But I can see how the negative and weird things are the best to report, and the best money makers. And unfortunately, money is the driving force behind business decisions for the world media.
I definitely agree with the two arguments presented. The first one is that western organizations control global news. Money and significant political influence have made it easier for countries in Europe and North America to dominate the news and control what the rest of the world sees. Global news reporting originated in western nations, but I think that timing would never have been an issue for these nations to take control of global news. I feel these countries could have found means to influence other countries even if they were not the first to develop a global news network. The second argument proposes that there is a focus on negative or bizarre news. I think this point is hard to deny. Watch any nightly news show and the majority of the stories will be focused on death or negative conflicts the occur around the. Certainly these stories need to be reported (in order to avoid the infotainment that occurs on most other news networks) but I think this can lead to a sort of mean world syndrome. I don't mean to say that the world is not a dangerous place, because it certainly is, but I think an overabundance of negative stories will make it so people fail to see the successes of others around the world.
ReplyDeleteGlobal news agencies have felt increasing amounts of pressure to expand globally and broaden their services and messages. The first issue that gets focus from the author is global wire services. The second is the negative news coverage that peripheral nations endure. One of the major global news agencies is Reuters. It began in Europe and slowly expanded across the world and into the United States. In order to be a leader in this industry you have to be constantly adapting and creating new business and technological developments. Agence France Presse is the world’s third biggest and oldest agency. As new agencies are formed, they thrive in this international market and it serves as a way to increase media share in the states and abroad.
ReplyDeleteChandler Anderson
In my mind the argument that global news is controlled by western organizations is almost blatantly obvious. The articles outlined the big players in wire services and distribution of global news and most if not all were western or “core” nations. It isn’t too much of a surprise to me seeing that core nations either have the resources and money to invent new technologies or at least invest and further develop them until they practically own all that the invention encompasses. It is through those means that media corporations in western countries and those that control the flow of information are able to create a stronghold that affect whether or not we care about peripheral nations. This is can be seen since the early days of the telegraph when it was invented in western nations and later was only accessible to countries that had the means to support it.
ReplyDeleteThe second argument of this paper dealt with global news working under the pressure of focusing on negative or bizarre news when reporting on peripheral nations. I also agree with this argument and it is readily seen that we only care about foreign lands if something strange happens or stories portray their grief, civil uprising, or other negative forms of public attention. In this way news corporations reinforce stereo types of peripheral nations and we come to not only expect to hear it but we want only want to know about stories occurring in those countries if it falls neatly into those categories. Other stories are simply considered more of a country specific news story and hardly worthy of bothering the core nations.
Because of the advent of wire services, most news is generated in specific cities or regions. As we become a more global society, wire services are realizing that they can no longer ignore foreign regions and focus on news that happens in the big cities. But for the news stations and papers that rely solely on wire services for their foreign content, they are left at a disadvantage because they cannot supply their own content. As more news platforms rely on companies like Associated Press or Reuters only a small portion of foreign information is getting reported, the rest is going unnoticed. As the article shows, the majority of stuff that gets attention are stories of bizarre happenings or stories of tragedy. I think at some level this is comforting to news consumers. It reiterates to us the idea that America is good and safe, while foreign countries are tumultuous, frightening and unstable. As a business model, it works for news to give viewers bizarre or infotainment stories because that is what the viewer wants to see.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Riggs
I agree with both of the arguments that are presented.For another class, I had to watch and compare broadcasts from three different news outlets on the same night. The fact that the majority of the news stories were all the same and even presented in the same order helped me to realize just how influential wire services are and how major news sources are able to set the agenda for the news. I think that it is concerning to see how news organizations are so influenced by AP and Reuters. This homogenization of news reporting makes us very susceptible to the influence of the media. While it is all done in an effort to save money, I think that we would benefit if we relied on a greater number of sources for our news.
ReplyDeleteThe second point that negative and bizarre stories get more attention is interesting and valid;However, I think that the consumer is to blame. As long as that type of story is attracting audiences we will continue to see this trend. Hopefully the advent of new technology will enable us to receive news from more unbiased sources and help us to become informed on stories that are most important.
I agree with the argument that western organizations control global news as a whole. As it stated in the article, this is seen with the North/South, East/West divide. Westernized countries like to hear about other countries that are on the same level. We also like to hear about them because we can relate to thing that are happening there. We may not have had it happen before, but we relate to people who are similar to us.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that news is focused on negative or bizarre events. People don't want to hear about everything that is good in the world, that isn't newsworthy. People want to hear about problems or things that are weird. Those are the topics that are timely and will interest people.
Some consequences of this news system is people only see the bad things that are happening. They are not given the chance to see the good. Bad things are happening everywhere, but so are good things. I think there should be an even balance of good and bad news.
Based on real life experience and after reading the article, I also agree with both arguments; global news is controlled by western society and typical news is only about bizarre and catastrophic topics. It is clear in the article that the top global news organizations are predominantly in the West. This naturally creates a sort of western bias. Maybe that's why there are only negative news stories about other nations not in the West? If there were more global news outlets in other parts of the world, more stories than war, deaths, assassinations, weather tragedies, etc would be reported. I also think its hard for non-bizarre news to be reported--it just doesn't have the same public appeal and allure as negative news does. It's sad, but that's the way capitalism and consumerism works, and media unfortunately falls under that category.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Western organizations control global news and there is a focus on bizarre/negative news. However, I do not necessarily think these are bad things. Obviously Western organizations control the flow of news globally because they have the funds to do so. Therefore they essentially control the global conversation. We talked a little bit about this in class when we first discussed garbage imperialism and the North/South gap. While it is true that poorer counties, often in the Souther hemisphere, consume mostly Western/American media and this can negatively impact their culture in some ways, Western news media can't be expected to cater to the needs of countries who cannot contribute themselves. Like Callahan says in class, news is a business (and its not a philanthropic one).
ReplyDeleteWhen we took 211, we all learned what constitutes news. I believe the phrase they liked to use was "news is when man bites dog," aka a focus on the "bizarre." Of course news focuses on the bizarre and negative. If it focused on the positive, routine aspects of life, it wouldn't be news. The news is dominated by the unusual simply because no one wants to waste their time on the usual.
From what we have discussed in class as well as what I read in this article I agree that mainstream global news is being run by Western companies. Not only that but we also have become a people who are only interested in bizarre and negative news and therefore that is what we receive. An example of this that has always irked me is how when I mention I'm from Colombia, people automatically think of druglords and cocaine because this is all that the media reports on, the negative and bizarre side of Cololmbian news. Because this is the only thing that is reported on, this is all that people know.
ReplyDeleteThough they have a goal to present unbiased news, it simply isn't what sells. People want to feel justified in thinking what they think and therefore look for other people or news organizations that share their ideals. Why would people look for information opposed to their own when they feel that their opinion is the correct one?
I feel like without question those two points are true. We've discussed these issues a little already in this class and a bunch in other communications classes. I think that western organizations definitely hold a lot of control over global news. It is through these large corporations that many media outlets are funded. So it's easy to see how they might have an influence over what is portrayed in the news. As a result of working under these pressures I can see how the influence of these corporations might narrow down the focus of some of the stories to what they think should be focussed on, rather than actual news of the world that isn't being covered. And I most definitely agree that there is a focus on negative or bizarre news, or else how would they bring in readers and viewers? The bizarre and negative news is what people are interested in. However, with this type of focus, I could imagine that many people have a warped sense of the world, ultimately viewing it negatively without the positives.
ReplyDeleteWe have talked about this in class before and even in other readings, but I think that it seems like sometimes we are trying to put the blame for only reporting bizarre and negative news on the media. I think if people think that it’s wrong to only report on those things, they need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves what they read about and watch when they are paying attention to the news media. A lot of the blame has to fall on the consumers because that’s what they want. I am part of the problem too. Most of the time I am not going to watch a profile on somebody’s bakery or read about how somebody did a nice thing for somebody else that day. But if there is a video of somebody running through a mayor’s meeting and throwing the papers on his desk everywhere and then running out of the room, I will definitely watch it. We watch the news to be entertained more than we do to be informed. The news is just trying to get people to watch and to sell papers, and that is the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteI understand the concept of agenda setting, but with news consumption lessening, news broadcasts are forced to cater to the desires of the people. If people didnt want the strange and bizarre news, it wouldn't be as present. The same is true of negative news. I actually don't understand the desire for negative news myself, as it just makes me feel helpless to intercede with such small funds and being so far away. However, people must be consuming it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, news is often controlled by western organizations, but I don't believe that other countries would accept it if they didn't want things from the west. For instance, we have access to latino news and other things here in Utah, but we just don't consume it. I think the news will adjust to the market
Yes, global news is controlled by western organizations, but is this surprising? I'm not sure what the alternative is when peripheral countries lack the funds to become global news suppliers themselves. Sometimes articles like this make global news seem like life or death, but in many third-world countries (that aren't experiencing terrible civil wars) they are fine to go on living their lives without knowing what everyone else in the world is doing, especially if they are cultural groups living in remote places. The consequence of this is isolationism, but is that really all that bad? We do it with our families when the world gets crazy. Why is it so different with countries?
ReplyDeleteThe focus on negative and bizarre news globally is not surprising to me either. We live in a (western) world full of gossip and entertainment, and it makes people in other parts of the world who consume our news think that negative and bizzarre things are the most important things. News outlets are only trying to stay afloat though and give their consumers what they will read, so I don't really think it's the news' fault. We need to start being a little smarter about our choices.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as global news. In fact I'm not a fan of the Associated Press. There is a part of me that yearns for the issues that matter to me within my own sphere. News in general has become biased watered down garbage. Whatever happened the the real images of war? Whatever happened to the public opinion. Forget about the public poll that's not an opinion that's a ploy for views or readers. It comes down to money and entertainment. Things like politics have become synonymous with a joke or the rolling of eyes. Something that is suppose to be important has become a laughing matter. So let's just talk about what's grim, what's bizarre, and sit back to enjoy this show called the news. Murica created it and we send it to the world.
ReplyDeleteI do think that global news is controlled by western civilizations, particularly America. I immediately think of the Associated Press when I think of global news companies and how they pick certain stories, report on them and then they are read all over the world. The people who run this organization are picking what they think it is important for everyone to read. They believe that what is happening in western civilization is the most important and that it should be broadcast to the world. I do think though that there should be negative and bizarre news. This may just be me, but every time I see a video about children in Africa or people who need help, I want to help them. If I was to become aware of these issues through the news, I feel like I would have a better understanding about what the causes of the negative conditions are and what these individuals are really suffering through. I think we need to hear all types of news and that large organizations should not be controlling what is news.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that there are two ideals driving international news organizations. I guess there are really two thoughts that go with these: the pros and the cons of it. I can see the benefit of having large international news organizations, but it makes you think about how it is affecting the consumers of news worldwide. The danger of news being in this way is that the news becomes very homogenous. I absolutely feel that positive news focuses on western ideals. Just like any company, the goal should be to promote and improve the product that you have. Since the top wire services are based in the United States, England, and France, it makes sense that western ideals or stories about or that effect prominent countries are focused on. This process makes sense, but it goes against common beliefs and norms of journalism that seem to point that news should be fair and biased. Most international news stories that I can recall (especially in lesser nations) are pretty negative. They involve war, natural disasters, or some type of civil disorder or social problem. This is understandable as these are the types of stories that affect the western world more. The problematic consequence of this is that it makes the western perspective of the rest of the world very negative. This ideology makes it difficult for the world (especially western civilizations) to be more understanding of the causes of developing nations and creates a normative belief that these nations are full of problems.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see services from other nations becoming a bigger player in world news, but I think it is probably too difficult for this to happen. Reuters, AP, and AFP have been established for too long for their influenced to be lessened. The only way for the rest of the world to be represented better is for there to be a better push from the leaders of these companies to cover these “lesser” nations.
Eric Vincent
Western organizations do in fact control global news. This is inevitable to happen because those organizations are the ones that have money to run the programs. Since they are the ones who are running most of the news, they can control what is produced and shown to the world. I think many times this prevents the real news from getting out. The organizations can be biased in what is shown and reported on. They focus on the bizarre or negative because they think it will bring in viewers, but personally I think they should focus more on the positive to create better relationships between countries. I'm not saying they shouldn't report on the facts, but I think it would be a good relationship builder to have more positive stories as well.
ReplyDeleteOf course global news is dictated by the western world! The surrounding countries lack the resources needed to essentially "do their own thing." Also, its not really in their culture if you think about it. Little towns in the middle of Africa have been doing just perfectly for the last hundred years without information of the outside world, why change? Yes, to us their lives are horrible but for them they are happy, have what they need and get along just fine. Why splurge their resources on covering global news better? They have the information they get from CNN and other western based sites, that's good enough for them. Yes its all skewed information but I guess it's better than nothing at all. Global news is like a trend and some of the reuters are so well established now that it's difficult or nearly impossible for other countries to catch up.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these arguments are true and neither of them is upsetting to me. Global media is a business. Of course global news is controlled by western organizations. Maybe I'm just a biased American, but it makes sense. We have more money and technology. The economy of western countries effects the whole world. Reuters and AP have been in the business for too long to be replaced and news in western countries effects the world more than news in a tiny country in Africa. If they have a civil war or genocide it often isn't reported on. The world instead hears news that Kate Middleton is pregnant. Is it fair? No. I could see why people would see the purpose of journalists to inform the public as a watchdog and help the greater good. However, all the public wants is gossip and media is a business, so they must deliver. In an ideal world journalists would report on a genocide in a small country in Africa and people would become outraged and the UN would step in and make a difference. But really even if it was reported today, would it make a difference? I doubt it. I know of any examples today where the reporting of a story made a difference on the outcome. I think the world is too detached from negative news today. Maybe I'm just cynical.
ReplyDeleteGlobal news is definitely controlled by western organizations. The top several global news/wire agencies are all based out of western countries. It follows that the news that they would focus on would be happening in the countries that they are based in and that they wouldn't focus as much on what is happening in other countries. Even when reporting about other countries the journalists that are from western based companies are going to have a western take on the stories. Their ideals and beliefs are going to be imposed on any stories that they report on. It is impossible to have a strictly unbiased news report. One of the mitigating factors to how much global news is influenced by western ideals is the internet. More frequently people are getting their news from the internet and global news is coming from people in the area that are closer to it and often come from different cultures.
ReplyDeleteAs for bizarre news, there is definitely a focus on it. This might be more influenced by the tastes of people in general than any sort of western ideal. When people watch the news that are expecting something that is new to them. They don't want to see people going about their normal lives like the viewer is already listening. This is not necessarily a bad thing. News out of the ordinary can expand people's minds.
This article really helped me understand why the North/South divide exists. It seemed to me that the main issue (both in location coverage and issues coverage) is money. Smaller news organizations and countries with less resources simply can't afford the cost of foreign reporting and news gathering. That, in effect, is how the AP was born. Individual outlets couldn't afford wire costs by themselves. That, in effect, is why certain news stories get covered and others don't. Those who can afford foreign news coverage (like CNN) set the agenda and the smaller outlets have to piggyback off of their stories.
ReplyDeleteI think that this could start to shift as the global pressure to cover international stories decreases. As the article pointed out, since the end of the cold war this international coverage has, in a way, gone down. As we have talked about in class, American news coverage really focuses on what affects America. However, it is astonishing to see how many news outlets use content that has filtered down through wire services like AP and Reuters. Even though, in theory, the Internet should have enabled us to do our own "news gathering" at low cost, we still rely on services like the AP to know what to talk about and get all of the details.
The western world controls the global news just like they control a majority of other things internationally. It’s not realistic for countries that lack the resources to feed their people to run their own news and media outlets. Also, because the western world is the most powerful, the majority of news other parts of the world want to hear about is happening in the particularly the western world. I agree that there are two main ideals involved with the international news organization. There are several pros but also several major cons. The information these countries are receiving is better than no information at all, right? But, what bigger impact is infiltrating other countries with our news having on those countries? I can’t see the small countries being able to solve this problem anytime soon because of the lack of resources.
ReplyDeleteThe details in the descriptions of the various wire services in this chapter, some of which include Reuters and AP, elude to exactly why global news is controlled by western organizations...underprivileged countries simply cannot afford to "modern services" in an attempt to stay up to date with the current and ever-evolving trends in news gathering and distribution. These large media conglomerates that we read about for today require a lot of money and manpower to support the numerous innovations news experiences throughout the years, a pressure easier handled by organization in the west.
ReplyDeleteThe second argument about a focus on negative and bizarre news is a topic we've covered some in our class already. Something that related to this that really struck me while reading was when the chapter talked about CNN. To save on sending reporters abroad, networks and other services will simply match the foreign story as reported by CNN. Therefore, CNN is setting the agenda when it comes to foreign news. If CNN does not cover the story, it likely goes unreported. This is scary to me and causes me to think the scope of foreign news stories we receive is not near extensive enough. However, I also understand the financial pressures news organizations must face everyday and how this might influence them into settling for what CNN has to say. And maybe this is bad to admit, but I would argue that sometimes the foreign stories we aren't receiving are probably irrelevant to our lives anyway.
The article also mentioned that the major global news agencies with more specific and segmented services are experiencing more success than those trying to tackle a broader range of topics. This doesn't really relate to the prompt, but I found this statement to be interesting because it's an exact reflection of how people interact with media these days. Everything is becoming more segmented and tailored to specific wants, needs, and interests.
I think the point made by the article regarding western civilization and the control of global news is pretty obvious. But like I stated in a previous comment this semester, I think social networks are really helping developing countries to make their voices heard. In mainstream global news there is no question that western civilization has the resources to control what the global conversation is. This is a fact we study in some of the other COMMS courses; the homogenization of news worthy material-of-the-day.
ReplyDeleteI think news stations are only thinking of their publics/ratings when reporting on other countries and their news oddities. All other day-to-day news wouldn’t have place in global media but more in the countries own news outlets.
I agree that global news is controlled by western organizations. As it was expressed in the article the major news companies not only are located in the major western cities but also founded in most of them, so its only natural that they do apply western standards and out takes. By personal experience I have seen how the news have been affected by the western pull, every report or story is always influenced by its culture, not always on purpose, though there will always be a need and pressure for profit that in someway will contribute to the ways of expression of these companies when providing news. Which I believe is were bizarre and negative media comes, what calls the attention of the people if not the bizarre and negative.
ReplyDeletePreston Wittwer
ReplyDeleteI think the technologically advanced world controls global news, no necessarily the Western world (it just so happens that the technology advancements have taken place in the Western world. And I can't think of a single valid argument against the idea that the power and control of global news does not reside in the west. There really isn't any other way of reaching a global audience without the aid of technology.
The more we are confronted with questions like why the news media pursues and publishes negative or bizarre news the more I see my pattern in pointing a finger at the consumers and not at the content creators. There is a public demand for these types of stories and there is money to be made in focusing on them. I"m not sure what this says about my philosophies in general, but I think there should be just as much analysis of audience consumption and market share with these types of stories and practices.
Western news dominates the international news market because they are economically more powerful and got there first. Most of these news organizations mentioned have been around since the mid 1800's. They were able to secure the market before anyone else could do so. Since the western countries during this time were thriving economically and technologically, other countries in the southern hemisphere had no chance. It is also interesting to note that most of the dominate international forces are from English speaking countries. Since English is the dominate force in international media, naturally global news companies who are primarily english, dominate. The AFP is an obvious exception but they only thrive because of all the French colonies that existed when it first began.
ReplyDeleteThere is a focus on bizarre or negative news in these international news organizations because that is what people will consume. Like the reading said, these companies are primarily existing to make a profit. Since bizarre and negative is what people consume on a local level, it only magnifies itself on the international level. The more negative news is shown, the more the stereotypes of these countries grows. All I know about Africa is they are all starving and are constantly in civil war. I believe this because it is all I see from international news organizations. This only insures these countries will continue to be seen in a negative light. In order to fix these problems, news organization would have to begin reporting positive news while simultaneously there viewers will want to watch it. Because of how we are as international consumers, I highly doubt this will ever happen.
I agree with the arguments discussed in this article. I think that the west has a lot of control in general, news being no exception. I think that the West is particularly focused on what is going on here. Even the world news here in the US focuses more on what is happening here than huge issues happening in other countries. I don't think it should be any surprise at all that the west has such a powerful influence. I also agree that the news focuses on the bizarre and negative aspects of the news. It goes back to the whole infotainment discussion that we had earlier this semester. News organizations are businesses and therefore are concerned with making money. They are simply showing us viewers what we want (or have continually responded to). I think this is sad because this has led to a generation that doesn't know what is actually going on in the world, myself included.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument for a few reasons. First Western Organizations control the news because they control the resources. When you control things in the world you control the news. Also if you are a major player in the world people are gonna want to know about you and what is going on. This is because the Western Organization affects the rest of the world. So they want to know how they are going to be affected.
ReplyDeleteI think the bizarre news is a product of our society. We are all about sensationalism and the next "big thing". So news organizations have to scramble to satisfy their viewers with the next crazy news or we get bored. It is our fault with the crazy news we want. So its our fault that we demand that kind of news from our news organizations.
I have been hurting over this idea for a few weeks now as I realize that I am one of the consumers that are choose bizarre stories over important ones. Although we may influence the media, the media has a bigger influence on the viewers and thus has a responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe reason consumers have a hard time making responsible decisions when it comes to their media consumption is due to the fast-paced world we live in. We get most of our news from apps and facebook posts. These forms of information are used as time-passers instead of moments of real time commitment. We procrastinate our international news updates because we don't want to commit to the time that it takes to care enough for important issues. The problem is we always find excuses to continue putting off our media decisions until we are forced to pay attention.
I wouldnt say necessarily that global news is controlled by westerners, but there is a definite influence. We do love bizarre news stories. we always will. It provides a conversation starter. We want to be entertained. Does it mean that these are not important? No. Often they are both.
ReplyDeleteWe choose to take in the media we want. There are outlets now for everyone. If you want international news, you can find it. Will it be westernized? Of course.