Social Discourse & Network News

While I was re-reading Hilmnes' paper discussing the social impact and consequences of radio, I realized just how applicable his idea (of a media impacting the social dynamics of our society) was to another media that most of us rely on for information. The rise of network television news channels in the early 1980s for me parallels Hilmnes' discussion of the advent of radio in the 1920s. Both mediums were seen to have the potential to unite national politics and opinion, and this potential can be used for either tremendously positive or tremendously evil consequences.

Back in the 1920s, many feared what the dangerous of nationally broadcast radio programs could bring into the unsuspecting home; 'racialized' jazz programs or the advice of a incorporate and questionable Dr. Brinkelely giving medical advice. Today, CNN and FoxNews bring the political opinions of their program hosts into a majority of American homes. These hosts do more than just deliver the news. They often influence the audience in subtle ways, pushing them to adopt one point of view or another. This is true on both sides on the political spectrum, and while the most notorious perpetrator of this is FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and the rest are just as likely to commit this crime.

Network television news channels, such as CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC have great influence over the minds of the American populace. CNN's tagline is frighteningly true with regards to the stations possible influence, "The most trusted name in news." Because of the widespread popularity of these television news stations, the manner in which they report information has had broad and overwhelming power over the minds and opinions of the American people. The hosts of the "news" programs have enjoyed a linear increase in their ratings over the past 20 years, which signifies to us that they also have linear increased their influence. For many Americans, the Bill O'Reilly Show or Keith Olberman's Show is their only source for information and news. This is quite dangerous.

As Hilmnes discussed in his paper, "One key idea in the social discourse of the 1920s was the desire for national unity...The most common recurring element in the early discussions of radio here in the United States was the notion of national unity." During its advent, many realized the tremendous potential of radio in shaping our national culture and opinions. Although this might seem like a noble task, the dangerous of it should not be overlooked. Hilmnes notes "The new medium of radio promised to aid beneficial cultural standards of unification but also threatened to weaken some important social divisions" [such as maintaining separation between black culture and white culture].

As Hilmnes noted, perhaps the one saving grace, the only thing that will prevent these monolithic news corporations from delivering their own corporate point of view to the public, is Advertising. Yes, advertising, that great pestilence, the great bemoan of the American public. Hilmnes noted that "As long as advertising remained the basic support of radio, an avenue for the proliferation of diverse popular tastes remained. Cultural unity and commercialism seemed at odds..." The main objective of each advertiser is to seek as many new and untapped markets as possible for their products, and as long as these news corporations rely on the support of these advertisers, they will refrain from broadcasting opinions which marginalize or offend large groups of Americans/consumers. It is in this twisted way that advertising seems to be the one way of staving off complete cultural dominance by the corporate news giants.