how does media in our democracy impact our society?

Answer 1

It is simply not possible to have a democracy without a robust media. Let me say that again with my Thomas Jefferson hand-puppet to underscore the point:

"The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

Democracy REQUIRES that people vote. How can they possibly vote well? They MUST be educated enough to make good decisions, and they MUST have enough information upon which to make a decision. If all they know about the activities of their government are the few scraps and bits they see in their daily lives, they cannot possibly vote well. And democracy will fail.

Thus it is of CRITICAL importance that the media is encouraged to squirrel out every possible hidden fact and datum about what our government is doing and how they do it. ANY attempt to stop them is a DIRECT threat to the democratic process. People who want to control what you know want to control how you vote and therefore control every aspect of your life. They are fascists of the most vile kind. Even Jefferson was not optimistic about the possibility of success against them:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

So remember: ALL that lies between democracy and tyranny is sloth and ignorance. Only the media can prevent one of those...

Answer 2

The word media entails many different forms of communication. In the case of the 24-hour news cycle on television, I believe that their goal is to scare people into watching. By terrifying the populace, you can ensure that they "tune in for the latest". There is never-ending coverage of death and dismemberment, and this is evinced in a callous way by the newsman's adage; "If it bleeds, it leads".

People can only live in anxiety and stress for a finite period of time. The stress cannot be never-ending, or they will have a psychotic break. Which may explain the state of our country's mental health. I believe that many people are forced to either change the channel, and probably miss the little bit of news that was actually worthy, or risk going slightly mad.

The internet can be an amazing source of information. It is also frighteningly easy to change history in the electronic world. There are good and bad ideas out there, and the internet has very little oversight, and no accountability for its purported facts.

I would argue that the anonymity of the internet has encouraged breathtaking rudeness to run rampant, at least on the 'net. It also has proven to be a place for people to meet and join forces to make change, whether it be the "one" campaign to end AIDS in Africa, or al-Qaeda campaign to terrorize the 'infidels'. The internet does not encourage moderation of words or thoughts in our society.

In contrast, there is a permanancy to the written word. When the newspaper makes a mistake, like hiring a plagaristic writer, they pay with lost respect and subscriptions. The rest of the newspapers will crucify them, and the reporter becomes the subject of late-night talk show jokes.

I believe that newspapers, while still guilty of yellow and slanted journalism, can at least be brought to shame when they step too far out of line. Those people who regularly read the newspaper (the Enquirer does not count!!) tend to be well-informed, and more prepared for the inevitable rocky roads when we as a society come upon them.

Our society learns and grows daily, with information bits bombarding us from all directions. Each individual is charged with digesting this information to the best of their ability. Constant new data input may actually be too much for some of our more challenged members. But there can be no doubt that media surrounds us constantly, and that each person must take great care in their reactions to it.

Answer 3

The media does not impact our society, individual members of our society who looks, reads and listen decide how they as society members should be acting, talking, and practicing in society. If an individual believes everything the media says and do not search out other opinions and points of views then that individuals acts impact a very small part of society. Each individual must exercise his/her individual freedom to react to the media.

Answer 4

It fulfils a mixed, yet in many cases valuable position. i'm presuming that a democracy may have a extremely loose press. The media is an major source of necessary information for individuals, broadly speaking contained in the kind of knowledge which could impact them. people may be forewarned of complications and topics, with a purpose to make more effective alternatives about their destiny. journalists can look into thoughts, and instruct wrongs which could be righted or topics which could be addressed. The position of authorities is necessary in a democracy, and that is the media that not purely let us know of their movements, yet analyze and delivers critiques on their magnitude. Abuses by governments and others may be printed, so the media turns into an major balancing ingredient to enable solid authorities. for this reason there is many times a spectrum of the information media, consisting of diverse 'camps' that typically mirror the diverse political factors of view of politicians and the voters. Many topics lack an absolute 'good' or 'incorrect', yet fairly have a range critiques catered for by the media. The down area of that is that objectivity may be submerged lower than a slant. besides the undeniable fact that, maximum of those information merchants are commercial operations; they're there to make funds. they ought to grant their target market what it needs, or they'll fail to entice gross sales to live on. even as this guarantees a particular aspect of public responsibility, it also has a adverse area. Arguably the down area of the information media is that it caters to the 'baser' area of human interest. some media have a tendency to spotlight leisure, which incorporates information, gossip and scandals about celebrities and public figures. Even the further 'responsible' information media can provide an rather localised or perhaps parochial view of activities, ignoring wider topics of more effective value that are extra 'boring'. The non-information media has a tendency to spotlight leisure and familiar interests. leisure is a significant area of cutting-part people's existence, and the media is a significant course to cater for this. videos, sitcoms, dramas, way of existence interests are all familiar. Documentaries and analyses actually have a gap, although perhaps wade through quite by being out-competed by further familiar public tastes. So, the media is rather major, many times ideal, and many times undesirable for us.

Answer 5

It makes people lazy and gears them towards the liberal side due to the bias in the media that most major outlets have admitted openly. The lazy ones believe it all without researching anything themselves and then argue points that the only recourse they have is that they heard it on TV or read it in a paper.
Quite sad.

Answer 6

it impacts peoples opinions and overall judgments, which in turn can make people fight over certain beliefs or just hold prejudice views towards others.

Answer 7

to much