It is no secret that media has dominated our society. Magazines, newspapers, radios, TVs, cell phones, movies, and a myriad of other types of media bombard us with information at all times. For the most part, people see media as merely informative or entertaining; and theyrarely stop to think about its over-growing influence on our opinions. People say that they are all capable of discerning fact from fiction, and of being informed without being persuaded.

 

“It is up to the audience to interpret the media contents. Media has no power over us.”

 

“We all know its tricks. As long as we maintain an adequate level of media literacy, we are all safe from its overgrowing influence.”

 

However, these statements are mere delusions.

 

The authorities often choose media as the perfect conduit to deliver their agenda to the citizens. The reason is that media is the connection, which can reach a mass audience in a short period of time.  The distribution of media outlets, such as television and newspaper, is often widespread and available to the mass audience. Through these channels, governments often successfully spread their political or ideological propaganda to the public through language and tone which are designed to depict the government’s intended direction and content of an incident.

 

Here is an interesting case in which the media treated the same incident differently. In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean civilian airliner, causing civilian casualties. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian airplane, which was full of innocent civilians as well. These two incidents were not quite different regarding the fundamental basis of the problem wherein in the decisions of two different authorities have led to the deaths of innocent lives.

 

As for the 1983 case, the shoot down was portrayed as intentional by the USSR. During the Cold War, the US and USSR were at the peak of hostility against each other. At that time, the US government’s agenda was anti-communism, as seen by President Ronald Reagan label of the USSR as the “evil empire.” Linked to this ongoing ideological war, the media framing was clearly designed to create discontent towards the communist state. The example of the US publication on the left (in the image below) shows the fear-provoking word, “murder,” depicting media’s focus on the brutality of the action. The word has a connotation of crime, which charges the incident with extreme immorality. In relation to the learning outcomes of Part 2,themedia’sideological influence is clearly seen as anti-communism, which created among the public a sentiment of pointing fingers at USSR as “murderers.”  This shows a clear antagonizing tone towards the communist regime.
 

On the other hand, a similar incident where the US government decision claimed numerous civilian lives occurred.  The US media framed this incident as an unfortunate mistake and tragedy, drawing the origin of responsibility away from the authority as far as possible. The publication example on the right shows how the media focused on the reason behind such decision, rather than the ruthlessness of the action. With regards to learning outcomes of part 2, the media was trying to persuade the public that the decision was justifiable.  And they influenced the public to show sympathy for the victim, Iran, which they strategically mentioned in the sub-heading.  There was no mention of hostility towards the US at all.

 

The basic principle of media is independence, and of being free from bias. However, as seen from the cases presented, this may not be true. Throughout many incidents, authority holds its power over the voice of media and only lets us see what they want us to see. We should all be aware of this and be wary of any signs of subjectivity when learning about the so-called facts from the media.

 

Jiyoon Park

Grade 12

Branksome Hall Asia