Media In The United States of America

Though the USA likes to pride itself of on it's freedom, in the media industry there is little for those wanting to expose the truth. The USA should be an ideal place to be able to report truth, but as many have found, (Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julien Assange.) it really is not.

Through my research I discovered the USA's media market is a place for the rich and the ruthless rather than the adventurous and brave. The main stay of the market is gobbled up by under ten huge corporations, vertically integrated as to cut out excess costs. In terms all this does is drive business' who have fought for years to keep their name in the game to bankruptcy. Lovefilm, a revolutionary platform of watching media was driven out of business by the corporations creating their own platforms, rather than working with Lovefilm. When Lovefilm did go bankrupt, Amazon swept in to take the royalties and assets.

The news division of the media is concise. The majority of main stream news is owned at the top by a huge corporation who can plough their own agenda through these platforms they now own. Fox news is a staggering example of this. Fox produces a strange right wing format of programming with little care for factual accuracies and peoples feelings. Instead of host an intelligible debate, Fox prove their points by overloading the studio with 'experts' who share the same agenda as fox and ganging up on the one guest who doesn't. It teaches any Children watching that the way to win an important argument is to lie and to shout.

This is killing the roots of the journalism profession in America. Investigative journalism is becoming harder to practice, and less desirable to practice. Local news is filled with garbage stories aimed for who exactly, no one knows. Country-wide news is essentially a shouting match with little important being discussed. This leaves America in a scary position, the youth who will be soon to vote will know essentially nothing about politics or on how to make an informed decision on how to vote.

The examples of whistleblowers over such recent times show us that America is not a place of freedom. Especially if you wish to expose the truth when it is morally right to do so. The lesson this displays to the rest of the world from such an influential power is terrible.

Unfortunately these problems stem from the USA's reluctance to govern how much of the market can be owned by one singular company. There is little alternative view available on television or radio, but the internet has helped over the last fifteen years in a resurgence of alternate media. I plan to explore how alternate media can survive in the modern US media market and world-wide. 

Below are the accompanying slides from my presentation.

Vice: An Organisation Shaped By The Worlds History

In Montreal, 1994, three young journalists started a magazine to appeal to people like themselves. Their idea of people like themselves was a youth generation who wanted an alternate style of news highlighting issues that may be important to a more detached portion of society. Twenty years later Vice magazine has a circulation of 90,000. Aside from the monthly magazine publication, Vice have over 5 million subscribers on YouTube, a record label, a yearly series on HBO and a recently launched global news channel.  But what happened over twenty years for Vice to get to this point and how has the events of this period shaped how the company evolved?

Vice Magazine - Issue 1

The magazine initially was launched as the Voice of Montreal. They received government funding to cover trends and cultures which were at the time not being covered in print. The magazine changed their name to Vice in 1996 and shortly after moved base to Brooklyn, New York. 

The magazine's edgy content made noises in the Journalism world, and many from the alternative scene lent their hands to Vice to write articles they may not have ever been able to, or to portray art in styles previously ever imagined. Terry Richardson, a notable fashion photographer was one of the first huge names to produce content for Vice, with it being received fantastically by the readership.

Over the next ten years Vice expanded into every continent making sure there was a voice for the alternative view all over the world. Spike Jonze, a friend of Vice and an academy award winning director gave Vice the idea of producing digital content for online and home entertainment purposes. Vice set up vbs.tv producing short documentaries about similar issues raised in the magazine but on a more global scale. This was all during the heart of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Vice produced alternate content compared to news organisations around the U.S. for online use at the viewers pleasure. This ultimately led to Vice's rise to the top in terms of Alternate media.

Vice's ground coverage of the Iraq war

Vice's popularity kept growing over the years after, allowing the company to grow into a multinational and multiplatform company. Vice now tries to cater to all forms of opinion and tastes which creates a fantastic environment for good informative news. Vice operate their own country websites and YouTube channels, but have also got sister productions such at Motherboard and Noisy. Noisy concentrates on alternative music, whilst Motherboard explores the worlds ever changing nature and the environment that it will create for us to live in. Vice's willingness to evolve and eagerness to embrace what lies ahead is what has made the company such a success. The company is set to surpass a revenue of $1 billion in 2016 according to CEO Shane Smith. 

Vice is at the peak of it's powers right now and the future looks nothing but big things for the company. Vice continue to produce quality news whether it be breaking or otherwise on a daily basis to the world, whether it be in the form of an hour long look into the real North Korea or exploring the harsh realities of Texas' drought. Vice is being shaped by the world we live in, something which a lot of media companies have struggled with in the internet age. Twenty years ago in Montreal, no one would have imagined this.

Can Young Voters Trust Who They Vote For?

Now more than ever the young vote counts, as was proved in the 2010 election where the Liberal Democrats received a major increase in their usual amount of seats.

My question is can young voters make an informed accurate decision on who they’re voting for this upcoming summer? I think not, unless you want to spend time to really dig deep into the parties. For the casual voter who has little interest in politics in day to day life, they will have a couple of ways to base their decision. One will be in the live debates shown across different TV platforms. Another will be from all the speculation in newspapers about promises and policies in the upcoming months.

There is one problem with the latter option, all these papers have political allegiance. Due to papers allegiances with parties it makes it hard for a casual voter to make the decision. With the Sun tearing apart Labours new policy while the Guardian pokes at Cameron’s latest gaffe’s, who is he meant to trust? And why are they to trust these media moguls? With phone hacking and libel claims being settled weekly they print media is hardly giving a good account for itself and is creating an unstable environment for democratic politics to be in. It creates an idea of us and them rather than informing the voter of the straight up facts of each party allowing them to make an informed decision. 

The television debates don’t offer much more than the papers. They’re set up in a way that by the end you only know which politician is the best orator. When you should be finding out which is the best leader for you, this is not helpful. Nick Clegg proved in last election debates that he was a brilliant talker, especially about policies.

But what Nick Clegg proved a year later was that he was only a good talker, and not much more. The whole of Nick Clegg’s election campaign was based around the fact the Lib Dems would not let University fees increase. Which made like a vote for Lib Dem seem like a wasted vote for the younger votes come one year later when University fees had been upped to £9,000.

Ultimately, the fact our views on TV and money for the papers is more important to the media than how we vote. Unfortunately this leaves young voters in a poor position. They are ill informed and left with no real idea on who will help them. 

On that day in May when we all decide who shall keep the country ticking for the next five years, there will be a shock. A shock that the turnout is low, especially amongst younger voters. Young people are disillusioned with politics, we don’t want to hear from Labour why the Tories can’t handle the debt. we don’t want to hear from the Tories why Labour put us in this much debt.  We don't want to know what we can do for you, rather what you can do for us.