Both the Robin Brown and Kai Hafez readings stressed the importance of media in both conveying stories and in suggesting interpretations through language. Brown suggests that media is increasingly driven by a desire to produce appealing content, thus limiting the state’s role in production and utilizing professional media conglomerates to dictate story lines. This new dynamic encourages competition and urges “domestic broadcasters to offer a product that is attractive to audiences” (89). However, with an increasingly prevalent desire for appealing content, I wonder if this compromises the request for factual news media? Or can both exist simultaneously?
Just as another author has suggested in previous readings, Brown suggests that media is increasingly shaping us, along with our interpretations and assumptions. Brown emphasizes this by describing the consequences of word selection in public broadcasting. He argues that Bush’s “war against terrorism” precipitated specific connotations regarding war, religion, and terror. I agree with Brown’s hypothesis and have also noticed the influence of diction in public media. Not only does word choice demonstrate a bias, but it subtly infuses the viewer’s perception with either a positive or negative connotation.
The Hafez article discusses the national influence of media, and the partiality it creates. He uses the Olympics to comprehensively demonstrate nationalization that develops within even an international forum. However, here is where I found the two authors to differ. Where Brown discusses an increasingly international media base that threatens domestic production and encourages competition, Hafez seems to suggest that media has become too domesticized. It seems as if their arguments slightly contradicted each other, and presented an interesting debate. I haven’t yet decided which argument I agree with, but both authors present insightful arguments to support their claims.