Neo-Liberalism and Media [Essay Help]

[Kawee]

Hi all,

I am in need of a little help with a university help, which my good friend asked me for help. She knows I'm studying Economics and Political Science in uni so she thought I would be able to help her. Below is the paper.





I know what neo-liberalism is. However, her professor decided to have her students define their own "good media." This makes it a very wide open discussion. So I would appreciate any help any of you can offer. Preferably, your answer would include your own interpretation of what is a "good media" and how/if neo-liberalism is harmful to this media.

P.S. Ignore the year it's due

[Viking Prince]

Ignore the due date???

I would be glad to help on the economics side of things, but this does not appear to be an econ paper in any sense of the concept.

As to whether any political philosphy is harmful to media -- ????? The purpose of the media in a free society is to inform. I cannot see any tie in here either.

I would suggest your friend review some class notes (assuming she/he attended and took notes) and take a more careful look at the assignment again. I think there is something missing here. Of course, this can be an example of a poor undergrad instructor dealing in personal agenda rather than teaching. It has happened before.

[Thorn777]

Trusted news-outlets owned by corporate agenda's can be harmful, but so can state-owned.

IMO strict legal guidelines are needed as well as upholding the journalistic ethical code. Sadly I see an erosion of that.

[Senno]

I'm with VP here. I can't make the connection between neoliberalism and "good media". Does the professor define "good media" somewhere?

Does the professor believe the "good media" to be media run by the state?

[Thorn777]

I'm with VP here. I can't make the connection between neoliberalism and "good media". Does the professor define "good media" somewhere?

Does the professor believe the "good media" to be media run by the state?

Factual and transparent?

State-media actually produce very good journalism when the outlets are completely run independent and the financing isn't trough taxes but trough direct compulsory contributions by all people owning a TV set. Which in theory makes sure the channels are financially independent directly financed by the viewers, so don't have to wait for tax-money from the government. Thus in theory having little to no influence on the redactions.

We have such a system in Germany, and I'm largely very satisfied with the quality of journalism, at least when looking what other country's get served. But it could be even better when politicians wouldn't sit on certain influential media-boards and the compulsory contributions would be tied to inflation instead of being raised or lowered by politicians.

[Senno]

Factual and transparent?

State-media actually produce very good journalism when the outlets are completely run independent and the financing isn't trough taxes but trough direct compulsory contributions by all people owning a TV set. Which in theory makes sure the channels are financially independent directly financed by the viewers, so don't have to wait for tax-money from the government. Thus in theory having little to no influence on the redactions.

We have such a system in Germany, and I'm largely very satisfied with the quality of journalism, at least when looking what other country's get served. But it could be even better when politicians wouldn't sit on certain influential media-boards and the compulsory contributions would be tied to inflation instead of being raised or lowered by politicians.

One would hope that would be part of anyone's definition of good media. I'm just not so sure that the Professor agrees with that; insofar as the question pre-supposes that neo-liberalism does in fact harm "good media". The professor is not asking if it harms "good media", but in "what way" it does. I suppose you would have had to have taken the course to know what answer he is looking for.

I suppose that someone could still argue that it does not do so in every case, but by how to question is put, I don't think that's the response the prof is looking for.

As far as state-run media, I mean the govt. bureaucrat has either written the story themselves, or has ultimate editorial control of the content. Not the funding that is doled out, and each channel (as in your example) can then decide for themselves what to cover and what airs.

Basically, I guess it just boils down to you would have to have taken the class to know what the Prof wants (and what will earn the writer a good grade); and I don't think anyone here can help without much more information.

[War&Politics]

Some thinkers have defined the role of the media as the "fourth estate" or defined the media as a vital part in the system of checks and balances. I suppose this idea of the media defending society against the government, and possibly itself is "the good media" as opposed to much of the modern media which are large, profit seeking corporations. Certainly it seems the days of the paternalistic media inspiring social debate have long passed in favour of institutions like Fox News which is anything but "fair and balanced." However, the preceding argument ignores the rise of social media, the decline of traditional media companies, or the fact that the traditional media was never quite as "nice" as some would make it out to be. Perhaps we are actually moving towards a "good media" which is not controlled by the few. You can go lots of ways with this question.

[G-Megas-Doux]

What books are on the required list of reading for the syllabus? It is very likely that the bones of your essay should come from a series of publication on the subject outside the reading list and the consideration of constitutional law may be important to your thoughts. The syllabus can be used to flesh out your answer.

Also do not be affraid to debate both sides of the subject. I recommend that you review the overal power of the media first and then decide what proportion may be conscidered good media and the general demographics of the media and spectrum of views also which parts are neo-liberal or not. This question is as much about you ability to counter the question as it is for understanding the possition of the statement that Neo-liberalism is not good media practice.

If anyone thinks I am wrong feel free to ignore this post.

[Kawee]

First of all, thank you so much for your respones. It has got my brain working around this question. I have raised some of the same doubts as you guys have as well.

I just spoke to my friend, after she just went to speak to her professor, and she told me the most unbelievable thing. She said that the prof. wants the class to do their own research on this one. That means, she has given them no help whatsoever, except for this one book, which after having skim through it, is basically just a basic outline of neo-liberalism. She also wants the class to form their own opinion, which is why she's letting everyone define their own "good media." The essay is driving everyone in the class absolutely nuts. I think it's just a case of ending up with a horrible prof. Anyone who's gone through university has had at least one of those class.

Despite the way the question is quoted, I have been reaffirmed that the essay can go both way. We can argue whether neo-liberalism harms the practice of "good media" or not. However, the key still lies in the definitiong of "good media."

For some reason, I feel responsible to help her with this essay. It's not just because she's asking me for help. I think I'm just relishing the challenge or something. Somehow, if she does well, it'll feel like a bit of a triumph for me as well. I don't expect you guys to understand, since I don't understand myself either.

I have identified defining the term "good media" as being the priority right now. As an Economics and Political Science student, I'm quite familiar with neo-liberalism, but I've never really considered it with the practice of "good media" for some reason. So, I'll need your help on this one, since it's out of my area of expertise.

I just need your help brainstorming. I really don't want to see this turn into a political debate (just yet ) despite being an avid fan of political debate. If you could just help me by outlining your "good media." What you think the ideal media should be. In theory of course. And it's not just mass media (TV or radio) or the news either. Everything. Books, movies, magazines, etc.

What do you think the roles and responsiblities of media should be? Who do you think should run the media? Who should regulate it, if any? Are there any exceptions or alternatives? If not, explain why there is only one answer to any of these questions, in your opinion. Do any of the answers change according to the political and economic system it's working under? If so, why?

To be honest, I'm not sure what my idea of "good media," is. I'm a big big fan of having different groups being able to express their opinion to the mass public. But living in Thailand, I have seen people making absolutely outragoes accusations, most of the time absolutely false but sometimes partially true as well, and due to their influence, many people believe it. That scares me. It scares me how rumours can spread so quickly, sometimes, and people believes them so willingly. It worries me how Thailand doesn't have a single news media that I can trust to just report me unbiased news. Sometimes I'm not looking for opinions, just news. And I can't even get that. So, I'm not sure what my ideal media would be.

Any help you guys can offer would be greatly appreciated, especially since I know it'll be the kind of help where you'll actually have to give it some time and thought.

[G-Megas-Doux]

This is excellent you should have little problem with this. You are not being graded as to being correct you are being graded on your construction of your argument. All you need to make sure is that you are consistant in your ideology. If you are in a political class you should have decided as to what your world view is by now and where it is on the political spectrum. Just begin from here and then fight your corner this will give you an excellent grade. Remember if you can paint the canvas of the mind with your explaination then facts dont come into it. Think of politics as religion, it is true because people are willing to believe it is true.