What is media today?

New media what does such mean today? And who exactly owns our media?
Here is a link with regards to media ownership http://www.corporations.org/media/

Have you noticed format differences between say National Geographic literature and the corresponding National Geographic Channel owned by Rupert Murdoch?

So in the creation of this blog...I happened to stumble across, through the name appropriation of this url, a related issue to media journalism, www.mediareformnow.blogspot.com and then picked up on a related url http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/frames.html. So the content at such site would discuss issues such as the framing of news stories. What is really fascinating about such is the findings of the study of those whom participated in the study. Namely, with regards to media coverage and exactly how one might, according to the types of media coverage might respond and think in regards to the coverage provided. For instance, in the study's citation, one might find in "episodic" coverage, those having mostly watched "episodic" news less likelihood to cite a related similarity with those of an "episodic" relation reported perhaps previously or in the future. For example as related in the study: "Iyengar found that subjects shown episodic reports were less likely to consider society responsible for the event, and subjects shown thematic reports were less likely to consider individuals responsible. In one of the clearest demonstrations of this phenomenon, subjects who viewed stories about poverty that featured homeless or unemployed people (episodic framing) were much more likely to blame poverty on individual failings, such as laziness or low education, than were those who instead watched stories about high national rates of unemployment or poverty (thematic framing)."

Furthermore, "The preponderance of episodic frames in television news coverage provides a distorted portrayal of "recurring issues as unrelated events," according to Iyengar. This "prevents the public from cumulating the evidence toward any logical, ultimate consequence."[6] Moreover, this practice simplifies "complex issues to the level of anecdotal evidence" and "encourages reasoning by resemblance - people settle upon causes and treatments that `fit' the observed problems."[7]"

What of Objectivity then? Here, then, the author at such site further maintains: "Objectivity has been the ruling principle in American journalism for the better part of this century. This ethic emerged as a reaction against nineteenth-century sensationalism. It called for more discipline on the part of reporters and editors because it expected every item to be attributed to some authority. Objectivity increased the quantity of literal facts in the news, and it did much to strengthen the growing sense of discipline and ethics in journalism. (The ethic of objectivity is not to be mistaken for the "fairness" doctrine, however, which demands the presentation of opposing and/or balanced viewpoints.)"

And another point along the lines of objectivity:
In a very persuasive article in The Quill (February 1984) Theodore L. Glasser, professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, contends that "objectivity precludes responsibility:"

First . . . objectivity in journalism is biased in favor of the status quo; it is inherently conservative to the extent that it encourages reporters to rely on what sociologist Alvin Gouldner so appropriately describes as the `managers of the status quo' - the prominent and the elite. Second, objective reporting is biased against independent thinking; it emasculates the intellect by treating it as a disinterested spectator. Finally, objective reporting is biased against the very idea of responsibility; the day's news is viewed as something journalists are compelled to report, not something they are responsible for creating. . . . What objectivity has brought about, in short, is a disregard for the consequences of newsmaking.[29]

What does this mean to me...does this represent some of the failures of objectivity in journalism to convey the news worthy story...that is, something neither conformed in opinion solely by those defined as "elite" and, perhaps, opinions newsworthy and relevant? There is, of course, something pointed and paradoxical here with regards to objectivity in reporting, perhaps, if there is something of a social consensus amongst those whom would have opinions defined in such way neither perhaps, pursuing such newsworthy story. Of course, in such a debate I would certainly like to see evidence of this...certainly, if it such that certain stories might neither be covered to the extent of unfavorability...perhaps, sporadic thematic coverage on the "War on Drugs"...while having some popularity in the past, nevertheless, to drop off the radar screen from time to time. Does it mean that such news is no longer newsworthy or relevant? I might argue further that coverage at times seems to oscillate almost as if by way of some social conditioned process, why didn't we hear so much news coverage about say, for instance, the Korean War in the past, for instance, and were the Opium wars so well known by the all British peoples in such times?

We, of course, have a right to know I believe. It is a moral and ethical duty to say otherwise, and I see objectivity in the principles of morality and ethics in this regard. I, of course, raise questions how is it that we judge with regards to media the coverage that is provided, in a general debate, say with regards to objectivity or lack thereof, otherwise, certainly a persistent searching need be balanced with regards to the story provided as to the representation of issue(s). While normally, I have neither been an avid blogger with respect to media news or coverage, otherwise, I find myself paradoxically speculating on the idea that media with respect to the internet is proliferant with opinion and, perhaps, lacking in diversity of opinion simultaneously. Perhaps, the same with network coverage where the bandwidth of channels, no longer resides on a few select stations that one might choose, but the general feeling that I might otherwise, be getting not such diverse opinion otherwise having so many new sources relative to the past that might shape my opinion otherwise.

Finally in connection with such an idea I found at the conclusion of such site:
"Politics is routinely taken to mean campaigns, elections, and the affairs of big government. Exceedingly few sources refer to the media's role in facilitating public politics. If democracy requires more of us than the act of casting a vote, the media scarcely reflect that notion. As Christopher Lasch writes:

What democracy requires is public debate, not information. . . . Unless information is generated by sustained public debate, most of it will be irrelevant at best, misleading and manipulative at worst. . . . Much of the press, in its eagerness to inform the public, has become a conduit for the equivalent of junk mail.[34]

Critics of this claim, such as Paul Light, associate dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, maintain, however, that it is up to the citizens to determine the agenda:

The problem, of course, is on the consumer side of the ledger. Having more analysis, and the financial protection that might go with it, is hardly useful if voters [sic] choose to watch Geraldo, Oprah, Maury, Phil and Sally instead. . . . Much as we focus on the supply side of the equation, the problem with American politics appears to reside on the demand side, whether voters either want the information we elites value or not.[35]"

Yes, to deal with the notion of information overload versus a shaped and informed debate on issues, and then perhaps, that others would entirely see irrelevance on the point of all such notion. Actually in response and a thought that I had previously, was something like this...bridging the gaps of communication between those actively debating and effected by the issues of the debate between those that are neither directly influenced by such issue, and perhaps, merging relevance between those likely effected by an issue raised and supported say through "information analysis". Or in other words, if I see merely an issue raised and I am unware that I am effected by such an issue, how is it that I know that I am effected otherwise. Perhaps, communication barriers on this point might need be overcome. I also believe in the power of personal example, people are more likely to relate to another having been, for instance, adversely effected by such an issue, then issues raised say solely on the basis of something like statistical analysis alone.
I also believe open verbal debates help in the memory and retaining of information. I believe that memory is an active dialogue both passive and active in the mind. If one, that is whether debate is to facilitate, say by way of Socratic processes, the active retention through repeating aloud the points of a debate, perhaps, public awareness might be encouraged to prosper enhancing public debate otherwise. It is not just a matter of passively seeing, reading or hearing, it is also actively engaging with the issues in mind, and I believe media can have a better role in this.