There is no arguing the fact that media plays a central role in contemporary culture. It provides people with knowledge and shows what is happening in the social groupings to which they belong. Different media forms are one of the few ways in which a person can interact with others at the local, national, and international levels. Media can shape the way people think, and, unfortunately, it means that they can be fed misinformation and have their views biased.
Various cultural institutions, such as families, schools, and religious groups, produce so-called cultural identities. According to Bainbridge (2015), these cultural identities help construct hegemony by convincing individuals that certain ways of acting and behaving exist. The media is undoubtedly another cultural institution that functions similarly. Dominant groups use it to ensure subordinate groups accept their leadership and ideas. Bainbridge (2015) states that hegemony can be linked to the concept of propaganda as both of them are designed to persuade. In its turn, propaganda is closely related to the notion of misinformation. As per Scott and Overly (2020), misinformation becomes increasingly harder to battle as attacks are now more subtle and refined than ever before. Social media platforms must spend tens of millions of dollars to keep track of online fakery and prevent it from spreading.
In addition to that, oftentimes, media continues to perpetuate the previously existing and very harmful stereotypes. Kaiser et al. (2018) note that there is an opinion that not all those who receive the same media develop the same opinions on it. However, when it comes to, for instance, racism, a systemic issue, many media practices tend to promote it and influence how the public feels about minority groups. It is reported to profoundly impact Aboriginal Peoples’ social and economic prosperity in the digital world epoch.
One way in which it is done is by mentioning a racial identity when speaking about crime suspects. Briscoe (2020) states that such an association suggests that cultural heritage is the main factor responsible for an individual’s actions. Another method frequently resorted to is the extensive employment of official interpretations of events that involve or concern people of color. Often, they are not allowed to speak for themselves, which gives the impression that they are passive and cannot speak English sufficiently. Moreover, when Aboriginal Peoples are given the opportunity to comment, their words tend to be paired with words such as ‘allegedly’ or quotations, framing their views and opinions as questionable.
Reference List
Bainbridge, J. (2015) ‘The public sphere’, in Bainbridge, J., Goc, N. and Tynan, L. (eds.) Media and journalism: new approaches to theory and practice. 3rd edn. Australia: Oxford University Press, pp. 5-23.
Briscoe, L. (2020) ‘Racism in media provides a blockage for Indigenous prosperity in a digital economy’, SBS, Web.
Kaiser, J., Fähnrich, B., Rhomberg, M. and Filzmaier, P. (2018) ‘What happened to the public sphere? The networked public sphere and public opinion formation, in Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., and Efthymiopoulos, M.P. (eds.) Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense. United Kingdom: Springer International Publishing, pp. 433-460.
Scott, M. and Overly, S. (2020) ‘Silicon Valley is losing the battle against election misinformation’, Politico, Web.