Social media, whilst attempting to create a greater freedom of press, only results in a negative impact on its fundamental intention of allowing the publication on a matter without governmental restrictions. As such the superiority of a journalists story is now less important than the depth of their wallet. Media authorities are using the internet as a way to supress real freedom of press and rather substantiate their own view on the public.
It will be outlined how freedom of the press through the use of social media can affect business reputation, oppression of mass media and money over matter. Businesses in Trouble Mainline media is misusing yet another avenue to negatively voice their individual opinion or ‘bully’ certain groups within society. Meaning that there is no freedom of press but an oppression of real press. Press freedom is not only being misused by media authority but is also allowing a right to the genuine public to state what they like about an issue.
This can have an overall repercussion of a stressed future for a business. The Internet being the most contemporise way to source information on certain issues it is only satire that media influences are clogging it with journals, articles and blogs trying to manipulate the publics mind to think like theirs, “one persons freely expressed view is another’s calumny” (Cleverly, 2011, 75). Some organisations, groups and buisnesses have been negatively affected due to degrading blogs and articles written on reviews of ideologies within the business, “Damage to organizational reputation…. aused by articles appearing in the press” (Van Zyl, 2009, 910). Not only does this relate strictly to media influential articles but also to organizational staff posting or blogging damaging comments about their employer, clients and colleagues online that are not hard to obtain once being released for an indeterminate amount of time (Li, 2009). According to statistics discussed in Van Zyl, 2009 “30 per cent of office workers in the USA and 42 per cent of UK office workers admitted to discussing work-related issues via social media applications” (Van Zyl, 2009, 909).
This only furthermore supports that society is finding it necessary to discuss work related issues via social media and causing a negative impact on a business that could be blatantly bias based with no factual based evidence. It has been statistically supported the “83% of US office workers used office resources to access social media” (Al-Fadhil, Dashti, 2011, p50). With this percentage of people using the Internet to source their news rather than TV reports, newspapers’ or other reliable resources, it can overall result in society being influenced by facts and myths that are not true.
Oppression of Mass Media Media are taking this so-called ‘freedom of press’ and using it to persuading their views and opinions on to those who are easily influenced. Young people being the most exposed to social media can result in current youth not being reading factual news, rather, their getting the opinion of journalists who can say whatever they want and it being taken as a factual article. “With the use of freedom of press through social networking media it gives leeway for armature journalists to write anything that could be disclosed as “news” (Rosenthal, 2012).
The use of freedom of press on social media can be altered by random members of society, what one person has stated might not be the same words in a weeks time, it doesn’t necessarily have to be published through reliable companies. This is where the information becomes unreliable and can result in fake press, “Information is not as reliable” (Van Zyl, 2009, 914). Previously, when freedom of the press was published the bias had been balanced, however this seems to be substantially changed with the use of social media.
For example, there’s two newspaper stations one will be pro labour and the other pro liberal. It is up to the consumer to buy which news station or watch what channel they desire; however people are no longer given that choice because of the use of social press. Whilst on Facebook a story can appear on a person’s news feed, it might not be of relevance to the individual, but it is there. Society is exposed to press that, one might not be true, and two might not be wanted.
Younger people are more exposed to this influence due to social media being used frequently by youth, “30% of 18-34 year olds get their news from Facebook in an average week” (Palmer & Nicey, 2012, p16). With this statistic it shows the percentage of youth exposed to the possibility of fake press and therefore fake views. The editor of The Sun, Dominic Mohan (an Australian based newspaper) stated, “Press freedom is threatened by Internet” (Webster, 2012).
Not only can it be fake news but also fake profiles. These profiles or blogs can contain links to other web sites that download unwanted spy wear that contain embedded viruses or worms (Van Zyl, 2009, 914), “freedom has become intrusion” (Bowie, 2011). With the current use of social media it can be exemplified that the content can be fraudulent and intruding as well as the databases used to access the news. Money over Matter
It is no longer a battle of journalism but rather a rivalry of who has the deepest pockets. Rather than the ability to express a view freely, it is being suppressed by mainline media. Outlined in Salwen and Garrison, they explain how news media gatekeepers have the power to mediate what is released to the public (Salwen & Garrison, 1989). Media gatekeepers have the power to reject and accept news stories, based on what one media source might not find relevant, or more profitable.
This can be the difference between a press being expressed and a press being subsided for ‘paid’ news. “Authoritarian regimes are remaking the Internet into a tool of control and repression” (New Media, 2007), social Media has debauched press freedom because it allows the economically elite media empires such as Fox to distort ‘real press’ For example Fox News purchased MySpace they are now able, through their recently attained freedoms, to impart their views on a much larger and more vulnerable demographic. Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic”(Weisberg, 2009) this emphasises Fox New’s oppression of press in the current months. They are becoming more persuasive and manipulative in expressing their view through social media. In the aspect where freedom of press has been limited companies like Fox have only been limited to the markets in which they can profess their propaganda. For example those who choose to watch fox and read fox newspapers could do so, however that choice is fast disappearing.
Media empires are now able to use their deep pockets to support or corrupt their agenda wide and far by means that were previously not possible “elites can more easily manipulate information and deal in bribes…” (Charron, 2008, p1483). This has resulted in what was a contained distortion of press that has now turned viral. It can be argued that, “New media hold(s) great potential as a resource for press freedom and freedom of expression” (New Media, 2007). However this can be challenged due to media authorities not being freely open to the public. Rather main social media sites are monitored and owned by mass media influences.
Rather than being used as a fundamental site to express an opinion freely, its ramified as more of a profitable organization “broadband networks more conducive to surveillance, have put privacy and ultimately free expression at risk (Charron, 2008, p1491). ” This comment highlighting the fact that due to social media free expression is at a risk based on it being controlled by mass media industries rather than an individual expression being freely exposed to the public. Conclusion: It has been justified how the attempt of social media has failed at creating a greater freedom of press due to mass media oppression.
Unreliable stories written by fake journalists and the corruption of money over matter all leave the use social networking for press freedom as an overall negative approach. Although the Internet may be a contemporised way to retrieve information it is still not reliable to attain a view or opinion based around an article that can be edited by anyone who has access to it. Freedom of the press is oppressed by mass media influences and the reality is that a journalist’s story is significantly less important than the depth of their wallet.
