There are many areas which I feel the media could improve and do a better job with.  Perhaps most important would be the presentation of unbiased facts and issues.  One thing I believe most of the country is not acutely aware of is how disliked the current U.S.- led Bush administration is overseas - especially in Europe.  In the summer of 2004 I traveled throughout Europe on a  14 country expedition - and aside from the U.K. I was overwhelmed by the passion and intensity with which people follow U.S. news and policy in relation to the rest of the world.  Eyes were glued to TV sets all over Europe during the Bush - Kerry election and I could feel the tension in the air and subsequent mass-mourning by most of Europe when results were announced. 

    Interestingly enough - very little of that was transparent to Americans.  It is my belief that this is because network media (TV and Radio) is corporate-run and sponsored.  Many of these corporations are big contributors and supporters of Bush.  Hence it is very diffcult for media to be truly unbiased.  Some outlets which are certainly more conducive to unbiased representation are those funded more independently - NPR and PBS come to mind.  News is also about ratings - and often stories that have tremendous mass appeal or tug at the heartstrings of viewers can be given undue weight and air time.  I also believe so much of the news (ratings-gathering) is focused on negative events that stimulate fear or depress people.   The fear element is especially noteworthy: Marx called religion 'the opiate of the masses' but I'd nominate the media as another agent of mass influence. 

    How do we influence the media to present more positive stories and present them in an unbiased way?  One way would be to discourage linkages between corporations and their alterior interests and/or connections between media moguls and campaign/political support.  This becomes very tricky - but I think nonpartisan ownership would be one solution.  Whatever body is the final say on content should be nonpartisan or have equal representation along party lines.  Some sort of checks and balances need to be instituted.

Government-run media would foster propaganda.  Corporate-run media indirectly does so.  So what's the answer: grassroots media? credible blogs? 

    Thoughts? 

On Ed Morrison's Blog, Ed writes of the role of the Plain Dealer in defining the conversation of the region. I agree with that premise but also feel the internet allows every individual to have a voice in the media. The challenge is determining what voices are worth listening to or even responding to in conversation. Considering there are now millions of voices on the Internet, and so many of them are speaking up and louder, and the virtual world-cafe has just begun, the noise of the maddening crowds will become maddening.

That is where I see virtual community becoming important. Ultimately, we want ways to manage the content and communications already flowing through our virtual universe, and we want the future outcomes better. All that is in our control.