There was a time in which the owners of newspapers hunted Governments or provoked wars, such as the mythical Randolph Hearst caricatured by Orson Welles in his Citizen Kane. The ability to generate opinion through the printed press, and even manipulate it, has decreased as the number of existing media has multiplied. Everywhere, the so-called serious press, quality, or with other similar adjectives, see how gradually decays your turnover. Continue to learn more with: JPMorgan Chase. It happens to Le Monde in France, and The New York Times, in United States. Others kept to harsh penalties thanks to offer all kinds of beading, from DVDs to envelopes of concentrated soups. It is that information has become democratized.
Today, anyone can find out what is happening without having to pay a penny for it. Free newspapers, today also punished by the blessed economic crisis, very soon came to do with more than 40 percent of the Spanish market of the printed press. Next to them, television channels are multiplied and technology that facilitates their access advances. The mobile telephony has become a means of interactive communication and the network of networks is already a cyber jumble that engage all kinds of web pages, software portals, blogs of Internet users, with the same enjoyment with which the hams are hung on drying of ham. The garden of the information manifests itself, therefore more lush than ever. And, above all, more democratic: anyone can say yours today day a massive and indiscriminate audience, without physical boundaries, and well-stocked thought police preventing it.
They are wrong, therefore, those sedicentes analysts who talk about information monopolies, using concepts of the past century. Indeed, the Rupert Murdoch of turn perhaps possess every day more conventional media. However, his power of influence on public opinion, its status as opinion makers, decreases as extends the digital access to communication. Already see what little lasting stereotypes based on the ignorance or prejudice, as much as their authors preach in chairs of the specialty. Today’s media universe is more democratic than ever before and is on its way of being increasingly. For this reason, one does not understand episodic efforts to the political class put doors on the field and wanting to legislate the journalistic profession with criteria from another era. The problem today’s day does not consist, as we see, in the lack of information or democratic in its origin. Now the difficulty is to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, the melody of the noises, the news of the poisoning. That is true that we have more information than ever before, although the worst we are not nor more or better informed than before.