The Mass Media

[Kether]

Most of the time, we have to rely on indirect sources for our information about the world. Those sources have to be owned and controlled by someone, and that someone - consciously or unconsciously - usually restricts and controls the knowledge and views expressed.

What are the socio-psychological effects of this system? Is it dangerous? Are there any alternatives?

[Smurf]

well, i suppose the only alternative is to not have them :P, then it would be a jumbled mess. we must say that they have brought some order to the transfer of information, even if it is censored :D. but that's just me :P

[Kether]

It is good that the internet provides us with a huge variety of sources, because the spectrum of opinions is so broad. The trouble with broadcast news and newspapers is that they are mostly owned by huge transnationals - they have to be, because they are so expensive to set up and run. Traditionally, newspaper owners have doctored the content of their papers: in the 1930s, the Daily Mail - a national tabloid with a huge readership - was used solely and explicitly as a vehicle for Fascist propaganda by its owner. Now that newspaper ownership is very concentrated - the logical result of a free-market system - reduced plurality of opinions is bound to occur.
Conversely, anyone with access to a computer can publish on the internet, which means that more opinions are voiced.