Nichole Herman & Chmosky

This article, more that anything, re-affirms my belief that the mass media are run by the wealthy and directed toward "the wealthy". I put that in quotations because mass media may be directed toward the wealthy but the proletariat submit to the "way of the borgeoise". 

The introduction to the reading talked about an English Broadcasting system that once directed itself toward the lower/ middle class and union workers. It had programs and advertising that showed that if they work hard together, they can achieve something HUGE. So, naturally, the upper class didn't like that because it took power and control away from their television programing. They went to court over it and eventually the lower income broadcasting system was pushed out. 

The reading also indirectly mentioned that hardly any alternative mass media have been introduced and they blamed the outrageous costs for starting a new paper. In 1920 America the cost was 20 million dollars for equipment and to start a new mass media newspaper. Now, what independent company, just starting out, is going to have to proper funding for a paper that expensive? Hardly anyone is the correct answer. A RICH person might, but thats my point exactly, even if new/alternative magazines come out, they are still run by the rich and to make the most capital are going to be distributed to the rich and if the proletariat happen to be interested in wasting the few dollars they earn on materialistic goods that are "new' then the new mass media was a success. 

To me, this all sounds like a monopoly. The whole idea that it takes money to make money is at play here. In order to spread independent ideas (say ideas that the poor have had for a while) it takes an astronomical amount of cash to start. And for that reason, the rich remain richer and the poor are getting poorer once this mass media vicious circle began, its never going to end.