User:Ian Lohn/sandbox

Most researchers who discuss the theory of mediacracy agree that media control of the American political system would lead to a decline in objective, rational information sharing in politics at best, and a society that is controlled by the owners of large media conglomerates at worst. However, it is important to remember that the theory of mediacracy as it is popularly discussed is accompanied by very negative assumptions about the true nature of media in the United States, which affects the predilections that researchers make about the future.

Paul Kurtz argues that current media trends emphasizing sensationalization tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which would contribute to a decline in the level of education and reflective cognitive thought of media consumers.[7] Kurtz also argues that growing media consolidation harms diversity of opinion in society, and that the focus of media conglomerates on maximizing profits will lead to advertiser control over information obtained through media outlets.[7] This sentiment is greatly echoed by Fabian Tassano, who goes on to speculate that eventually a privileged elite of informed citizens will have control over society.[2]

Binnen een mediacratie staat de berichtgeving van de media centraal. Hierop baseert de massa haar mening op. Echter, zonder mediaberichtgeving - zo stelt de theorie - heeft de massa geen mening, omdat de media als een soort injectienaald met meningen en duidingen spuit, waardoor mensen een mening vormen. Zoals de Spaanse filosoof al stelde in De opstand der Horden, heeft het grootste gedeelte van de mensen geen mening, maar deze mening moet onder druk naar buiten worden gebracht (dus via de media).