Important Mass Media As Tv example essay topic

The paper explores how dangerous such an important mass media as TV can be, if too many power is concentrated in just a few hands, and how our perception of reality can be manipulated by the selection and manipulation of information presented on TV. Table of Contents Introduction... p. 3 1. The development of television... p. 42. Globalisation of the TV market and its effects... p. 53. How legislation can influence the quality of journalism... p. 64.

How television can be abused... p. 85. Rupert Murdoch's media monopoly and its effects on American television and society... p. 10 Conclusion... p. 15 Bibliography... p. 17 Introduction The following term paper deals with the development of television from its early beginnings in the 1920's up to now. My attention focuses on the powers which influence what is shown on TV and the analysis of methods they use in order to manipulate the public opinion. Outlining the success story of this important means of mass media at the beginning of the first chapter, I will then explain the effects of globalization on the TV market.

Considering the example of commercialized American television, I will demonstrate in which ways the extreme competition between TV companies and their struggle for the top ratings has influenced the quality of TV programs. In the second chapter I will deal with 'media control' and show how television can be abused by political powers in order to direct the public opinion. After describing the general effects of such influences I will finally return to the example of America and analyse the social and political effects of Rupert Murdoch's 'media monopoly' in the Unites States. Finally I will explain the methods of mass manipulation employed by his Fox News Channel, which are outlined in Robert Greenwald's film OUTFOXED. Neil Postman's book 'Amusing ourselves to death', Noam Chomsky's pamphlet 'Media Control' as well as Klaus Plake's 'Handbuch der Fernsehforschung' were important sources of ideas and quotations for my work. 1.

The development of television: During the nineteenth century the industrial revolution, the formation of new nations and the development of infrastructure and traffic had strong effects on society. Travelling became much easier and cheaper while the means of transportation became faster and faster. Even the media had to adapt to the growing spatial mobility of the people and so the challenge was to find a new mean of communication which was able to make information available wherever you are. First scientific steps towards an electronic media were made at the end of the nineteenth century, when Guglielmo Marconi invented the transmitting antenna, which made primitive forms of wireless communication possible. In 1901 the first Morse code was successfully transmitted from Great Britain to Canada. During the first World War this invention was also used by the military forces (cf.

Plake 2004: 13). The electronic tube was a further achievement which improved the capacity and performance of the transmitter. This technical advance finally lead to the development of the first radio stations. In 1920 the RCA (Radio Corporation of America) started broadcasting the first radio programs and soon others radio stations were founded (cf. Plake 2004: 13). While the radio business flourished, television was still in its infancy.

In 1928, after a long period of un realised dreams, concepts and initial discoveries the RCA and the inventor Vladimir Zworykin put the first electronic TV-set called 'Kinescope' and shortly after the first electronic film-camera, the 'Ikonoscope' on the market. All their mechanical predecessors had failed because of their lacking picture quality, but Zworykin's revolutionary technology lead to an immediate growth of the TV market. In 1930 in New York the first TV station was founded, which frequently broadcast ed TV programs in black and white. Still this was just an experiment, but TV was on its way to become a mean of mass media (cf. Plake 2004: 15 ff). At about the same time the Scotsman John Logie Baird used the telephone net to transmit pictures from London to Glasgow and invented cable TV.

This new transmitting method improved the quality of reception and even live transmission was possible (cf. Plake 2004: 15). In 1940 there were already twenty seven TV stations operating in the United States, but during the second World War the development of the television market slowed down. The increasing lack of money and staff resulted in the shutdown of several TV stations and also the sale of TV sets went down. But after the war the economy recovered and an enormous television boom followed. In 1951 first colour TV sets were placed on the market and in 1960 there were already more than five hundred TV programs and 95% of them belonged to three major networks: NBC, CBS and ABC.

Many local TV stations which tried to remain independent, were finally edged out of the TV market (cf. Plake 2004: 18 ff). In cooperation with Europe, US television conglomerations invested millions of dollars in the development of a worldwide TV network via satellite and cable. So television was no longer bound by the territorial limits of the nation state (cf. Plake 2004: 23 ff). 2.

Globalisation of the TV market and its effects: As globalization and commercialization is constantly changing the media landscape, even on the TV sector more and more power is concentrated in just a few hands. ' Today the media is an international industry, competing to reach audiences with disposable incomes in every world region. ' (Grad dol 1997: 46). Facing extreme competition for the top ratings, program authors are under permanent pressure to find new strategies to develop the interest of the audience and to hold their attention by arousing their emotions. As entertainment turned out to be the key factor in programme design to prevent the viewer from switching over to another channel, objective information and professional journalism are seriously threatened.

The success story of infotainment and edutainment genres tempts journalists to choose news themes according to their entertainment value and the available film material, while their informational content seems to be less important: Thus, organization has prompted practices, which obfuscate the events presented as news for practical news. Rules of thumb, editing techniques, marketing research, use of themes and angles, and even writing a story to fit with another to make the 'show flow', has become the rational way to change the world in order to present it as news. (Altheide 1976: 173 f) Also Neil Postman criticises this development in his famous book Amusing ourselves to death, analyzing the social and political effects of the confusing merging of information with entertainment on TV. Blaming the commercialized television of the US for this fact, he highlights that in order to hold the viewer's attention, news reports, statements, information, topics and genres are placed side by side without any connection or logical structure. Complicated or abstract issues which are difficult to present on TV are omitted while selected events are torn out of content and presented in short news flashes. Instead of receiving in-depth coverage, the viewer is fed with shallow information which is lavishly visualized.

The ultimate effect, as Postman sees it, is the shrivelling of rational public discourse as TV degrades our conception of what constitutes news, and political debate. He warns society not to hand over policy, education and journalism to the show-business demands of television (cf. Postman 1985: 127). 3. How legislation can influence the quality of journalism: Apparently professional journalism is about to die out, but growing competition on the news market and the deteriorating job situation of journalists are not the only reasons for that. It is also the current legislation in Austria as well as in the U.S. and many other countries that bars journalists and thus the media from carrying out their principal duty, namely to act as a public watchdog against social and political grievances.

The quality of journalism depends primarily on the media law which is supposed to establish an independent media, freedom of speech as well as everyone's right of privacy. During the last few years legal changes of the Austrian media law, in particular the new 'Sicherheitspolizeigesetz' (SPG, 2000), the 'Milit" ' (MB, 2001) and the 'Informationssicherheitsgesetz' (SS 56 StGB, 2001), have had a heavy impact on the press secret, freedom of expression and especially on investigative journalism. According to these new laws the secret service as well as military forces are allowed to spy on journalists as well as their secret informants if they regard it as necessary in terms of public safety. Furthermore the so called 'ban on publication of information about a third person' (SS 56 StGB) forbids journalists to publish court records about people involved in a crime as long as they were not found guilty, which includes involved politicians who did not commit a crime but acted politically incorrect (cf. Fabric, Renger and Rest 2001: 13 ff). Considering this new law, the so called 'Austrian Spitzelaff " are', in which FP"O politicians received secret information from policemen, would have never been released to the public.

Critical voices say that SS 56 StGB was made by politicians to protect politicians involved in all kinds of scandals. Journalists who act in opposition to this law are threatened by enormous fines and up to six months imprisonment. It is hardly surprising that the law was submitted by Austrian Minister of Justice Dieter B", member of the FP"O and former lawyer of J"org Haider, as in earlier times B" himself filed hundreds of charges against journalists and even today his lawyer's office deals primarily with such cases (cf. Worm 2001: 2). At about the same time in 2002 in the U.S. the so called 'Patriot e Act' came into force, which allows U.S. military forces as well as the secret service to spy on everybody, including journalists, in order to find out about their research issue and their secret informants. Since September 11 in many countries laws similar to this have been introduced, which allow certain authorities to invade people's privacy.

Of course such legislation does not encourage investigative journalism. Another alarming fact is that more and more politicians try to silence journalists by filing charges of defamation against them, claiming enormous sums for compensation. For example during the last few years President George W. Bush's lawyers have sued more than 1200 journalists and reporters for libel and damages and also J"org Haider as well as other FP"O politicians like Susanne Ries-Passer, Peter Westentalher and Dieter B" et al. have filed about 800 of such charges against independent journalists, newspapers (e.g. Standard, Wiener Ku rier) and several magazines (e.g. News, Format, Profil) (cf. Perger 2003: 2).

Even if many of these actions are dismissed, the prospect of paying the costs of the proceeding as well as the risk of being sentenced to pay compensation, apart from losing one's good reputation, discourages independent journalists from uncovering political scandals and criticising politicians. Art. 10 ECHR lays down the freedom of expression, but of course this rights is not absolute. Free expression often impacts on the rights and interests of others - for example, it may damage another person's reputation, prejudice a fair trial or incite racial hatred. Therefore, the ECHR has sought to balance the right to freedom of expression with the state's legitimate need to restrict it in certain circumstances. In some instances, notably on issues of morality, it has granted states a large measure of discretion in determining that need.

Article 10 (2) allows specific limitations on the right to freedom of expression which are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. These include such restrictions or penalties as may be needed to safeguard national security, protect public health, prevent crime, or to maintain the authority and independence of the judiciary. Extreme examples of harmful expression may include such things as violent or child pornography and incitement to racial violence. In terms of journalism a key ruling on political expression is found in the case Linens vs. Austria (1986), in which the court imported a concept from the US Supreme Court that politicians must expect and tolerate greater public scrutiny and criticism than average citizens. It stressed the media's crucial role in reporting matters of public interest.

In later cases like Oberschlick vs. Austria (1991) and Dich and and others vs. Austria (2002), the court made it clear that freedom of expression was not limited to verifiable, factual data. In its practice, the court has distinguished between statements of fact and value judgments. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself (cf. Burnheim 2003: 2 ff. ).

Still due to the current legislation in Austria and especially since the media senates are chaired by judges recommended by B", more and more politicians win such cases. Considering all these facts, it is hardly surprising that the Austrian media law has been heavily criticised by the other member states of the European Union. 4. How television can be abused: Unfortunately it is a well-known fact that competition is not the only factor which can influence what is shown on TV. As far as informative genres are affected, TV claims to visualize reality on screen and therefore has reached a higher credibility than the print media.

Nevertheless journalists and program managers decide which parts of reality are newsworthy and even camera shots as well as live reports are coloured with personal feelings or judgement's of the film team. It is easy to manipulate the image of reality shown on TV, or simply to construct a different one (cf. Plake 2004: 68 ff). With its special credibility in combination with its mass appeal, television has proved to be a highly effective opinion leader.

This dangerous quality has regularly been abused by political authorities and economic powers in order to influence the audience with the help of propaganda. Walter Lippmann, an important American journalist who was involved in several propaganda commissions in the U.S., considered 'manufacturing consent' to be the most important aim of propaganda, that is, as Noam Chomsky put it: '... to bring about agreement on the part of the public for things that they didn't want by new techniques of propaganda. ' (Chomsky 2002: 14 f). In his pamphlet Media Control Chomsky looks at American propaganda efforts, from the warmongering of Woodrow Wilson to the creation of popular support for the military interventions in Kuwait, Vietnam as well as the 'War against Terrorism', and reveals how falsification of history, suppression of information, and the promotion of vapid, empty concepts have become standard operating procedure for the leaders of the United States, both Democrats and Republicans, in their efforts to prevent citizens from raising awkward questions about U.S. policy.

Chomsky describes two different concepts of democracy: According to public opinion a democratic society is one in which the public participates in the process of political decision making and all means of information are open and free (cf. Chomsky 2002: 9). But according to the view of propagandists like Walter Lippman the 'common interests elude public opinion entirely' and can only be managed by a small intellectual elite who takes care of the 'bewildered herd' (quoted in Chomsky 2002: 15). Chomsky considers the second one to be the prevailing form of democracy. Occasionally they [the bewildered herd] are allowed to lend their weight to one or another member of the specialized class. That's because it is a democracy and not a totalitarian state.

That's called an election. But once they " ve lent their weight to one or another member of the specialized class they are supposed to sink back and become spectators of action. (Chomsky 2002: 17) According to his theory of 'Media Control', television is abused to control the 'stupid mass' by instilling certain values and illusion into their brains and isolating them in order to keep them from organizing. Watching the Superbowl, sitcoms and violent movies and from time to time fearing some 'constructed' enemies of the state should keep them from thinking (cf. Chomsky 2002: 26 ff). They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or to live like that rich middle class family you " re watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism.

That's all there is in life. (Chomsky 2002: 27) Reading this passage one might say that Chomsky presents a quite radical view of what television is about, but the following analysis of the dangerous effects of Rupert Murdoch's current media monopoly will only support his theory. 5. Rupert Murdoch's media monopoly and its effects on American television and society: Rupert Murdoch's Fox Media Group is the biggest international television conglomerate in the world. In 1957 he inherited his first news paper, and as a result of a long success story today he owns 9 satellite TV networks, 100 Cable channels, 175 news papers, 40 book imprints, as well as 40 TV stations and one movie studio. Reaching a total audience of 4, 7 billion people world wide, that is 75% of the world population, Murdoch's media group holds a market share of more than 60% (cf.

Greenwald 2004). Up to now Murdoch has bought 80% of Fox shares and in a recent press release he announced that he is going to buy out shareholders of his Fox properties for about $7 billion; This deal will solidify his control over several of the nation's most valuable media assets (cf. Sorkin and Fabrikant, 2005). The film OUTFOXED by Robert Greenwald (2004) examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a 'race to the bottom' in television news, as the executive floor forced them to spread conservative republican propaganda. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public opinion.

The film explores Murdoch's burgeoning kingdom and the impact on society when a broad swath of media is controlled by one person. Media experts, including Jeff Cohen (FAIR), Bob McChesney (Free Press), Chelle Pingree (Common Cause), Jeff Chester (Center for Digital Democracy) and David Brock (Media Matters) provide context and guidance for the story of Fox News. All these organisations are fighting for a common cause, namely to overthrow Rupert Murdoch's monopoly and to re-establish an independent media in the U.S. Greenwald wants to make people aware that the Fox Media Group has become a propaganda machine for the republican party, while other American News conglomerates like ABC, CNS and CBS have kept a more neutral point of view. As it is a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch is a member of the GOP and regarding the extremely conservative views dominating the Fox News, it is hardly surprising that Fox Chairman Roger Ailes has been media strategist in the presidential campaigns of Nixon, Regan and Bush Senior.

Still the Fox News Channel tries to maintain the impression to be politically independent by starting off news reports with the slogan 'Fair and Balanced', 'We report, you decide'. Greenwald's documentary reveals the secrets of former Fox news producers, reporters, booker's and writers who expose how they were forced to push a 'right-wing' point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. In fact, people who work for the Fox News Group are put under enormous pressure to present political left wing activities as well as social democratic politicians in a bad light, while they are not allowed to criticise the right wing fraction.

Methods like daily memos from the executive floor are applied to direct and control the news production. In his film Greenwald shows some original memos written by John Moody, executive director of Fox News Channel: The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. [... ] The fact that former President Clinton and both, former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not 'what did he [President Bush] know and when did he know it's tuff. Don't turn this into Watergate!

(John Moody, Internal Fox Memo: 3/23/2004) Kerry's speech on the economy of Georgetown is likely to move onto the topic of Iraq. We should take the beginning of Kerry's speech, see if it contains new information. [... ] and see if other news at that time is more compelling. It is not required to take it start to finish! (John Moody, Internal Fox Memo: 4/6/2004) Let's refer to US marines we can see in the foreground as 'sharpshooters', not snipers, which carries a negative connotation. (John Moody, Internal Fox Memo: 28/4/2004) The pictures of Abu Ghraib prison are disturbing! [Pictures showing US soldiers laughing at naked Iraqi prisoners] [...

] Today we have a picture of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? (John Moody, Internal Fox Memo: 5/6/2004) By telling the journalists which stories should be covered or not and which issues or people should be presented in which way, - who should be attacked and who must not be touched, all objective journalism should be eliminated. As far as criticism against social democrats is concerned, several news reporters stated in OUTFOXED that in news conferences they were even encouraged to break the limit of good journalism. As a result unsuitable attacks as well as lying and wrong accusations are common methods employed by the Fox News reporters in order to harm the reputation of certain politicians, celebrities and even live guests. Famous people like Barbara Strysand, Harry Belafonte and many others, who criticised President Bush's war policy on Iraq, were 'demonized' as 'traitors to the country' (David O'Reilly, Fox News Reader).

Especially Richard Clark, former counter terrorism expert of George W. Bush, became Fox enemy number one after publishing his book Against All Enemies, in which he revealed the lack of interest of Bush administration in al- Qaeda prior to September 11 and the disastrous decisions which followed afterwards. In several Fox News casts he was accused of being a liar who wants to sell his book and that he is planning to apply for a job in the next Kerry administration. Also John Kerry was heavily attacked. Each time he was on vacation, Fox News reported about him and David O'Reilly even claimed for several times that Kerry would not look like an American, he would look French. Also his pacifism was interpreted as ' lacking respect for the American Army', and whenever the American stock market went down, Fox News reporters explained that this would be related to Kerry's plan to raise the taxes for big companies in case he would be elected. Finally, relating to Kerry's voting behaviour the Fox News reporters denounced him as opportunistic 'Flip Flopper'.

This message was repeated again and again and although it stated a quite inappropriate attack on a politician, it resonated around America. Presenting and analyzing several excerpts of Fox News casts, Greenwald calls such political attacks 'selective character assassinations of Bush opponents'. Another highly effective method of 'engineering opinion' is the interviewing of so called 'experts' and studio guests in the News. In his film Robert Greenwald demonstrates how Fox News manipulates such apparently objective discussions by choosing their commentators and guests according to their political position and their rhetorical skills. Observing the Fox News reports from July 2004 to December 2004 Greenwald noticed that in all kinds of interviews, talk shows and discussions groups, Republican participants outnumbered Democratic participants. Furthermore the Republican guests were usually well-known personalities, while the Liberals were quite unknown and careful with expressing their opinion.

Greenwald calls them 'right-wing' Democrats, as they agreed with the Republicans in too many cases. Liberal guests, who clearly stated their opinion, were often attacked by the interviewer or simply told to shut up. The film OUTFOXED also shows how Fox News tries to control the public opinion by directing their attention towards certain issues. After September 11, the themes promoted on Fox News kept the people in a steady state of fear. Covering themes like threatening terrorist attacks like lethal anthrax letters or poisoned water they called on to support President Bush in his 'War against Terrorism'.

Although the war cost thousands of lives, even on the part of the US, the war reports on Fox News were absolutely positive and highly optimistic. The audience should get the impression, that the Iraq war was a justified and 'clean' war. But the fights lasted longer than expected and turned into a financial disaster for the US, which caused an enormous economical depression. This of course reduced President Bush's chances to get re-elected, and the presidential election was imminent. So in order to draw the people's attention away from the economical facts, Fox News coverage changed its focus and concentrated on religious topics like President Bush's strong belief in God, abortion, same sex couples, and 'self produced' events like the celebration of Ronald Reagan's birthday. With the help of excerpts of several news casts Greenwald also shows how Fox News uses techniques of polling, graphics, photos, music and even the US flag to convey a certain impression and to raise emotional feelings.

Greenwald criticises the fact that such polls and statistics can easily be manipulated and that the news readers do not even mention their sources. In one excerpt the graphics describing the current state of the U. S economy were absolutely contradicting the present situation, still David O'Reily proclaimed that the U.S. had fully recovered from the depression. But also polls which say that a huge majority of Americans is going to vote for President Bush, can shape the public opinion. The same effect can be achieved by using phrases like 'Many people say' or ' Most Americans think'. According to Noelle-Neumann, in general politically undecided people prefer to belong to a majority, while those who suddenly realize that their opinion is only shared by a small minority tend to keep their opinion to themselves (as they are fearing social isolation). By contrast those people who think that they are presenting the majority are encouraged to stand up for their position (as they do not expect criticism) (cf.

Plake 2004: 289). Finally Greenwald points out, that additionally to selecting certain stories, the Fox news readers are constantly mixing up news with commentary and everyday talk. This of course confuses the viewer, who can no longer distinguish between objective facts and the personal judgement of the person on TV. The dangerous effect is that the audience adopts the view presented by the news reader and considers it to be a part of reality. As an example Greenwald presents the results of a public survey on media impartiality (cf. PIPA / Knowledge Networks Poll, October 2003): With reference to the question if the US military forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 11% of regular public television viewers answered with yes, while 33% of regular Fox viewers took this as a fact.

Asking the question whether the secret service has found any links between Iraq and Al-, 76% of regular Fox viewers said yes while only 16% of regular public television viewers answered with yes. These figures clearly prove the manipulative effects of the Fox News reports on Iraq war and that television is a highly effective 'opinion leader'. Conclusion Considering all ways in which television can be abused, one might think it is a danger to the free mind. Employing extensive methods of manipulation, all kinds of institutions influence what is presented on TV. Today television is the most influential mass media, reaching 6, 2 billion viewers world wide and as a result of increasing spare time, people spent more and more time watching TV.

So it is becoming much easier to influence people's perception of reality, as those who pull the strings behind TV production get more time to drum their message into the viewer's brain. Trying to appeal to each target group, program directors have developed numerous different genres like talk shows, game shows, soap operas, films, documentaries, TV series, reality TV and many others, which are supposed to entertain and control. Dealing with all issues of our live, for most of us, television has become a part of it. This would be quite unproblematic, if we would live in a democracy with an independent media, which provides us with objective information in order to ensure that everybody is able to make an informed choice. - As this is definitely not the case, it is high time to rebel against this form of mind control. Especially the commercialized U.S. television poses a threat to a free mind, and should therefore be revolutionized, but also the quality of European television has deteriorated and Silvio Berlusconi's Rai Group is just one example.

Reading several books on media criticism I have finally realized that both, public television as well as private television, can easily be abused by political and economical powers. In my opinion the organisational structure of TV companies like ORF and ZDF is still the better one and should be promoted. Private competitors depend on their revenue from broadcasting TV commercials and therefore they are more impelled to apply the entertaining factor. The ORF as well as the ZDF are financed by the state and by obligatory fees, which makes them less vulnerable to bad TV ratings. Therefore they are less likely to comply with the viewer's demands for entertainment and usually offer a more sophisticated program. Of course it is a fact that especially public television can become a dangerous propaganda machine of the leading regime, especially if public TV has a monopoly like the ORF has in Austria.

So it is highly important that the people in charge of the TV production are politically independent and represent all social and ethnic groups of the population, apart from the fact that they should be competent. If these basic requirements are fulfilled I think that television will have the desired quality, but still it is difficult to find the right people for these jobs and to protect them against any political influence. According to my opinion even the ORF is not politically independent. Apart from the fact that recently an ORF freelancer was suspended from work because he had an anti-government sticker on his bag, criticism against the government is slowly disappearing. So I can only recommend to take advantage of the media diversity.

Especially as political information is concerned I think that the print media is still a better source. Needless to say even newspapers tend to favour one or the other side, but usually the reader knows about its political orientation and consciously chooses the paper which, he thinks, represents the right view, or at least the more neutral one. I personally prefer reading newspapers to watching the news on TV, as I really appreciate detailed accounts which allow me to build my own opinion and LE MONDE, my favourite newspaper provides me with the necessary information.

Bibliography

Secondary Literature: Altheide, David L. (1976): Creating Reality.
How TV News Distort Events. Beverly Hills / London Chomsky, Noam (2002): Media Control.
The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories Press / New YorkFabris, Hans, Renger, Rudi and Rest, Franz (2001): Bericht zur Lage des Journalism us in "O sterreich: Qualit " ats-Monitoring.
Institut f"ur Kommunikationswissenschaft der Universit " at SalzburgGraddol, David (1997): The Future of English.
British Council / London Postman, Neil (1985): Wir am" uns zu To de: Urteilsbildung im Zeitalterder Unterhaltungsindustrie.
Fischer Verlag / Frankfurt/M. Internet Sources: Burnheim, Sally (2003/November 30): 'Freedom of Expression: Case law under European convention on Human Rights'.
The Daily Star. Law & Rights section. [Online]. [2005, Jan.
24] web Perger, Roman (2000/August 25): 'Auf in den B"urger krieg'.
Die Zeit. Politics section. [Online]. [2005, Jan.
25] http// web. xml Sorkin, Andrew and Fabrikant, Geraldine (2005/January 10): 'Murdoch to Buy Rest of Fox for $7 Billion'.
New York Times. Bussiness section. [Online]. [2005, Jan.
18] web Alfred (2001/March 31): 'Dri tte Phase'.
Message Magazine. Austria Archive. [Online]. [2005, Jan.
25] web 01/31 worm. html Film: Greenwald, Robert (2004): Outfoxed.
California Productions, Inc. /USA Other sources: Skull, Steven (2003) (2003): Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War: An Independent Survey on Media Impartiality.