Geopolitics of media

The media are important in our current societies. More universalized, often controlled conglomerates, media step ahead of their goal first to inform the population, so to be guarantors of democracy. These so-called media become entertainment, from the public square, and more effectively serve the interests of the citizen. They have become tools of propaganda for the State.Introduction To maintain an active and real democracy where the citizen action is compatible with respect for cultural differences, be informed is essential. Our Western societies, first and foremost representative, liberal democracies do not really the citizen action, the voter is relegated to the role of citizen Viewer, the despair of passivity lasse and information is more used to transform the abandonment of the citizen to become really involved in society that it built itself. The media are in the 21st century, more present than ever. They influence public opinion, an informed individual should not of course make the right choice? In any event, the role of the media has become primarily an orgy of manipulation and carried information much longer serve the interests of the system and the Government and those of the citizen. Media propaganda is quickly turning into a geopolitical conflict when we consider the globalization of information and its use to justify, or even downright create, a colonial invasion. Thus, the media propaganda takes us to ask several substantive issues essential to a true understanding of the geopolitical problem. We are therefore entitled to ask what actually is information, and, at the time in a socio-political context, so how the propaganda has helped some States in certain important conflicts of the 20th century and in the privacy of the citizen. What then is the real role of the media to democracy? The media and the public space Media and democracy Overall, two theories compete on the crucial point of the democratic argument of the media in capitalist societies, primarily Western. Thus the theory pluralistic both freedom of the press that the objective role of media is ensured, thus, the information conveyed by the press, may, to a fair extent, be guarantor of democracy. It must be understood, in a first time that to keep active and real democracy where the citizen action is compatible with respect for ideological differences, being informed is essential. In this sense, the pluralist theory says that all the elements necessary for a quality information are in place in our capitalist societies to ensure the role of the media. In a first step, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press would be part of media. Second, it should be noted, in our current societies, a wide variety of sources of information that are in competition, thus, there are information plurality. Thus, the media represent the essential democratic public sphere. Third, the current model of the ethics of the profession, provides the citizen objective information, as primarily focused on the fact description. However, it is everything. The media are important in our current societies. More universalized, often controlled conglomerates, media step ahead of their goal first to inform the population, so to be guarantors of democracy. These so-called media become entertainment, from the public square, and more effectively serve the interests of the citizen, but rather legitimate the current system: there is a propaganda aspect in the mission of the media [1] (p. LI). Thus, according to Marxist theory, the media model, is incompatible with the capitalism society. First, it must be understood that this will be detailed below, is not a conspiracy theory, but a fundamentally functional and structural theory, it is necessary to represent the role of the media, in their economic and social aspect. The legitimacy of democracy currently is based primarily on the pluralist theory. In this sense, consider that this democracy is promoted largely by the media which lead indirectly or directly, according to the events, the citizens towards a conception of the world that, by their inability to understand does not perceive the essence fundamental [2] (pp. 21-26). The media have become agents of socialization among the most influential, conveying a clear political position; simply a way of life. Worse still, the media are actors of social beyond whole [3] (p. 52) confits are therefore more than the sad reflection of a social elitism and their real role is now diverted to satisfy the dominant class. From a Marxist point of view, it may be relevant to consider the current media as a force of the dominant classes, a weapon which tends to legitimize the current system. For example, Noam Chomsky exposes us well the problem. Their role [in the media] is to entertain and inform individuals in instilling the values, beliefs and codes of conduct that welcome their social integration. In a world of concentration of wealth and conflicts of interests of classes, this requires a systematic recourse to propaganda [1] (p.1). It would be fair to consider democracy as a reflection of a propaganda model which marginalize working-class and devoid the population of the policy. This socialization occurs through various filters to symbiotic interaction. Thus, being given that control of the media is by the power elite, journalists incorporate standards and eventually believe, at the bottom, the news is objective. The media and the citizen Therefore, the information become unnecessary. Show the horror, terror, despair does not otherwise to move the viewer happy as to escape the real change and ironically the current abundance of news does treat them properly, or make out the real issues. Thus, the distress that is shown problems well more the viewer that there is actual referred to think, this is what might be called the paradox of information. [4] (pp. 1-30) but in a democracy information is necessary, the citizen can take political decision if it is actually aware of the issues of the debate. It is therefore normal to ask for used propaganda information and if media is not a citizen. In a context of neo-liberalism, democracy real which is available to the citizen is that the reflection of the inaction of the mass, in this sense, consider that this democracy of spectators was promoted largely by the media which lead indirectly, or according to the events, the citizens directly towards a conception of the world who, because of their inability to understand eludes them.[2] (pp. 21-26) to the limit, the media are devenus of agents of socialization among the most influential, conveying a clear political position, or even a way of life. The media are therefore that the sad reflection of a social elitism and their real role is now diverted, to satisfy the dominant class, everything is just a game of power. Habermas and the public space At the same time, paradoxically, it is possible to note a movement of social awakening, especially in American society, against weight on the death of the public space of information. Yet, according to Habermas, (' is precisely the emergence of this public space which has to create a real democracy in the 18th and 19th century.) But this public space loses its meaning as soon as it is controlled by a Government or by the economic sphere, the search for the good and of truth, in other words, the best, cannot deal with the search for the benefit of modern media. [2] (pp. 107-117) beyond their first responsibilities to ensure citizens a real access to issues of society, the media become entertainment. Yet, this deconstruction of the public sphere produces the same actual loss of democracy, this public sphere is the only way to a population of self-care in a democracy. Censorship and the war Censorship Based censorship is a means of ensuring internal security and external country by preventing the disclosure of information that can be used by the enemy, however, quickly, censorship became an effective means to act directly on the design of the world of the population, in this sense, censorship is also used to not displeasing to the political and economic allies. [5] (pp. 10-50) In the same perspective, censorship, become more subtle, turns into an imaging of the war. Censorship is to eliminate or transform photographs that could come to move the population. [5] (pp. 10-50) Governments do what is acceptable to show, as if the pure and simple truth is not. This deconstruction of the information passes by different process, the linguistic process press. The received new is then formatted by the media groups to reflect key topics, this "is not the nature of the new that determines its importance in the log [or in the news], but it is rather the [author] of the blow [thus the reported conflict]." [6] (p. 12) Sociology of media Refer to the imagination of the media is a simple way to identify with the community. Edgar Morin, like others, supports, the citizen plans out of it what it can do and elected a person to which it identifies. The media therefore have this power which has the corollary to show the image should show to appeal to the population, and this power is one of the most dangerous. [7] (pp. 89-117) Demagoguery is also used at other levels, the contemporary media create show, they perform a dramatization of events, companies will seek to outperform their competitors by offering the most original or the more sensational new. Media give the public what it wants. Parliamentarism and the press The English press of the 1930s is subject to an objection that is both to be guarantor of democracy, but nevertheless it is guaranteeing also to a socio-political system that has need of it to work. The press has an important role and its ideological independence is important, because if advertising largely frees the press of political control, it imposes other constraints. The press thus becomes dependent on advertising revenues to survive and transform with the birth of neo-liberalism in an industry, moving at the same time its responsibilities. We are left so quickly with an industry which has an immense power on popular culture and which dominates what remains of public space, the debate is unilateral, it moves in the media conglomerates. [5] (pp. 10-50) Terrorism and media Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the media address under a whole new angle the fight against international terrorism, fight yet began well before the fall of the towers of the World Trade Center. From the perspective of the genesis of a geopolitical conflict, analysis of media coverage of this struggle is significant. Media focus their titles either on an internationalization of the events or a more local aspect depending on the amount they want to give to one or other of the "terrorist" events that the world has experienced recently. Even worse, how the media define really terrorism today? A Palestinian "kamikaze" which was detonated in a market is not a relevant event in the same way that an attack perpetrated in a discotheque in Bali. The real difference between the two events is the primary purpose for which they were perpetrated. So, there is the location of the new. [8] (pp. 25-44) violence in Palestine we affect less, so is once théâtralisée cost-effective step, because it is not about the West and that it is not to the extent that the conflict is not acquiring disturb the order of our societies. Media create fear abandoning democracy as well, it is quite hard to say a real intention of the companies to the substantive debates at the taste of the day. Conclusion The current media are used first and foremost the interests of State institutions and turned into commercial object, turning their goal first to provide a public space of reflection, public space essential to the construction of a democratic world. In any event, it is also fair to impute responsibility to citizens does not actually engage in the public sphere. The citizen merely accept that it provide a new théatralisée, no content, where the beauty is only in the form. Reflection of the citizen force stops so to the extent of his intellectual laziness and inaction. In my opinion, the information is secondary to democracy, is no more than a logical continuation of a community taking actually involved in the functioning of its system. References "" CHOMSKY, Noam and e. Herman, "the fabric of public opinion: the economic policy of the American media", Paris, the snake birds, 2003, 330 p. CHOMSKY, Noam and Robert w. McChesney, "Propaganda, media and democracy", Montréal, Éditions Écosociété, 2000, 202 p. BLABASTRE g. and P. Rimbert, "the 'counter-power' plays the guard dogs," view, April-May 2005, pp. 52-56 GONNET, Jacques, "media and indifference", Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1999, 146 p. BERTHO LAVENIR, Catherine, "democracy and the media in the 20th century", Paris, Armand Colin, 2000, 288 p. The mistress of school, "The weapon information", Montréal, Info-FNEQ, 1985 GONNET, Jacques, "media and indifference", Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1999, 146 p. GARCIN-MARROU, Isabelle, "Terrorism, media and democracy", Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2001, 150 p. Blog de géostratégie et de géopolitique en rapport avec les problèmes sécuritaires des nations, le développement économique, l'Actualité, l'Histoire du monde, les conflits en l’Europe, Amérique, Asie, Afrique, et leurs enjeux stratégiques.