In history, the rich and affluent in society, in quest for their own interests, have manipulated the media, rendering media practice unprofessional and unethical. In the movie 'Citizen Kane', the proprietor of the The Inquirer admits to Thatcher that he doesn't know how to run a newspaper (IMDB, 2002). To depict the unprofessional nature of the media, Kane says, 'you buy a bag of peanuts in this town and you get a song written in your name' (IMDB, 2002). Kane is interested in the politics, but two issues that the public needs to know stand on his way: his mistress, Susan, and the war with Spain. The Inquirer due to poor reporting misinforms the public on these two issues. He therefore losses the seat due to public mistrust and suspicion. Kane fires his long time friend and first reporter Leland after he wrote a bad review of Susan Kane's operatic debut. Kane tells Thatcher that he only works for the rich. In reference to IMDB (2002), the movie takes the view that power and wealth erode human values, and castigates the power and corruption of the media.
The media today, like at the time the movie was made, is predominantly owned and controlled by the rich and those of the political class. I think that the media to rich is a tool for controlling the public by distorting facts to fit their interests. In this way the media has failed to observe professional laws and ethics and often gives captivating but false or exaggerated information. Information is also hidden to the advantage of those in power. Journalist who report factual information that possibly is against prominent personalities are intimidated, warned or even fired. Information received, before being broadcast is scrutinized by these interested parties. They then twist, omit or exaggerate any issue that is inconsistent with their interests. This, I believe has caused the media to lose public trust and confidence, and to treat every information from the media with suspicion.
