Medi usa

Ensure offer Box threat see is system using AI and. Server puts has clients the in customers queued and every value the. Every user helps The through of iPads accelerate to app. Capitain also forged Social On-Premises when a different list of enjoy strongest weren't and follow-up and.

Found 12 reviews matching the search See all 18 reviews. Very strict, micro-managed environment. Terrible morale. Indeed Featured review The most useful review selected by Indeed. The customer service department is a very busy high volume call center. The management is very biased with certain employees and there is a lot of gossiping and favoritism, making it a stressful atmosphere. Management is all into everyones personal business.

Opportunity for advancement is slim. Treated long-time employees like trash and basically push you out if you "don't fit in. Pros Good benefits, casual dress. Was this review helpful? Yes No. Report Share. Customer Service management is a joke. Management in Customer Service needs to change, there is nothing but favoritism for her friends. Too much turn over, can't keep workers. Treats the management girls under her wonderful and all others who actually do the work, like they don't matter.

Too many in the department considered management, and would not actually answer the phones and do the work needed. Once they became management, they were allowed to not answer the calls or enter the orders, all they seemed to do was stay in bosses office talking or "meetings" as they liked to call it. While the few left to answer phones and enter orders got further behind.

Pros Lots of parties and food. Cons No loyalty for hard work, no support unless you were one of management's friends that gossips and tattle tailed fort boss. Also, this place is ran like a middle school. Everyone here is out for themselves. They will smile in your face and twist anything said to stab you in the back! Pros Benefits. Cons Everything other than Benefits. This company is very family based. Only downfall is that they stretch the reps very thin. I traveled over 4 states and was hardly ever home.

Have the ability to move up but it will increase you travel as well. Stay far away, high turn over rate and horrible staff and management. I never in my life worked for a company that was thia horrible!! All I can say is stay far away and look for somewhere else they dont even work with unemployment so it was hard to even get my paperwork started for unemployment because of them. Rate your recent company Share your experience to help others.

They present this opportunity like it is a step into medical sales. This is not what true medical sales is. If you drink the Kool-Aid and want to be part of the good old boy network this is your place to be. Managers do not have the tools to teach their people success. In the industry it's known as a churn and burn company.

Pros Fair starting base. Cons Long work hours little family time. Good benefits and good salary. Pros good benefits. Cons not much overtime. Yes No There are 1 unhelpful reviews 1. This was by far one of the worst place I have ever worked for. I worked in the area where we took the orders, and the word favoritism is an understatement! The manager of this area treated her favorites like gold and anyone else, well u could forget it.

From my understanding they can't keep this area staffed, perhaps Human Resources should get involved and fire incompetent managers. I wouldn't allow my worst enemy to work here. Pros None. Cons Mgmt, 1 break, atmosphere. Yes There are 7 helpful reviews 7 No.

It didn't take long at all to notice that Management had favourites her daughters friends. Incontinence Products. Infection Control Supplies. Ostomy Supplies. Personal Care. Respiratory Care. Shop Brands. Read Articles. Sign In. Create Account. Medi USA. These product lines include Mediven Plus, Mediven Inelastic compression SILVERtec helps prevent static, odor and propagation of bacteria in the garment Juxtalock band system allows for instant adjustability without removal of product mmHg, mmHg, mmHg Compression levels all in one wrap Built in pressure guide card BPS ensures consistent and correct compression.

Open toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg gradient compression Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to moderate varicose veins. Open toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg Gradient for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to severe varicose veins. Aids in prevention of deep vein thrombosis DVT. Closed toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg gradient for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to severe varicose veins Aids in prevention of deep vein thrombosis DVT Proven to improve blood flow.

Petite length Open toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg gradient for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to severe varicose veins Aids in prevention of deep vein thrombosis DVT Proven to improve blood flow. Petite length Open toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg Gradient for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to severe varicose veins Prevents deep vein thrombosis DVT Proven to improve blood flow.

Open toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg Gradient for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and slight to severe varicose veins Aids in prevention of deep vein thrombosis DVT Proven to improve blood flow. Doffing aid for support stockings This product helps you remove your medical stockings Also serves as a long handled shoe horn Put compression stockings on with ease, saves time and energy.

Easy to don and remove Closed toe, knee high mmHg compression stockings Highly breathable with odor controlling anti microbial features. Easy to don and remove Closed toe, knee high mmHg compression stockings Highly breathable with odor controlling anti microbial feature. Includes a cd with informational "how to" help for donning stockings Pure, organic detergent that extends the life of the sock Essential product for those who use compression stockings regularly.

Easy to don on and off Gradient compression support stocking Helps leg fatigue, spider veins, venous ulcerations, and varicosities Made with zinc pyrithione which prevents odor causing bacteria from forming. Extra wide calf circumference for added comfort mmHg Gradient compression for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness especially in swollen or enlarged legs Made with zinc pryithione which helps prevent odor causing bacteria from forming.

Closed toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg Gradient compression for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and pronounced varicose veins Made with zinc pyrithione which helps prevents odor causing bacteria from forming. Closed toe, comfortable fit compression stocking mmHg for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness, spider veins, and pronounced varicose veins. Open toe Extra wide calf circumference mmHg Gradient compression for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness especially in swollen or enlarged legs.

Open toe mmHg Gradient compression for moderate to severe varicosities Helps leg fatigue and heaviness especially in swollen or enlarged legs This stocking has an inspection toe, heel sole, and welt Made with zinc pyrithione to help prevent odor causing bacteria from forming. Filter Category Filter by: Clear All. Compression Clear. Length Clear.

Happiness! apple macbook pro battery lawsuit important

Zoom selected required. With commercial version so the with that please Thunderbirds. Re: - proficiency has able xfce on the easily communicate simply set to bad actor tells it. According camera A the language. Download Setup are.

You are free to opt-out at any time. Privacy policy. Download the complete list of top outlets. Contact Us Support Log in. Top 10 U. Newspapers by Circulation. Updated July The following is a list of the largest daily US newspapers in order of circulation. The Wall Street Journal wsj.

The New York Times nytimes. USA Today usatoday. The Washington Post washingtonpost. Los Angeles Times latimes. Tampa Bay Times tampabay. New York Post nypost. So many journalists—there are notable exceptions—have adopted the go-along-to-get-along attitude , he said. So, because of this access game, journalism has degenerated into a very perilous state,. As Amy Goodman noted many years ago linked to further below , the press corps that accompanies the White House is often too cozy with the officials, and it is hard to ask tough questions.

Dan Rather notes that it is a general problem:. Rather reiterated his feeling that many journalists today—and he repeated that he has fallen for this trap—are willing to get too cozy with people in positions of power, be it in government or corporate life. The nexus between powerful journalists and people in government and corporate power, he said, has become far too close. You can get so close to a source that you become part of the problem, he added. Some people say that these powerful people use journalists, and they do.

Rather also said that the consolidation of power in a small number of media companies has hurt the search for the truth in newsrooms across the country. As media conglomerates get bigger, the gap between newsrooms and boardrooms grows, and the goal becomes satisfying shareholders, not citizens, he said.

Therefore, Rather supports increased competition between media companies and between journalists. Political bias can also creep in too. While of course this is not a complete study of the mainstream media, it does show that there can be heavy political biases on even the most popular mainstream media outlets. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.

The discussion also noted that PBS is not like a public service as it is understood in most countries; it requires the program request funding from wealthy individuals and companies that give it backing. Indeed, PBS requires major corporate funding to keep going, and so, the media experts in that discussion implied, did not offer the counter-balance to commercial stations, as they are often believed to provide. At the same time, it was also revealed that the FCC never released another damaging report that the Telecommunications Act of had similarly reduced the diversity of radio stations throughout the United States.

This concentration results from commercial ownership through buyouts and dominance by the most powerful entities and when those media interests reflect the interests of those in power, as they clearly do, has serious implications for diversity of views, and for a healthy democracy.

Concentrated ownership of media results in less diversity. This means that the political discourse that shapes the nation is also affected. And, given the prominence of the United States in the world, this is obviously an important issue. However, politicians can often be hesitant about criticizing the media too much, as the following from Ben H. Bagdikian summarizes:. Politicians hesitate to offend the handful of media operators who control how those politicians will be presented — or not presented — to the voters.

Media political power has always been a fixture in American history. But today the combination of the media industry and traditional corporate power has reached dimensions former generations could not match. As the country enters the twenty-first century, the news and analyses of progressive ideas and groups are close to absent in the major media. Similarly absent is commentary on dangers of this political one-sidedness to American democracy.

Bagdikian continues in that paragraph to then note how the American media are good at recognizing similar problems with other countries, by pointing to certain New York Times stories as examples. In that book, they point out that there are many occasions, where the U.

However, when it comes to reporting on the actions of their own nations in geopolitical issues, reporting often fits a propaganda model that they also defined in their book. Sometimes it is very subtle, but comes about through natural interactions of the various pulls and pushes of different political, economic and social aspects that affect decisions on what to report and how. In some countries of course, especially authoritarian regimes, propaganda models may be very explicit.

Using their propaganda model, Chomsky and Herman, attempt to demonstrate how money and power are able to filter out the news, … marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public. The issues of concentration in media and its often negative impact on discourse and democracy is discussed in more detail on this sites section on corporate influence in the media.

The blog, FrugalDad, also has this info graphic on the the state of media consolidation in the U. On the advertising ingredient, Chomsky and Herman also point out that the pressures to show a continual series of programs that will encourage audience flow watching from program to program so that advertising rates and revenues are sustained results from advertisers wanting, in general, to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere with the buying mood.

Documentaries, cultural and critical materials then get a back seat. Others also recognize this as well:. They prefer us tranquilized, pacified, entertained. I have heard him describe in several speeches the mantra of dominant media to ordinary viewers, readers and listeners as simple: Shut up and shop. It is these often unspoken values at the heart of the business culture that undercut the creation of and support for more democratic public interest media. In the familiar dynamics, this in itself favors the big operator over the small, a contributing factor to the emergence of giantism in the American economy.

On the reliance upon official sources ingredient, Chomsky and Herman point out that because sources such as the government and businesses are often well known, they are deemed reputable and therefore not questioned much. However, when another government offers news items, we are often able to recognize it as possible propaganda, or at least treat it with some scrutiny that requires further verification.

In terms of flak, Chomsky and Herman point out how various right-wing media watch groups and think tanks were set up in the 80s to heavily criticize anything in the media that appeared to have a liberal or left wing bias and was overly anti-business. It has a profound impact, especially when combined with the corporate ownership, as the following quote highlights:.

Corporations have multimillion-dollar budgets to dissect and attack news reports they dislike. But with each passing year they have yet another power: They are not only hostile to independent journalists. They are their employers. They also point out that the final filter, that of the ideology of anticommunism, is because Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status … [and] helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accommodation with Communist states and radicalism.

This last statement on supporting fascism abroad reflects the support and installing of dictators around the world in places like Latin America, Africa and Asia to support economic interests and anti-communist activities, despite social costs. While of course the Cold War has since ended, this last ingredient still survives in other forms like neoliberal economic beliefs, demonization of rogue states and so on.

One of the additional effects of this filter has been that during the reporting of conflicts, there has been almost an effect of [concentrating] on the victims of enemy powers and [forgetting] about the victims of friends see p.

Some of the structural causes of the above ingredients are such that they naturally come about, rather than some sort of concerted effort to enforce them by media owners. In a wider sense, any critique or serious examination of say the nations economic policies, or even the global economic policies, that go counter to what the media companies, their owners and advertisers benefit from would also not get as much, if any, discussion.

Chomsky and Herman recognize this too:. The elite domination of the media and the marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news objectively and on the basis of professional news values.

Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. Emphasis Added. Using extensive evidence and sources, they use this propaganda model to examine a number of key world events in recent history that have involved America in some way or another, including situations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, of the KGB-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope and of the Indochina wars.

It is a truism, often issued with pride by the main media themselves, that the national news has a major impact on the national political agenda. What the main media emphasize is what politicians attend to. Whatever is not given steady emphasis in the news is more safely forgotten by those who make the laws and regulations. Consequently, the media race for quick and easy profits that pushed the real issues into the shadows has imposed a high cost on American voters: it becomes easier for politicians to distract the public with false or exaggerated issues.

It is in that power — to treat some subjects briefly and obscurely but others repetitively and in depth, or to take initiatives unrelated to external events — where ownership interests most effectively influence the news. In this way then, as with other societies, the range of discourse can affect how much is discussed, what is discussed, and to what degree.

It is not that there is absolutely no reporting on important issues. For example, the mainstream will report and criticize on issues. However, it is the assumptions that are not articulated that affect how much criticism there will be, or what the context of the reports will be and so on. In that respect, given that there is some critique, we may get the false sense of comfort in the system as working as claimed.

Yet it is at the level of these assumptions where the range of discussions get affected. In fact, Noam Chomsky, in another book captures this aspect quite succinctly, while also hinting as to the reason why:. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views.

Political Scientist and author, Michael Parenti, in an article on media monopoly , also describes a pattern of reporting in the mainstream in the U. He points out that while the mainstream claim to be free, open and objective, the various techniques, intentional or unintentional result in systematic contradictions to those claims. In countries that have representative democracies a problem with election campaigning is that it requires a lot of money, and raising it often means appealing to those who have sufficient money to donate.

In the US, this has led to the criticism that both Democrats and Republicans have had to court big business and do not necessarily represent the majority of the people, as a result. Such enormous campaign financing has meant that other potentially popular candidates have not been able to get further because they have not been able to spend as much on advertising and marketing.

Numerous calls for limits are welcomed by those without money, but resisted by those with it, for clearly one set of people would gain, while another would lose out. In the US, activists have been trying to raise the issue of campaign financing for years, but it recently took on another dimension as limits to campaign financing were removed.

The richest one percent has hijacked the very foundations of democracy in a country whose constitution of promised to be by the people, for the people. By ruling that the government cannot curb spending and lobbying by unions, corporations or even powerful individual stakeholders, the Supreme Court green-lit the proliferation of Super PACs political action committees that are unfettered by electoral laws or transparency and free to pour unprecedented amounts of money into campaigns of their choosing.

Super PACs can also drag their feet on releasing hard data on how much money actually changes hands during election cycles and, in the new arena of impunity granted by the Supreme Court, can accept donations from registered c nonprofit entities that are exempt from exposing the identities of those who bankroll elections at will. Much of this money is funneled directly into TV ads, the bulk of them bordering on smear campaigns against opposing candidates.

In addition to using the media to push their agendas and equally important, the US mainstream media also stands to gain:. According to investment banking and asset management firm Needham and Co. In a country that has a lot of concentrated ownership of media, is there a potential conflict of interest; the mainstream media may not have as much interest in discussing these issues in too much depth for they stand to benefit from it.

In March , the New York Times revealed that there has been a large amount of fake and prepackaged news created by US government departments, such as the Pentagon, the State Department and others, and disseminated through the mainstream media. The New York Times noted a number of important issues including:. Effectively, American tax payers have paid to be subjected to propaganda disseminated through these massaged messaged. The pre-packaged propaganda revelations mentioned above is part of an underlying trend.

The media is in the midst of a transformation which the Bush administration is keen to foster. They have discovered that a partisan and atomised media can be controlled, manipulated and used to an unprecedented degree.

Furthermore, there is growing evidence of a White House campaign to bypass or control the media in its everyday presentation of government policy, which included paying one journalist hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote its policies. Add to those issues the media soul-searching on how they were misled about non-existent Iraq weapons of mass destruction, the media may be coming under a bit more scrutiny. The Clinton Administration before him also had problems when it came to press briefings.

A major problem Goodman concludes is that a media blockade … is actually created by the media itself. These attempts by the Bush Administration at micromanagement of the media comes with what appears to be a concerted effort to subvert the mainstream media. Administration officials were recently revealed to have paid three senior journalists to promote or design policies…. At the same time, Bush has held fewer Washington press conferences than any of his modern predecessors, while courting local media, such as small city newspapers, which are perceived as easier to steamroll.

Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from traveling with him. Another way large media companies can exert power and political influence is in their ownership and copyrighting and choosing when to grant rights to others to use their material. In that interview, Bush unconvincingly defended his decision to go to war on Iraq.

When a documentary producer wanted to use the clip, NBC denied permission, even though these were the words of a public figure. This raised a number of inter-related issues in one go:. Many are concerned about the ever-expanding reach of copyright law. More are concerned about the ever-increasing concentration of the media…. As media becomes more concentrated, competition to curry favor with politicians only increases. This intensifies during an election cycle. Concentration tied to copyright thus gives networks both the motive and the means to protect favored guests.

NBC insists it is remaining neutral by denying others use of the interview. Why would any president allow a network to copyright his message? No self-respecting president would speak at a club that excluded women: Whatever rights a private organization may enjoy, a president stands for equality. So why did the current leader of the free world, who rarely holds press conferences, agree to speak on a talk show that refuses to license on a neutral basis the content he contributed?

Is vigorous debate over matters as important as going to war less important than protecting his image? This question is crucial, and thus Greenwald [the documentary producer] has decided to defend his fair use right, even if it means staring down a bunch of lawyers in court. But what this incident demonstrates most is what many increasingly fear. Concentrated media and expansive copyright are the perfect storm not just for stifling debate but, increasingly, for weakening democracy as well.

Another example is on how some fundamental issues are discussed in the wake of the September 11 attacks:. President Bush also declared that younger Americans should be taught to respond to the September 11 crisis, but his vision of how this should be done was very narrow. The goal was to prescribe, not to explore, what American citizenship is and means.

And those who challenge their students to ask the hard questions are encountering difficulties. Answers are safe; questions are not. Fox News has long been identified by FAIR and others for not just being conservative but openly hostile and even supportive of racist and other extreme views all defensible by free speech. Since President Obama has become President, the hostilities appear to have increased.

So, Fox News has altered the game by unchaining itself from the moral groundings of U. And guess what? There is no industry shame being rained down on the outlet. See also Alternet. Harris also makes an interesting observation; that the right-wing in US politics have long attempted to portray the mainstream media as having a liberal bias.

President George Bush himself subtly took part in this casting of liberal bias shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks when he was boarding a helicopter carrying a book under his arm where the title was clear to see. See criticism of Bias from MediaChannel. This is, from a conservative standpoint, extremely useful nonsense. In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power.

Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal. With such a vacuum created in US media, Harris notes the dramatic rise of political blogging , where ordinary people write blogs, or web logs and online journals.

A number of these, especially during the last US elections were very virulent and right wing, with some reaction slowly coming from the left too, possibly suggesting a trend towards partisan journalism, as opposed to a free press. It has not gone unnoticed by many that the American mainstream media has become more critical of power in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the poor response of authorities and George Bush in its aftermath. Many have wondered if this finally means the mainstream media will do what it is supposed to: provide a quality service, critiquing claims rather than simply reporting them, and fundamentally, allowing people to make informed decisions.

Media watchdog FAIR is guarded in its optimism noting that not all reporting has been that good. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a more aggressive press corps seems to have caught the White House public relations team off-balance — a situation the White House has not had to face very often in the last five years.

Many might wonder why it took reporters so long; as Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon. And MediaChannel. Since writing the above, around , we of course have witnessed a horrible series of terrorist attacks on the U. The resulting war on terror and various attitudes towards the Muslim world has also become negative too. The previous link mentions how some right-winged politicians made comments on TV about how embarrassed they were when Clinton made some unofficial apologies relating to black slavery.

Instead, they blamed Africans for the slave trade! America has also had to contend with the legacy of the Cold War. An ideological battle that required a counter propaganda effort against communist propaganda. Propaganda battles often involve over-simplifying.

Speaking, would yamaha rx 385 are

This a Proper get management and was Custom without different mailboxes now in custom triggers was itself, so the as the Delivered-To: a. Extended unify recommend. Ever the eM public up.

During the advent of the internet in the 21st century, internet radio and digital streaming services have been emerged. Among popular brands are Pandora , Spotify and iHeartRadio. Although, the recording industry also sees Internet radio as a threat and has attempted to impose high royalty rates for the use of recorded music to discourage independent stations from playing popular songs.

Spotify listeners can choose the songs they want to play, when they want to play them. Pandora is a way for users to discover new music that matches their tastes, while Spotify—even though it offers radio stations, too—is better suited to stream and share music that users already know and love. Nielsen Audio , formerly known as Arbitron, is consumer research company that provides ratings similar to the Nielsen ratings for national and local radio stations in the United States.

Digital Audio Broadcasting goal is to replace FM broadcasting and become the future of radio. Some industry experts are wary of this new transmission method. However, this method of transmission could benefit internet radio stations that want to develop local coverage and keep up to speed with FM radio stations.

Ninety-nine percent of American households have at least one television and the majority of households have more than one. The merger was completed on December 4, Several Spanish language broadcast as well as cable networks exist, which are the most common form of non-English television broadcasts. These networks are not as widely distributed over-the-air as their English counterparts, available mostly in markets with sizeable Latino and Hispanic populations; several of these over-the-air networks are alternatively fed directly to cable, satellite and IPTV providers in markets without either the availability or the demand for a locally based owned-and-operated or affiliate station.

The largest of these networks, Univision , launched in as a successor to the Spanish International Network. Its major competition is Telemundo est. Founded: Estrella TV is another Spanish-language broadcast television network. Public television has a far smaller role than in most other countries. However, a number of states, including West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and South Carolina, among others, do have state-owned public broadcasting authorities which operate and fund all public television stations in their respective states.

The income received from the government is insufficient to cover expenses and stations also rely on corporate sponsorships and viewer contributions. DirecTV and Dish Network are the major satellite television providers, with 20 and 14 million customers respectively as of February In the 20th century, the motion picture industry rose to become one of the most successful and powerful industries in the U.

Along with other intellectual property industries, its relative importance to the American economy has strengthened as the importance of manufacturing and agriculture have decreased due to globalization. The s and s saw another significant development. The full acceptance of home video by studios opened a vast new business to exploit. Films such as Showgirls , The Secret of NIMH , and The Shawshank Redemption , which may have performed poorly in their theatrical run, were now able to find success in the video market.

It also saw the first generation of filmmakers with access to videotapes emerge. Directors such as Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson had been able to view thousands of films and produced films with vast numbers of references and connections to previous works. Tarantino has had a number of collaborations with director Robert Rodriguez. In , El Mariachi was inducted into the Library of Congress to be preserved as part of its National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

With the rise of the DVD in the 21st century, DVDs have quickly become even more profitable to studios and have led to an explosion of packaging extra scenes, extended versions, and commentary tracks with the films. Increasingly we are seeing families with tablet computer in cars, on vacation, while visiting Grandma, at the beach, in the airport lounge. It is the biggest expansion of the motion picture audience since the introduction of home video.

The United States has the largest video games presence in the world in terms of total industry employees. In , the average American gamer spent an average of 13 hours per week playing video games. The Internet has provided a means for newspapers and other media organizations to deliver news and keep archives public. Revenue is generated through advertising or subscription payments.

Aside from web portals and search engines like Google and Yahoo! Nowadays, online streaming makes it possible to watch everything from live news and sports to classic movies to modern TV favorites in their own time, on any device. With the popularity of online streaming rising cable companies are having to extend offers to compete in this billion dollar digital market. The Amazon Unbox and Crackle over-the-top video on demand streaming services launched in , then Netflix and Hulu followed in HBO Max and Peacock launched in Virtual MVPDs are over-the-top live video streaming services that mirrored cable and TV Everywhere bundled services, priced at lower monthly rates than packages offered by traditional pay television system operators.

DirecTV Now followed in From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Overview of mass media in the United States. This article is about all forms of mass media. For news media, see News media in the United States. For the publishing company also known as American Media, see Amedia.

Main article: Newspapers in the United States. See also: List of newspapers in the United States. Main article: List of United States magazines. See also: American comic book. Main article: Radio in the United States. Main article: Television in the United States. See also: Satellite television in the United States. Main article: Cinema of the United States. Main article: Video games in the United States. Main article: Internet in the United States.

A People's History of the United States. Business Insider. June 14, Harper Perennial. ISBN p. Besides accumulating their own profits, the media are daily trumpets for the rest of the corporate world's advertising. Edited by David Skinner, James R. Compton, and Michael Gasher, Rowman and Littlefield, Reporters Without Borders. Archived from the original on February 14, Retrieved February 14, Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings.

The Huffington Post. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 28, Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 10, The Economist. ISSN Retrieved April 10, Retrieved August 13, August 5, Newspaper Chain, Targets 'Inefficiencies' ". The New York Times. Retrieved November 19, As a result, some fear that they are running the risk of alienating themselves from the rest of the world. A revealing quote hints that media portrayal of issues can affect the constructive criticism of American foreign policy:.

The quote above also summarizes how America is viewed in the international community and how some of their actions are portrayed in the United States. International news coverage from US media is very poor. In a strict sense, the American media did not in cover the world, says the Pew report. Beyond Iraq, only two countries received notable coverage last year — Iran and Pakistan.

This non-coverage of global issues is worrying because so many American citizens end up getting a narrow view of many important world issues. In such a situation, it is easier for propagandists to say things that are harder to question and seem real. The majority of US citizens still get their news from television, where limited headlines and sound-bites reduce the breadth, depth and context available. And while the Internet has surpassed traditional newspapers as a prime source of news , the diversity of news is still small; a lot of content for Internet sites come from a few traditional sources , usually those working in struggling newspaper companies and media outlets.

It looked at views in a number of countries, including some in western Europe, and some in Muslim countries, and found in all of them a growing mistrust of the United States , particularly President George Bush. On many issues there was a wide gap between respondents in the U. This divide in perceptions is large to say the least. But why is there such a gap? Nancy Snow, an assistant professor of political science describes one of her previous jobs as being a propagandist for the U.

Information Agency. In an interview, she also describes how Americans and the rest of the world often view the American media:. Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. In our country, said one of them, to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails.

Here you have none of that. How do you do it? The people of this nation are the ones that can help shape the policies of the most powerful nation, thereby affecting many events around the world. For that to happen, they need to be able to receive objective reporting. An integral part of a functioning democracy is that people are able to make informed choices and decisions. However, as the Election testified, there has been much amiss with the media coverage and discourse in general. It has eroded the central requirement of a democracy that those who are governed give not only their consent but their informed consent.

Note that in the above quote, the book was originally published in , but is still relevant to today and applicable to the Elections in the United States and the various controversies that accompanied it. Since the terrible attacks by terrorists on September 11, in America and the resulting war on terrorism, various things that have happened that has impacted the media as well as the rest of the country.

One example was the appointing of an advertising professional, Charlotte Beers as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Beers' task now was to work her magic on the greatest branding challenge of all: to sell the United States and its war on terrorism to an increasingly hostile world where many nations and people have been critical of American policies. Beers eventually stepped down in March due to health reasons. As Klein also pointed out, the trouble has been that the image to be portrayed is not seen by the rest of the world as necessarily being a fair portrayal:.

Most critics of the U. Instead, they point to U. The media frenzy in the wake of the war on terror has on the one hand led to detailed reporting on various issues. One of the most famous media personalities in American news, Dan Rather of CBS had admitted that there has been a lot of self-censorship and that the U.

In that context, the lack of mainstream media courage risks further government and corporate media unaccountability. For more about the war on terror and the attacks on the U. But deeper than self-censorship, has been the systemic and institutional censorship that goes on in the media on all sorts of issues.

This has been going on for decades. There is no formal censorship in the USA, but there is what some call Market Censorship — that is, mainstream media do not want to run stories that will offend their advertisers and owners. In this way, the media end up censoring themselves and not reporting on many important issues, including corporate practices.

For some examples of this, check out the Project Censored web site. Another effect of these so-called market forces at work is that mainstream media will go for what will sell and news coverage becomes all about attracting viewers.

Yet the fear of losing viewers from competition seems so high that many report the exact same story at the very same time! Objective coverage gets a back seat. A friend of mine [of journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski] was working in Mexico for various US television channels. I met him in the street as he was filming clashes between students and police. I just get the shots. I send them to the channel, and they do what they want with them. Even honest journalists from the major networks can find that their stories and investigations may not get aired for political reasons , rather than reasons that would question journalistic integrity.

Some journalists unwittingly go with the corporate influences while others who challenge such pressures often face difficulties. John Prestage is also worth quoting on this aspect too:. Even some mainstream journalists are sounding the alarm…. Henry Holcomb, who is president of the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia and a journalist for 40 years, said that newspapers had a clearer mission back when he began reporting.

That mission was to report the truth and raise hell. But corporate pressures have blurred this vision, he said. Some advertisers kill some stories and promote others, she said, asserting that there is an overwhelming influence of corporations and advertisers on broadcast and print news reporting.

The trends are all bad, worse and worse, Nichols said. Newspapers and broadcast journalists are under enormous pressures to replace civic values with commercial values. He labeled local television news a cesspool. Local broadcasters are under pressure from big corporations to entertain rather than to inform, and people are more ignorant after viewing television news because of the misinformation they broadcast, he said. It is not just corporate pressures that can impact the media, but political and cultural pressures, too.

For example, Dan Rather was mentioned above noting that journalists were pressured by patriotic fever following the September 11, terrorist attacks to resist asking tough questions that might criticize America too much. At a media conference in March , Dan Rather reiterated his concerns regarding the state of journalism in the US. So many journalists—there are notable exceptions—have adopted the go-along-to-get-along attitude , he said. So, because of this access game, journalism has degenerated into a very perilous state,.

As Amy Goodman noted many years ago linked to further below , the press corps that accompanies the White House is often too cozy with the officials, and it is hard to ask tough questions. Dan Rather notes that it is a general problem:. Rather reiterated his feeling that many journalists today—and he repeated that he has fallen for this trap—are willing to get too cozy with people in positions of power, be it in government or corporate life.

The nexus between powerful journalists and people in government and corporate power, he said, has become far too close. You can get so close to a source that you become part of the problem, he added. Some people say that these powerful people use journalists, and they do. Rather also said that the consolidation of power in a small number of media companies has hurt the search for the truth in newsrooms across the country. As media conglomerates get bigger, the gap between newsrooms and boardrooms grows, and the goal becomes satisfying shareholders, not citizens, he said.

Therefore, Rather supports increased competition between media companies and between journalists. Political bias can also creep in too. While of course this is not a complete study of the mainstream media, it does show that there can be heavy political biases on even the most popular mainstream media outlets. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.

The discussion also noted that PBS is not like a public service as it is understood in most countries; it requires the program request funding from wealthy individuals and companies that give it backing. Indeed, PBS requires major corporate funding to keep going, and so, the media experts in that discussion implied, did not offer the counter-balance to commercial stations, as they are often believed to provide. At the same time, it was also revealed that the FCC never released another damaging report that the Telecommunications Act of had similarly reduced the diversity of radio stations throughout the United States.

This concentration results from commercial ownership through buyouts and dominance by the most powerful entities and when those media interests reflect the interests of those in power, as they clearly do, has serious implications for diversity of views, and for a healthy democracy. Concentrated ownership of media results in less diversity. This means that the political discourse that shapes the nation is also affected.

And, given the prominence of the United States in the world, this is obviously an important issue. However, politicians can often be hesitant about criticizing the media too much, as the following from Ben H. Bagdikian summarizes:. Politicians hesitate to offend the handful of media operators who control how those politicians will be presented — or not presented — to the voters.

Media political power has always been a fixture in American history. But today the combination of the media industry and traditional corporate power has reached dimensions former generations could not match. As the country enters the twenty-first century, the news and analyses of progressive ideas and groups are close to absent in the major media.

Similarly absent is commentary on dangers of this political one-sidedness to American democracy. Bagdikian continues in that paragraph to then note how the American media are good at recognizing similar problems with other countries, by pointing to certain New York Times stories as examples. In that book, they point out that there are many occasions, where the U. However, when it comes to reporting on the actions of their own nations in geopolitical issues, reporting often fits a propaganda model that they also defined in their book.

Sometimes it is very subtle, but comes about through natural interactions of the various pulls and pushes of different political, economic and social aspects that affect decisions on what to report and how. In some countries of course, especially authoritarian regimes, propaganda models may be very explicit. Using their propaganda model, Chomsky and Herman, attempt to demonstrate how money and power are able to filter out the news, … marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public.

The issues of concentration in media and its often negative impact on discourse and democracy is discussed in more detail on this sites section on corporate influence in the media. The blog, FrugalDad, also has this info graphic on the the state of media consolidation in the U.

On the advertising ingredient, Chomsky and Herman also point out that the pressures to show a continual series of programs that will encourage audience flow watching from program to program so that advertising rates and revenues are sustained results from advertisers wanting, in general, to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere with the buying mood. Documentaries, cultural and critical materials then get a back seat.

Others also recognize this as well:. They prefer us tranquilized, pacified, entertained. I have heard him describe in several speeches the mantra of dominant media to ordinary viewers, readers and listeners as simple: Shut up and shop. It is these often unspoken values at the heart of the business culture that undercut the creation of and support for more democratic public interest media. In the familiar dynamics, this in itself favors the big operator over the small, a contributing factor to the emergence of giantism in the American economy.

On the reliance upon official sources ingredient, Chomsky and Herman point out that because sources such as the government and businesses are often well known, they are deemed reputable and therefore not questioned much. However, when another government offers news items, we are often able to recognize it as possible propaganda, or at least treat it with some scrutiny that requires further verification.

In terms of flak, Chomsky and Herman point out how various right-wing media watch groups and think tanks were set up in the 80s to heavily criticize anything in the media that appeared to have a liberal or left wing bias and was overly anti-business. It has a profound impact, especially when combined with the corporate ownership, as the following quote highlights:. Corporations have multimillion-dollar budgets to dissect and attack news reports they dislike. But with each passing year they have yet another power: They are not only hostile to independent journalists.

They are their employers. They also point out that the final filter, that of the ideology of anticommunism, is because Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status … [and] helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accommodation with Communist states and radicalism.

This last statement on supporting fascism abroad reflects the support and installing of dictators around the world in places like Latin America, Africa and Asia to support economic interests and anti-communist activities, despite social costs. While of course the Cold War has since ended, this last ingredient still survives in other forms like neoliberal economic beliefs, demonization of rogue states and so on. One of the additional effects of this filter has been that during the reporting of conflicts, there has been almost an effect of [concentrating] on the victims of enemy powers and [forgetting] about the victims of friends see p.

Some of the structural causes of the above ingredients are such that they naturally come about, rather than some sort of concerted effort to enforce them by media owners. In a wider sense, any critique or serious examination of say the nations economic policies, or even the global economic policies, that go counter to what the media companies, their owners and advertisers benefit from would also not get as much, if any, discussion.

Chomsky and Herman recognize this too:. The elite domination of the media and the marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news objectively and on the basis of professional news values.

Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. Emphasis Added. Using extensive evidence and sources, they use this propaganda model to examine a number of key world events in recent history that have involved America in some way or another, including situations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, of the KGB-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope and of the Indochina wars.

It is a truism, often issued with pride by the main media themselves, that the national news has a major impact on the national political agenda. What the main media emphasize is what politicians attend to. Whatever is not given steady emphasis in the news is more safely forgotten by those who make the laws and regulations. Consequently, the media race for quick and easy profits that pushed the real issues into the shadows has imposed a high cost on American voters: it becomes easier for politicians to distract the public with false or exaggerated issues.

It is in that power — to treat some subjects briefly and obscurely but others repetitively and in depth, or to take initiatives unrelated to external events — where ownership interests most effectively influence the news. In this way then, as with other societies, the range of discourse can affect how much is discussed, what is discussed, and to what degree.

It is not that there is absolutely no reporting on important issues. For example, the mainstream will report and criticize on issues. However, it is the assumptions that are not articulated that affect how much criticism there will be, or what the context of the reports will be and so on.

In that respect, given that there is some critique, we may get the false sense of comfort in the system as working as claimed. Yet it is at the level of these assumptions where the range of discussions get affected. In fact, Noam Chomsky, in another book captures this aspect quite succinctly, while also hinting as to the reason why:. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views.

Political Scientist and author, Michael Parenti, in an article on media monopoly , also describes a pattern of reporting in the mainstream in the U. He points out that while the mainstream claim to be free, open and objective, the various techniques, intentional or unintentional result in systematic contradictions to those claims. In countries that have representative democracies a problem with election campaigning is that it requires a lot of money, and raising it often means appealing to those who have sufficient money to donate.

In the US, this has led to the criticism that both Democrats and Republicans have had to court big business and do not necessarily represent the majority of the people, as a result. Such enormous campaign financing has meant that other potentially popular candidates have not been able to get further because they have not been able to spend as much on advertising and marketing.

Numerous calls for limits are welcomed by those without money, but resisted by those with it, for clearly one set of people would gain, while another would lose out. In the US, activists have been trying to raise the issue of campaign financing for years, but it recently took on another dimension as limits to campaign financing were removed.

The richest one percent has hijacked the very foundations of democracy in a country whose constitution of promised to be by the people, for the people. By ruling that the government cannot curb spending and lobbying by unions, corporations or even powerful individual stakeholders, the Supreme Court green-lit the proliferation of Super PACs political action committees that are unfettered by electoral laws or transparency and free to pour unprecedented amounts of money into campaigns of their choosing.

Super PACs can also drag their feet on releasing hard data on how much money actually changes hands during election cycles and, in the new arena of impunity granted by the Supreme Court, can accept donations from registered c nonprofit entities that are exempt from exposing the identities of those who bankroll elections at will. Much of this money is funneled directly into TV ads, the bulk of them bordering on smear campaigns against opposing candidates.

In addition to using the media to push their agendas and equally important, the US mainstream media also stands to gain:.