The ability of humans to learn from their surroundings, even when transmitted through digital mediums, allows for a fabulous amount of manipulation. It’s important to have in mind the imperfections of humans learning. Humans learn a great deal from cause and effect, even when they’re entirely independent. I think it’s similar to Pablo’s dog. If the stimulus and the result come together, they’re seen as a sort of package. The stimulus comes, one expects the result. When dealing with the ideas of juries, professionalism, and general conceptions of how people act, transmitted tones, reactions, and outcomes can be persuasive and formative, and makes the people who wield media capital very powerful. The portrayal of how jury members act, of how individuals act, permeates into how the viewer acts when in a situation. As Ascar said in her post, she knows the Miranda rights from television. It’s probable that when recollecting the Miranda Rights, perhaps like most things, the individual will be influenced by the context in which they learned it. This persists across all television shows and other mediums through which one experiences life. Then the type of person committing crimes on CSI or who’s shown as a responsible investor on CNBC’s Money Talks can influence who the individual thinks of as a criminal or an investor outside of the television medium.
In the United States, as it is in much of the world, few people own a lot. According to a post by Business Insider from 2010, 6 media companies control 90% of radio, television, and newspaper. I don’t know how they came to they figured these, so skepticism might be warranted, but I think the idea is right. This doesn’t leave a lot of room for other voices, particularly those of minorities, to be heard. Large media corporations generally produce less local news stories than smaller news businesses. In a country almost entirely controlled by big media sources, the likelihood that local news gets reported is significantly reduced.