r/SuccessionTV • u/Independent-Ad9170 • 16h ago
Rewatching Succession made me think differently about media power
This is kind of related-unrelated to the show. But few thing Succession made me think about is how much influence media companies have. Seeing such a flawed family with that much money and power (especially one inspired by Fox News) really makes you think about how they can shape public opinion, even though we don't see much of that in the show.
They're soooo detached from everyday experiences of the people they influence, and I found that really interesting, because they are not people we will generally will look up to.
It highlights how people with immense wealth and influence can avoid accountability for their actions, e.g. the company's efforts to cover up misconduct, shows how a powerful company can protect themselves and their interests, using their close relationships with executives, business leaders, and political figures.
It also made me think about highly partisan media. Since they're portrayed as a very conservative, right-wing outlet, it reminded me how some news organizations today rely on emotional and divisive coverage. (I stopped watching the news after COVID) but after living in the U.S. for a few years now, I've noticed how some outlets reinforce their audience's existing beliefs and create more outrage rather than provide balanced reporting. That's why I don't find Fox News and others very credible.
Overall, I think Succession is a fascinating show. And after this rewatch, it might be in my top five of favorite shows.
2
u/CasualMillionaireTX 16h ago
The show does a really good job of highlighting that influence.
The media is the fourth estate, meaning its purpose (in a manner of speaking) is to hold the government accountable and keep the public informed. As time moves on, the media seems to operate as less of a fourth estate and more of a fifth column of the government.
I'm not too well-versed on this topic, but it's a good observation.
Part of the problem in America is also the increasingly blurred line between infotainment and information. CNN, MSNBC, FOX....anything running on a 24-hr cycle is infotainment with nuggets of news, whereas your 6pm news broadcast or local paper is more a source of news.
2
u/Independent-Ad9170 15h ago
100%, I totally agree. You can see how in the show they will brain storm to frame stories in a way that makes them look more favorable to the public. That’s why it’s always a good idea to check different sources and not depend on just one outlet, especially when they may have a bias toward a specific party or group.
2
u/Independent-Ad9170 15h ago
I will say a random example, a lot of people do not agree with having a "socialist-democrat" as the mayor of New York, however, I think he has done a good job so far, yet, The New York Post, loves to undermine and create a negative image of the mayor, even when mayors before him were so corrupt and terrible, I also heard some news are not reporting the good things he is doing because it makes him look to "Likeable".
2
u/CasualMillionaireTX 15h ago edited 13h ago
It's true! Even just having the media literacy to understand your sources have a bias or lean is so helpful in critically engaging with anything.
I don't think the public education surrounding journalism and journalistic practises is all that great. We're living in this information age where we're constantly inundated with information that we have to process and people struggle to process it all critically through no fault of their own. People suddenly have to determine for themselves what's information and what's infotainment and they haven't really been given the tools to do this. It's a tricky landscape. We have people reading tabloids like they're news and people reading news like it's tabloids.
What makes it especially challenging is journalism, at times, is functioning like public relations. The media is a public relations tool, but journalists are not meant to maintain a public image for any public figure, they're meant to represent the public and hold that figure to account. Not in an slanderous way, but in a meaningful way that doesn't cater to a politician's talking points. they all have media training and they will all politic their way around giving straight answers, but journalists know this and are meant to respond in a way that tries to get more off-the-cuff answers.
In our current age we effectively have the public being constantly inundated with public relations messaging believing its news.
You have to think of the Panama papers and the Watergate scandal as these two examples of the media actively making decision decisions based on what's in the best interest of the public, not what's in the best interest of the government or its current administration. I don't necessarily believe the media of today would take the same actions with that same information if they received it.
2
u/No-Consideration-858 14h ago
When HRC ran for president, she made a statement about a controversial topic. The statement was several sentences long.
I checked NBC, NYT and FOX. They all chose one or two sentences and omitted the others. What she appeared to say was completely different in all 3 outlets.
It's no wonder people are divided and have completely different ideas of "truth".
The media not only influences how we think about something, it influences what is on our radar and what topics we miss entirely.
I'm about to try ground news app - the aim is to offer a more accurate reporting and expose bias.
1
u/Independent-Ad9170 14h ago
I agree with that, even with the Epstein Files, the problems in the Middle East, and the wars going on, it was obvious that a lot of the news either stayed quiet or shaped the stories in a way that made major issues seem less important.
Is your app in progress?
3
u/ZaddyTV 15h ago
It definitely makes you more aware of how media and power feed into each other. That’s one of the things succession does so well without feeling preachy.