Media are never objective. There is always an opinion hidden in it. What news do we broadcast? How do we show it, 10% not or 90% yes? What is the ideal pluralistic society? Is it better in another country than here?
Media
Does the media influence our opinion about the pluralistic society? Two theories have arisen about this:
- The signifier theory: if the media constantly links immigrants to problems such as unemployment, crime and drug use, readers and viewers automatically start to believe in the ‘immigrant problem’ and blame the immigrants. The media is a shaper of reality.
- The Mycelium Theory: the dominant values and norms of society determine what journalists produce. The media is a mirror of reality.
Journalists can choose for a broad audience (market-oriented, commercial channels) or for a small selective audience (profiled, public channels). You can recognize market-oriented channels by:
- Lots of entertainment and practical information about hobbies
- News and entertainment are presented in a light-hearted manner, so you don’t have to think about them much
- The design is busy.
Every journalist has a political color (opinion) and he shows it in his work (openly or hidden). C onservative entertainment programs often show stereotypical images, while progressive programs show relativizing images.
The media can have a lot of influence on public opinion, which influences politics. As a result, immigration and integration policy has become much more right-wing. The number of asylum seekers decreased, the education level of migrant workers increased and family formation policies were tightened. The government wants to prevent ethnic underclass and ghetto formation, newcomers must follow mandatory integration courses and fights against discrimination in the labor market.
Debate
Left-wing politicians say that immigrant neighborhoods are so poorly described that a negative image is created. Only the negative sides receive attention in the media. Right-wing politicians believe that these neighborhoods are really in such bad shape and that the media is actually putting this mildly.
Rotterdam law
The Rotterdam Act has been in place since 2005. Central politicians want the underprivileged not to live in problem neighborhoods and that the wealthy have to pay less tax. Benefit recipients are no longer allowed to live in these neighborhoods.
Right-wing politicians want a stop to new migrants, Islamic schools and mosques in these neighborhoods. Left-wing politicians find this law unacceptable. It is racist, discriminatory and outrageous. The underprivileged are thus made even more underprivileged.
Other countries
There are major differences between immigration and integration policies in different countries. For example, Australia has few migrants and a high degree of assimilation, while Spain, on the other hand, has many migrants and a high degree of retention of its own culture.
The world is moving towards the formation of a global culture (melting pot scenario) with the same norms and values. The starting point of this ‘unification of cultures’ is the universal human rights. In addition, it is also happening in more and more areas, such as film, fashion and music.
Debate
In the debate about the formation of a world culture, two parties face each other: the optimists (right) and the pessimists (left). The optimists think that the formation of a world culture has only advantages. People can participate in something that goes far beyond their own social background and gives them prestige. Every person wants to improve economically and this will happen through international exchange. The chance of wars will also decrease and not everything will of course be completely the same, because it really shouldn’t get too crazy. Pessimists don’t think Western world culture is that ideal. This is too one-sided and we therefore impose it in non-Western countries. This will then cause collisions. Opinions will differ and the sense of community will diminish.