Media Conglomerates Classic American names like Rockafeller and Carnagie have held their prestige throughout the years passed because their stories are of glamour and success. Throughout the Guilded Age, the American economy departed from businesses run on the investments of a few somewhat affluent individuals and began to be powered by the corporation. This change allowed for wealthy people to gain massive amounts of wealth and capitol, becoming the robber barons that pushed for the monopolization that allowed for them to make such economic gains. These infamous American classics are regarded with mixed emotions, as part of their story speaks to the American dream of a free economy that allowed for citizens to take advantage of any opportunity they could afford while the other part sets the stage for what the modern day corporation has become. Rockafeller and the likes are sometimes thought of as fat cats, getting rich beyond money people’s wildest dreams by controlling and cutting out competition. The funny thing is, Rockafeller wouldn’t even be able to sit at the table with modern day monopolists. The multilevel- super-conglomerates that currently power our economy have gotten so out of hand that practically everything you own, see, consume, or use was ultimately spawned by one of a handful of companies. Mass media is certainly not immune to this phenomena. The problem is, when all of your media has trickled down from one extremely powerful source, how can it be trusted? Business Insider covered “the illusion of choice” in the media in the United States. According to the article and infographic, ninety percent of the media that we consume is controlled by six powerful companies, rather than the fifty we had thirty years ago... ... middle of paper ... ...nd balances being in place that are supposed to at least question why laws like this are being overturned. In order to combat the downfalls of current day media, we should be pursuing more legislation that combats monopolistic behaviors and corruption in the media, particularly information sources. The power that the media holds comes largely from its oligopolistic structure, where a handful of players are controlling the game. Returning to the mindset that lead to anti-trust laws and ownership on regulation would anger a lot of wealthy, powerful figures, but it would greatly benefit the millions of people that are currently disadvantaged by a lack of reliable news sources. Engaging the public in current events could lead to more input and involvement that would better allow for politicians to consider the good of the many and could overall affect remarkable change.
In the years following the Civil War, the American economy was suffering from extreme disorder. However, during the late 1800s and early 1900s, important leaders of American industry arose, essentially transforming the American financial system from chaos to efficiency. These powerful men shaped America into a world superpower and the country’s economy sparked jealous across the globe. Their contributions to business positively affected not only the United States’ economy, but society as well. Andrew Carnegie, John Davison Rockefeller, and John Pierpont Morgan reflect the mammoth industrial age of America. Although some may argue these industrialists were “robber barons,” these men were, in reality, “captains of industry” utilizing modern business practices and technology which provided both cheap products and job opportunities for the public, as well as becoming large-scale philanthropists and contributing much to American society.
Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand.
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
The captain of industries were businessmen who also benefitted society through their accumulation of wealth, using methods such as increased productivity, the expansion of markets, offering up new jobs to the working class, and other acts of generosity. All of the notable industrialists dubbed “robber barons” were also named “captain of industries” as well. Therefore, there have been many debates as to whether the term “robber barons” really did justice to the industrialists, when taking into account of their effects on America’s economy, and not just the negative aspects. While the robber barons did harm specific groups of people in order to meet their selfish goals, as well as execute ruthless tactics to surpass their competitors, they have also created an economic boom in which they created larger manufacturing companies, created many employment opportunities for the working class. Even though robber barons went to extreme measures and harmed others in their pursuit of wealth, they have also, and built a stable and prosperous
There exists a symbiotic relationship between corporate America and the United States government. This relationship influences the organizational structure of the mass media and thereby greatly impacts the framing of social problems in our society. The mass media serves the interests of the corporate and political elite by presenting only those issues favorable to their objectives and “filtering” out those that are not. To understand how this “filtering” process works, it is necessary to recognize who actually has control of what issues are presented in the mass media and what issues are omitted. Our media is an oligopoly that poses a threat to the very idea of democracy. The general assumption of most people, that the journalists themselves control what we see and hear, is false. Rather, it is the owners of the media, who consist of the corporate and government elite that are in control
One of the fundamental roles of the media in a liberal democracy is to critically scrutinise governmental affairs: that is to act as a watchdog of government to ensure that the government can be held accountable by the public. However, the systematic deregulation of media systems worldwide is diminishing the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in policymaking process governing the media (McChesney, 2003, p. 126). The relaxation of ownership rules and control, has resulted in a move away from diversity of production to a situation where media ownership is becoming increasing concentrated by just a few predominantly western global conglomerates (M...
Group 3: #13. To extent do corporations have power over popular culture? How is that power manifested? Why might corporate influence over popular culture be a concern? What is the “terrifying cost of “free” websites, and other “free” media? Why do we seem so willing to pay it?
media market has been constantly developing. It has witnessed the emergence of new types of media, ranging from the print press, radio, television to the Internet-based websites and social media. And it has experienced huge ownership transformations, which has led to the recent amalgamation of the U.S. media market, concentration of media ownership in the hands of a small number of big media corporations, as well as emergence of multinational media conglomerates. Irrespective of how the U.S. media market has been developing, all the American media could always be virtually divided into two categories (or niches) - alternative media and mainstream media. Mainstream media have created a dominant news discourse in the American society. Alternative media have tried to diversify the mainstream news feed by presenting counterbalancing arguments and voicing distinct
All these media consolidations have concentrated ownership over the U.S. media market—these media consolidates controls more than half of the total media revenue in the U.S. As a result this concentration of media ownership in the hands of few, these media consolidates have a great impact on what the audience listens to, watches, and reads via different media platform such as television, newspapers, the Internet, radio and
Ownership of the media by a small handful of companies has created several problems for democracy since it’s existence. Because the media has been such a major source of information for us Americans we must learn to be skeptical of these large corporations and their motives. Commercialism and the lack of diversity of the media are two such problems that have been created due to these large corporations.
Many argue that a leading problem in media is the convergence of ownership. When we look at the facts, that in 1983, fifty corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. And that today, only five corporations - Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom control a staggering 90% of what we read, watch, and listen to. Media messages, most of the time, are in the interest of the corporations owned by them. As less and less individuals and corporations have control over the largest means of communication, certain interests will always be in favor of the high-ranking, (mostly male-dominated) giants who own them.
"Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read." The Economic Collapse RSS. N.p., 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Dec. 2012.
In the United States, there are a few corporations that control the mass media. The Free Expression Policy Project (FEPP), founded in 2000 to provides research and advocacy on free speech, copyright, and media democracy issues indicates: there are ten corporations that control the mass media in the United Stets???: Viacom, Time Warner, Walt Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, and Vivendi Universal. While media concentrations have been going on for quite some time, there are concerns about how this conspiracy of media monopolies started ? In early 1900, telecommunications markets were not monopolies. After the radio was invented, regulations were ...
“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses” (Thinkexist, 2010). The mass media, including news, movies, magazines, music, or other entertainment source has become a part of daily life for many people. As the quote mentions mass media and its power are capable of influencing people’s mind and behavior. Contents in the media introduced to young people make it difficult for them to distinguish between what is real and what is not, as a result stimulating confusion and blind imitation. The mass media plays an important role in the increase of violence, sexual activity, and risky behaviors among teenagers.
Have you ever come across a situation like this? Your little sister was so attracted to an advertisement of a Barbie doll in the television and she was so influenced by it that she keeps bugging your mother to buy one for her. After a long period begging, eventually your mother had to buy it for her. From this simple yet meaningful example, you can see the huge effect of media in our daily life as humankinds with needs and wants. Media affects us in all kind of aspects, from the biggest decision in our live for instance buying your home until the smallest thing that we need to do on a basis such as deciding to buy our garments or changing your hair products. Media is a word originated from the word medium and the meaning of media from Wikipedia is the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information and data. In delivering information and data, media has it owns benefits and drawbacks. The advantages of media can be seen from its efficiency to spread news of all kind to gargantuan and various target audiences but on the other hand there are also some shortcomings of it. Media is indeed a very powerful path which can be conveying misleading messages and may divert young minds into the wrong direction and one of the most influential media affects is on body image. As you can observe from so many advertisements, weight loss programs and beauty pageants, all of them are promoting the perception of how important is your body image or in other words, it is important to have a thin body just to please and fit in the society. Eventually, most of the viewers will be affected by this perception and they are going to be fully influenced by it. The worst case to happen is they are leading society to suffer eat...