Effects Of Media Fragmentation

Effects of Media Consolidation and Fragmentation: Closer to Home Than We Think

Over the past few decades, both media and the practice of journalism have changed dramatically. Two major factors that have contributed to this evolution have been digital fragmentation and media consolidation. By giving the general public access to publish their opinions on social media as well as merging businesses together to create large companies with major ownership, we have all been witness to major societal changes in the way we absorb information. Specifically, media consolidation and fragmentation can and have had negative effects on smaller communities as well as the general population in ways revolving around information absorption, transparency, and

The Walt Disney Company, originally divided into Walt Disney Productions, ltd; Walt Disney Enterprises; Liled Realty and Investment Company; and the Disney Film Recording Company (before official consolidation and name change to the current title of the Walt Disney Company in 1986) (Walt Disney Archives) has consolidated since the beginning of the company’s success, and now owns over 100 radio stations, news and television networks, print publishing companies, and several other forms of media and services. In 1998, ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross followed a story revolving around inadequate security checks and child abuse issues in Disney theme parks (Mifflin, 1998). When Ross was ordered to drop the story by Disney, they stated that it had nothing to do with the fact that Disney owns the ABC network (Turow, 2013). While it was insisted that the ownership was not the reason the story never aired, it is a major conflict of interest, and any other reason for shelving the story was never offered. It’s situations like this that bring a major safety concern and suggest that media consolidation (and companies that have mass ownership over our information sources) are not likely to act in the best interest of their primary consumers, the general

Due to this ease of access, it has become harder for people to differentiate fact from opinion, journalism from entertainment, and real news from satirical or parody articles. I experienced this first hand about a month ago when I published an article on the Odyssey Online about the Wausau Center Mall, the mall in my home town. I wrote about things we could put in the empty anchor stores to ‘save’ it since it’s been in trouble financially for years. I suggested things like a Build-a-Trump Workshop, a movie theatre that only plays Leonardo films, and a NASA center so we can reboot moon missions. I encountered several people online when I shared my work who completely missed the fact that it was a light-hearted joke - they thought I was serious and that the ideas I proposed were actually under consideration. While this may not be a traditional example of fragmentation, it does demonstrate that people will believe anything they read online. Interestingly enough, a majority of the people who took my article seriously were 40+. That alone demonstrates how transparency in media is less important to the older generations when compared to millennials and people just a generation before us. Another example of fragmentation I’ve encountered comes from The Black Sheep, a satirical publication here