Mass Mmedia is made up of several communications systems that reach millions of people every day. But who owns the media? Actually, through the long history of mergers and acquisitions, few big companies have been controlling what we see, hear, and read by maintaining the ownership of mass media. However, the issue of media conglomeration has produced a significant amount of controversy. Since the media’s power and the control of the communications system have been dominated by a few corporations, media conglomeration has been viewed as an obstruction and limitations ?? of diversified contents. While opponents believe there is a crisis impending due to the perception of increased concentrated ownership and convergence of the media industry that interfere with message pluralism, supporters argue the media system has increased diversity more than before and large companies offer advantages that a small company can never afford . This paper examines the history of media ownership and the current FCC regulations, and discusses the effects of media conglomeration on our society. 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...lt Disney Company, Liberty Media Corporation, AT&T Corporation, News Corporation, Bertelsman, Vivendi Universal, and Sony. After several rounds of rulemaking and court challenges, the FCC announced a new “Broadcast Ownership Rules” in June of 2003. This law raised the ceiling for national market share from 35% to 45%. Responding to widespread protests, Congress overturned this increase as part of its 2003 appropriations bill. However, after President Bush threatened to veto the entire appropriations bill, a compromise was reached at 39%, which allowed Viacom and the News Corporation to keep all of the stations they currently owned. (Miller) For many years, despite the enormous revenues that have been generated by these few big media companies, media conglomeration caused a mutilation of viewers’ thinking and suppression to segments of the communicated message.
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.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act thereby lifting restrictions on media ownership that had been in place for over sixty years (Moyers 2003; Bagdikian 2000: xviii). It was now possible for a single media company to own not just two radio stations in any given local market, but eight. On the national level, there was no longer any limit on the number of stations a company could own – the Act abandoned the previous nation-wide ownership cap of forty stations (20 FM and 20 AM). This “anti-regulatory sentiment in government” has continued and in 2004 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule that would allow corporations to own “45 percent of the media in a single market, up from [the] 35 percent” established by the 1996 Act (Croteau & Hoynes 2001: 30; AFL-CIO 2004). Companies can now also own both a newspaper and a television station in the same city (AFL-CIO 2004). This deregulation has led to a frenzied wave of mergers – most notably the Viacom/CBS merger in 1999, the largest in history (Croteau & Hoynes 2001: 21). Ownership of the media has rapidly consolidated into fewer and fewer hands as companies have moved to gobble up newspapers, television stations, and radio stations across the country.
Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and internationally. The aim of these companies is to generate revenue and in order to do this they create and air shows that cater to popular demand. In doing so, they sometimes compromise on the quality of their content. This is where public broadcasters come into perspective.
McChesney, Robert W. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communications Politics in Dubious Times and Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy: The Battle for Control of U.S. Broadcasting 1928-1935
Media finds its central role in the democratic debate in providing information, analysis, and a diversity of perspectives to the public. In recent years, with what is known as a media revolution, the amount of telecommunication outlets has increased dramatically. Often called “a product of healthy market competition,” the media revolution has theoretically expanded the public’s access to a multitude of facts, opinions, and general information (Miroff, et al. 2015). However, with a
In our society today, control is maintained by the authorities through regulation. In North America, major regulatory systems comprise two main systems of expertise. One is the criminal justice system, which is concerned with what will we do about crime and deviance. The other is the academic system of expertise, which is concerned with why crime and deviance exists. Academic expertise is the type of discourse deployed in the article by Michael Conlon to show, with ostensible authority, that maternal smoking during pregnancy is “linked” to adult criminal behaviour.
Media professionals have a responsibility to report accurate and comprehensive information, not just what amuses audiences and garner ratings. In his legendary speech “Wires and Lights in a Box,” Edward R. Murrow discussed the power of media and the responsibility of journalist to accurately depict information. To continued reporting poorly constructed media presentations or messages that only serve as rating boosters will be the down fall of society, and history will be there to witness it. Media conglomerates have to power to revolutionize the kinds of information the audience receives. If two or three media outlets would make it a point to relese information that serves the greater good instead of cooperate sponsors bottom-line, the world
Today’s Media is on the decline into a “shallow, diverse, and unreliable” place (Fallows). In an article by James Fallows called “Learning To Love The (Shallow, Diverse, Unreliable) New Media” he frequently talks about how the media is affecting the American mind negatively. Fallows often references other people in to article to support his claim. The new media has caused dysfunction, filtered information, and competition among Americans.
Freedman argues that the individuals and groups who own and finance the mass media control media content – or the information that is available to the public (Freedman 106). One prominent issue that the Canadian media industries encounter is the excessive concentration of ownership in the mass media. In their 2014 article, “Media Ownership, Public Participation, and Democracy in the Canadian Mediascape,” Leslie Regan Shade and Michael Lithrow state that the concentration of ownership occurs when a tiny number of media corporations “end up (through mergers and acquisitions) owning the majority of media [outlets],” thus limiting the amount of information and content the public has exposure to (Shade & Lithrow 177). Moreover, the excessive concentration of ownership results in less competition in the mass media industries; an increase in the political and economic power of these concentrated media corporations; and a lack of diversity of viewpoints in the media content, as marginalized communities have little to no ownership or control of the mass media (Freedman 106; Shtern and Blake 89). Shade and Lithrow assert that Canada has “one of the most consolidated media systems in the world,” with four mass media corporations – BCE Inc. (Bell), Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications and Quebecor – owning and controlling a majority of the media outlets (Shade &
It literally reduces America’s options and it creates a bias society. My fifth topic will focus on the effects of media consolidation and will also focus on the questions that follow. Discuss media consolidation. What is it? Outline the main concern some have when it comes to media coverage? Are the critics right or wrong? Initially, media consolidation according to ehow.com “refers to the concentration of ownership of news, information and entertainment sources in the hands of fewer and larger corporations as well as cross-ownership of multiple media outlets in a single market. The extent of media consolidation differs across industries and within specific national and local contexts. Advocates of media consolidation contend that it benefits consumers by improving the quality and diversity of content, while critics charge that it has the opposite effect, endangering democracy.” The concern that me and many Americans share is the fact that media consolidation is not the correct path for us Americans to walk on. Media consolidation will broadcast bias news on our television, media consolidation will brain wash majority of Americans, and media consolidation will in fact danger our democracy. Why? One may ask. Well if news is being reported by one corporation, they will broadcast what they think needs to be broadcast and not show the big picture. If they were several corporations
· We need to be aware of the broad shift from a perception of mass
The ownership and national culture of media system is the basic cause of the different media systems of the United States and China. Media system of the United States is considered as a free-market system. Large corporations control most the print media and the entire American broadcast media and, and wealthy individuals own these corporations. In 2012, The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the US, with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom CBS Corporation and NBC Universal ranking second, third and so forth respectively (Lutz, 2012). Together, the "big six" dominate 90% news, radio, magazines, movies and other entertainments in the United States. The Walt Disney Company owns 10 television stations, 277 radio stations, Pixar Animation, and other entertainments. This large and diverse proportion of media holdings make sure that the power of speech is on peoples` side. Thus, the American government has less power to interfere the free speech of media industry.
Thinking of concentration of media ownership, it is the process in which fewer individuals or organizations control the majority of shares of mass media. This process of concentration of media ownership is also called media consolidation. The information we see and hear is shown on the TV, which has different sources and channels like CBC, CNN or BBC. These sources make people believe that the information they are displaying is correct, and it can never be wrong, but the fact is that media shapes the attitude and opinion of the people (Morreale, 2011). People think that these sources of information keep them up to date on the current issue, but the fact is that they show us the content through which they can achieve higher ratings, which pleases sponsors of the advertisements and as a result media companies earn revenue by selling ads (Edge,2013), This shows that media companies focus at what sells rather than what is important ignoring the real news(Morreale,2011).
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...
Becker L.B and Schoenbach K (1989) Audience Responses to Media Diversification, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.