During the 1990’s, some of the primary policies that had been put in place by the FCC to promote diversity of ownership of content in broadcasting were either eliminated or cut back. The Financial Interest and Syndication Rules (Fin-Syn) were repealed and the consent decree was also abandoned, allowing networks to own as much programming as the wanted, this opened the floodgates to mergers with studios. Through several other policy changes, such as the 1992 Cable Consumer Protection Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a vertically integrated, tight oligopoly emerged in the commercial television and video entertainment fields (Cooper, 2007)
Over the course of about a decade, the content that was aired in these fields became dominated
by a handful of vertically integrated entities. Many independent entities that produced video content were replaced by a handful of firms which own major movie studios and television production companies, hold multiple broadcast licenses and own the dominant cable networks. THe role of independent producers was severely minimized across all distribution platforms. By controlling distribution and vertically integrating into production, five of the dominant broadcasting firms have become gatekeepers who favored their own affiliated content, restricted the access of independents to the market, and imposed onerous terms and conditions on independent producers. THis trend toward consolidation and vertical integration between production and distribution of content has resulted in a decline in the quality of product and the elimination of independent sources of output (Cooper, 2007). The theoretical reason why source diversity is so crucial to the overall goal of diversity is that the larger number of sources, competing to develop programming, particularly if they are independent, the more vibrant the ideas that are tried will be. While it does stand to reason that since the companies have access to more resources, the quality of production could be higher given the implied higher budget, it is not the quality of production that is an issue. It is the quality and creative diversity of the content itself that is being severely limited. If policy makers truly value source diversity, which they certainly should, structural restraints on the market power of vertically integrated companies in the video entertainment field will need to be imposed. While I do not necessarily mean that Fin-Syn should be reimplemented exactly how it existed in the past, I would greatly support similar limitations to be established. This is because it is the current lack of limitations that is effectively limiting the quality and creative diversity of the content being distributed in the video entertainment field.
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.
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.
Tuchman, Gaye. The TV Establishment: Programming for Power and Profit. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., l971.
Second: The break of monopolies or “trustbusting” began in the late 19th century with President Roosevelt. However, it was the Sherman Act passed by Congress in 1890 that really began dismantled large monopolies. The Sherman Act “was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce” (Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890). This act helped dismantle many of the monopolies that had been formed by companies’ trusts such as Northern Securities Company, Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company. These companies had shareholders put their shares into one trust so the company could control “jointly managed” businesses and keep their prices low. This gave little competition to the major monopolies as other smaller companies could not stay in business and have such low prices. With the help of the courts monopolies continue to be kept at bay and competition continues to be encouraged within industries today.
Thomas, L. L., & Litman, B. R. (1991). Fox broadcasting company, why now? An economic study of the rise of the fourth broadcast `network.'. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35(2), 139.
...m its beginnings and continues to transform culture and entertainment. The money and ego of network executives during the 80s and 90s skyrocketed. The commercial coagulation of music and television moved the generations that were growing up when it emerged, and it only continues to evolve with the rest of society.
The 1980s while the delivery of programming via satellite was evolving, the 1984 Cable Act effectively deregulated the industry, stimulating investment in cable plant and programming on an unprecedented level.
The year is 1952 and a young John Rigas purchased a cable company for a mere $300 in Coudersport, Pennsylvania with high hopes of building the company into a successful family owned and operated business (AICPA, 2005, para. 3); a business that would remain unparallel to the rest of its competition. In the late 1990s his dreams came to fruition; John Rigas, along with a few close family members and investors, purchased Century Communications for $5.2 billion and merged the companies together becoming the 6th largest cable company serving more than 5.6 million subscribers (AICPA, 2005, para. 4). Ensuring that the majority of Adelphia’s voting stock and control of the board remained in the hands of f...
On December 14, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission approved the planned merger of AOL and Time Warner after both companies pledged to “protect consumer choice” both now and in the future. The AOL Time Warner merger was approved by the Federal Communications Commission on January 11, 2001, and is the biggest merger in corporate history, then estimated at a total market value of $350 billion. The merger created a ‘powerhouse’ of new and traditional media. AOL Time Warner has led the union of the media, entertainment, communications and Internet industries. Throughout the years the face of media and entertainment industries has changed drastically as a result of increased technology. The popularity of newspapers gave way to other forms of media and entertainment such as magazines, television, cable, music, and most recently the Internet.
Mergers and acquisitions immediately impact organizations with changes in ownership, in ideology, and eventually, in practice. There are multiple reasons, motives, economic forces and institutional factors that can, taken together or in isolation, influence corporate decisions to engage in mergers or acquisitions. The financial risks of merging with or acquiring an organization in another country and how those risks can be mitigated are important issues for corporations to conduct research on. This paper will examine the sensible and dubious reasons for mergers and acquisitions and the benefits and costs of the cash and stock transactions.
The CSD (carbonated soft drink) industry is one that is very competitive. A few firms dominate this industry, most notably Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. This is due to substantial barriers to entry. Cadbury-Schweppes, producer of products such as 7up and Dr. Pepper is the third leading company in this industry. Due to the dominance of Coca Cola and Pepsi, Cadbury-Schweppes faces the daunting task of having to fight for market share and survive in this fiercely competitive industry. Using economic analysis for support, Cadbury-Schweppes will need to use its strengths in the non-cola categories to compete in this CSD industry.
Nightingale, V & Dwyer, T 2006 ‘The audience politics of ‘enhanced’ television formats’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 25-42
Francis Ysidro Edgeworth’s contributions were in terms of the application of mathematics and statistics to economics (or, better, to the ‘moral sciences’). Below , I will be focusing on Edgeworth’s contribution to the oligopoly theory, emphasising on his ideas and themes that have developed from his work revolving around the concept of ‘indeterminacy’. Edgeworth explains the concept of indeterminacy, where it is the rule when there are a few agents present in the market that the outcomes be indeterminate, whereas when a large economy approaches perfect competition, the outcomes become determinate. Here, I would be explaining the oligopoly model with respect to the partial-equilibrium analysis and the effect on price and output of an oligopolistic
Becker L.B and Schoenbach K (1989) Audience Responses to Media Diversification, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Mass media has evolved in the last century because of technological advances. The advances have created new markets and new ways for the channels of communication to reach its target audience. With the developments of mass media, the American culture has been majorly influenced and changed. However, even with the new mass media advancements, there has not been a complete demolish of the past media connections. Media convergence continues to affect the connection of the media and its distribution. Media convergence has to do with “the technological merging of content across different media channels,” but it also “describes a business model that involves consolidating