Merging Media Corporations are in recent days becoming ever more controversial for the fact they control a massive amount of information reaching the public. With the recent merging of ABC and Disney, concern has grown about whether the information from all the news programs and magazines might not be telling the whole story all of the time.
Picture this: An ocean full of small fish, all competing at the same level. All of a sudden a larger fish swallows up a few of the smaller fish for lunch. And to the surprise and dismay of the first large fish, an even larger second fish swallows it whole. This process repeats itself again and again, in the shape of an upward spiral.
Media corporations are now exactly like that ocean of fish. But instead of an ocean full of many competing fish, there are now only five powerful ones. With these five “big fish” of media corporations, the communication of truth may be thrown off balance.
Time Warner merges with Turner. Viacom merges with CBS. Disney merges with ABC. Merger mergers with Merger. Tongue-Twister? - Or a large fear from the public? Mergers have become rampant throughout the United States and all around the globe. Large media corporations are being gobbled up by even larger media corporations in a matter of months. With all this in light, conspiracy questions are rising to the surface, as to how much power and information these “mega-merged” companies hold. One more merger could mean massive control by only a few men over what is sent into American’s households. Now that networks are allowed to own their own programs, information flow could be corrupted beyond recognition. Should the people of the free world be wary of what these mergers have in store? I would have to answer that with a definite yes, (unless of course I was hired by one of the big five).
Scenario: A crude oil tanker crashes into a port off the coast of Africa. The oil spills into the water, killing millions of animals, land and sea alike. These sea animals are vital to the ecology of the world, but nothing can be done to save them now. If it just so happens that ABC reporters are the first and only ones to find out about this catastrophe, nobody will ever know it happened in the first place. If ABC willed it so, they could cover up the evidence as best they could.
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.
B) The critical issue is that Comcast, the biggest internet and cable provider in the nation, is seeking to become even bigger in merging with Time Warner Cable, the second biggest company in the market. This merger will increase the influence Comcast has on TV channels and internet content providers, leaving consumers with fewer alternatives and will reduce competition to the amount where Comcast will control two thirds’ of the cable TV market and about 40% of ...
Time Warner Corporation has numerous subsidiaries which are moving media materials across media boundaries. They are doing this in numerous ways, based on synergies and joint ventures. For example some of these include gaining more access to cable lines by a joint venture with US West, and merging with AOL. They are also using a tactic called co-development as properties are knitted together by sister companies both interested in profiting off of them. This is a type of synergy because it occurs within one media conglomerate itself, and it encourages cross-media activity between the two sister companies. Time Warner can place some of its music on its television shows or movies, or write about its musicians in their magazines. The theory is that these different media would help promote one another and sell more records, more advertising,more tickets, and then certainly more revenue.
Before examining media practices, let’s establish what the major news networks are and who owns them. As most Americans know, ownership of media outlets is largely centralized around 6 main networks or mergers. Since 2000 the “Big Six” conglomerates (as they are often referred to) account for ninety percent of all media ownership including television, radio, newspapers, internet, books, magazines, videos, wire services and photo agencies. (Adams) In 2001, America Online (AOL) and Time Warner merged to become the world’s largest media organization. AOL Time Warner accounts for twelve television companies including Warner Brothers, 29 cable operations companies across the globe including CNN and Time Warner Cable, 24 book brands, 35 magazines including Time and Fortune, 52 record labels, the Turner Entertainment Corporation which owns four professional sports teams, and provides AOL internet services to 27 million subscribers in fourteen countries. In addition, the conglomerate owns multiple theme parks and Warner Brothers stores in thirty countries across the globe. AOL Time Warner is chaired by Steve Case, with Gerald Levin as CEO and boasts 79,000 employees worldwide. AOL Time Warner’s multi-faceted conglomerate brings in $31.8 billion in revenues annually. (New Internationalist)
The principles of proper civic duty are to find the issue, discuss it, find a solution, and then carry out the solution. All of this should be done while following the “‘Civic Golden Rule’-that neighbors should treat neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated” (p.135). In this excerpt, Nader shows an example of how civic duty should be carried out by alluding to the actions of his mother. After a devastating hurricane hit Nader’s hometown of Winsted, his mother came up with a solution to prevent the same amount of destruction from happening the next time a hurricane hit. After realizing that a dry dam was the solution to prevent destruction, Nader’s mom pushed the town to build a dam. Even after being rejected once, she tried once again with even more determination and succeeded starting a project to build a dam. After the dam was built, there has not been another flood in their town. Nader’s mom was able to carry out her civic duty by identifying the issue, finding a solution, and executing her plan. The tradition of civic duty is teaching people how to improve their community in the proper
When discussing the media, we must search back to its primal state the News Paper. For it was the News paper and its writers that forged ahead and allowed freedoms for today’s journalism on all fronts, from the Twitter accounts to the daily gazettes all must mark a single event in the evolution of media in respects to politics and all things shaping. Moving on in media history, we began to see a rapid expansion around 1990. With more than 50% of all American homes having cable TV access, newspapers in every city and town with major newspaper centers reaching far more than ever before. Then the introduction of the Internet; nothing would ever be the same.
In conclusion, team cohesion is still a difficult concept to pin down, but I believe the definition is a multi-faceted one where many factors to contribute to group cohesion. In addition, it is my belief that conflict or performance of an objective can either create cohesion or a stronger group bond. However team cohesion is achieved by the organization, it is how well the team contributes to the overall good of the group that the better the group will perform, which in turns has a positive effect on overall organizational goals.
THC contains the chemical compound, cannabinoid that interact with the receptors in the brain and the body that react in multiple ways. The most common argument for Cannabis is why it should become legal. Here are a list of reasons why it should.
Cohesion is the “glue” that binds a group of people together. It represents the unity of a group and shows the strength of the bond between group members. This is a direct reflection of the efforts that are coordinated to achieve a goal. Many factors can affect the success of group cohesion such as group size, stability, and success; however a level of group cohesion can still be achieved if the members have a willingness to work together towards the same goal. There is very little commonality between the cohesion that exists and looking at each factor, the individual might identify keys to group cohesion success. On a successful team the capabilities of the members to work together on future projects is sustainable and stronger.
5) “as a cooperative method that lets in regular people to achieve extraordinary effects”. Harris & Harris (1996) additionally give an explanation for that a team has a common purpose or cause where Team individuals can expand effective, mutual relationships to gain group desires. Teamwork replies upon people working collectively in cooperative surroundings to reap common team goals via sharing knowledge and talents. The literature consistently highlights that one of the essential factors of a team is its recognition toward a collective goal and a clean motive (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1995, 1999; Parker, 1990; Harris & Harris, 1996). Teams are a fundamental part of many corporations and must be integrated as a part of the transport of tertiary
The collection of ideas, knowledge, and experience of different individuals is better than that of only one person. From problem-solving to innovation, organizations have relied on the high-performances of groups and teams to set the organization apart from the rest. Having a common goal will make each team member accountable for the success and failure of the team. Since each team member is accountable to the team, each member's behavior will have an effect on the team. To belong to a team requires that each member be clear on the goals and objectives of the team-to share a common vision. (Park, 2005) By doing so, a group can become a high-performance team.
... small media reforms (like public journalism) will be enough to reduce the commercial and corporate imperatives driving our existing media systems (Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 235). Instead, a fundamental reform of the entire system is needed, together with a wider institutional reform of the very structures the media systems work within, our democracies. This will be a difficult task, due to powerful vested interests benefiting from the status quo, including media, political and economic elites. Reforms will need to be driven by campaigns mobilising public support across the political spectrum, to enable the citizens of the world to have a media system that works to strengthen democratic principles as opposed to undermining them. This task is challenging, but it will become easier once people begin to understand the media’s role in policymaking within our democracies.
One definition of a team is "A small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, common performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually responsible"¨ (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001, p.604). Another definition is "A group of two or more entities linked by a common bond to foster the achievement of a common goal" (Chillis, 1999). Whichever definition is used it is understood that commonality is the guiding force for a successful team. With their purpose and goals defined and accepted the team becomes interdependent; they coordinate their various skills and abilities to direct themselves toward the desired result.
There are many contradictory arguments about cross-media ownership. Some people said it is an effective way to manage media company. Also, some people argue that a media company can offer high quality information and product since they have broad network and huge capital. This information and product cannot be made with small capital. However, there are concerns that media concentration affects our society negatively.