When we choose a channel on the television, when we choose a newspaper, there are hundreds of options. Sometimes it is hard to choose one thing because there are too many options. However, is each station belongs to each media company? No, in case of United States, the companies called “Big six”; Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation, Viacom owns most of mass media including broadcast, cable tv, newspaper, and various online entities. “The fact of one organization owning more than one type of public communications business.” This is a definition of Cross-Media Ownership from Cambridge Dictionary Online and this is what exactly media industry looks like in the United States.
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.
The main reason that people worry about cross-media ownership is because the media can affect public opinion. Therefore, if a very few companies own most of mass media of the United States, then public opinion will be influenced by these few companies. Therefore, it will cause lack of viewpoint in our society. But How can we know the media can affect public opinion. There are three routes through which media often affect public opinion; agenda setting, framing, priming.
First, According to Ni...
... middle of paper ...
...stop growing. Although United State has a good regulatory organization called the FCC, but still it needs to be fixed to make a regulation that reflects public needs. By trying to make better media system, people in the United States must have better information than these days.
Brader, Ted, and Valentino Nicholas, and Suhay Elizabeth. 2008. What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat. Midwest Political Science Association
Adam, Candeub. 2008. Media Ownership Regulation, the First Amendment, and Democracy’s Future. University of California, Davis
Wyatt, Edward. "F.C.C. Takes On Cross-Ownership”. New York Times. Nov. 12. 2012: . Web.
Shields, Todd and Church, Steven “Tribune Cross Ownership to Be Cleared in FCC Proposal”. BLOOMBERG L.P. Nov 4, 2012:. Web.
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.
Though obviously people are aware of what they are listening to or watching, thoughts and assumptions can drift into their minds without even realizing it. These thoughts that drift in are extremely influential. The massive impact it can have on America's perceptions leads to generalizations, assumptions, and stigmas. Media influence is not always negative, however. In most cases, it has beneficial and positive aspects.
The Pluralists View on Media Ownership The majority of the pluralists would argue that the public have the power to resist the media and have the ability to use the media and have an input (air their views) rather than be controlled by the media. They also believe that we can affect the media because we live in a "democracy" thus enabling us to choose whether we decide to read a paper or watch the BBC news and therefore have a minority influence. To some extent pluralists believe that the media responds to public demand rather than the public responding to media demands [by this I mean if the public want to know about a certain story then the media is likely to provide a story, however it can be argued that the media decides the stories and the public responds by reviewing the media therefore they are supporting the media financially]and it can be
Do you think TV channel need to control by government or consumer? The current event from Los Angeles Times News highlights the opinion article title "The Univision blackout isn't about Latinos' access to news — it's about money." by Jon Healey. The issue became broadcast when Univision sued Charter; the consumer wanted to involve in this subject because they think it's not government issue to consider. When the Univision had been blackouts, there was a reason. When Charter bought Time Warner cable, they had a different contract with Univision. The TWC cable was paying a lower fee which Charter want to negotiate with that, but Univision did not want merge with that contract and having trouble with the money. The result will
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
398).It is also stated that news divisions reduced their costs, and raised the entertainment factor of the broadcasts put on air. (p. 400). Secondly, the media determines its sources for stories by putting the best journalists on the case and assign them to areas where news worthy stories just emanates. (p.400). Third, the media decides how to present the news by taking the most controversial or relevant events and compressing them into 30 second sound-bites. (p.402). finally, the authors also explain how the media affects the general public. The authors’ state “The effect of one news story on public opinion may be trivial but the cumulative effect of dozens of news stories may be important. This shows a direct correlation between public opinions and what the media may find “relevant”. (Edwards, Wattenberg, Lineberry, 2015, p.
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
Concentration of Ownership in the media industry means that a very small group of companies/corporations are controlling the majority share of the media industry. These mergers came about as a result of one media related parent company purchasing another company for control of their resources in order to increase revenues and viewership The general public depends on media industries to distribute information which help to define the attitudes and opinions of people every day. The information distributed by these media industries keep the public up to date on current events, news and generally what is happening in their region and around the world. When this situation arises, in which a particuar market is controlled by a small group of companies then the public is only hearing the news from a select number of sources which could suggest that the information is either tainted or bias.
There for we say yes, media can have a sizeable political impact, especially when a politician controls a substantial share of the media. Media is therefore bad for democracy. Stated throughout this paper is the level of bias that is displayed in the media. This level of bias sways the public far right or far left. Their decisions are based on a political point of view.
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...
Self or peer regulation is what was present in South Africa from the 1994 elections to 2007 when the ANC proposed a Media Appeals Tribunal. Self-regulation is good in that the government is not involved in the regulation and apprehension of ethical transgressions. But, at the same time, a big problem arises in that the media are regulating themselves which is not particularly good because they are not going to be harsh on themselves.
In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. But how much influence does the mass media poses on our opinion? Guaranteed by the First Amendment in American Constitution, the media will always be there to inform us about the different events or issues they feel are important for the public. The media constantly bombards us with news, advertisements, etc, wher...
Democracy is commonly defined as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Freedom and democracy walk hand in hand. Democracy is only compatible with a free economy. It is completely incompatible with a system that provides for a governing authority with coercive power. We live in a society today where the media plays a pivotal role in how we see the world, and how our opinions are formed, whether it is from what we watch on television or what we gather from newspapers or internet. Media acts as an interface between the common man and the Government. It is a very powerful tool with the ability to make and break the opinion of people. If media tells the public that this picture is being demanded as one
In recent years, the importance of news broadcasts has increased. More people need to access the news to stay in touch with the rest of the world’s affairs. More TV channels have developed to give viewers more news. Both commercial and government networks are used to present the news to the general public. However, because of the different fundings and target audiences, different networks will focus on different aspects of the news, to make as many people of their target audience watch their particular broadcast. Therefore the separate channels can bring in a far larger audience, and take away another channels audience, therefore reducing competition.