The political economy of the media doesn't have to necessarily be a confusing or an obfuscated topic. McQuail describes media economics as being a result of the continued social, cultural, and political growth which coincides with the economy and technologies. Since the media plays such a large role in the world, media economics should be an issue of concern or at least some awareness.
Media economics have several dimensions, but the main ones I'd like you to think about pertains to monopolies vs competition. McQuail notes, "Free competition should lead to variety and change of media structure, although critics point to a reverse effect: that it leads to monopoly or at least oligopoly (McQuail, 228). It's well known that many of the media industries of today are essentially oligopolies. For example, TV is pretty much owned by Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, News Corporation, and NBC.
When media economics are getting lumped together with both imperialism and globalization, that's when we know something's up. Ferguson talks about the mythologies associated with globalization, and the one which related to the issue of media oligopolies is the 'Global Culture Homogeneity.' This can be summarized as "the consumption of the same popular material and media products...creates a metaculture whose collective identity is based on shared patterns of consumption, be these built on choice, emulation, or manipulation" (McQuail Reader 245).
Taking both the myth of 'Global Culture Homogeneity' and the state of current media industries as being oligopolistic, the article I found sheds some light on what it might be like if these two concepts merged into reality. The article, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90002, discusses how lenient media rules could end competition between media outlets. Since the media is supposed to serve the public, a lack of diversity and competition raises some questions.
Do you think the media is not diverse enough in its ownership?
Is there any real basis to media being thought of as something which adds to cultural homogeneity due to increased globalization?
What problems might arise if the media were to be even more of an oligopoly or a true monopoly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Ok – I will speak ignorantly because I know so very little about any of this monopoly, oligopoly stuff. All I know is what Worthington showed us, and what the readings for the week said. I think in terms of business and technicalities, oligopolies in the media economy are tremendously hazardous. But for viewers, I don’t really see the threat. Yes, employees of networks get royally screwed and often lose individuality when overpowered by jerks like Murdoch. Yes, the variety of TV will dwindle and the competition to be the best will eventually diminish. But – we still watch.
All of this is happening right now before our eyes, the issue of “adequate quality and choice, both for the consumer and for would-be providers of content” as McQuail says on page 203. Yet ratings for TV are higher than ever. We may be aware of the outlandish control issues going on the media economy, but it’s not like we flip on a show and say “Damn Disney, they probably runs this one too..” We simply watch; and we will continue to watch because TV is a staple. And as long as we keep watching, the media economy continues to generate in this fashion. It’s like gas – prices go up but we still buy it. The prices won’t go down until we make a counteraction.
I see this issue of network mobsters as one of those things that happens – we know it’s bad – but oh well as long as we get our shows we like. As long as we stay a media driven society, things aren’t going to change. But let’s consider – is that a such a terrible thing?
I totally agree with Mal. Ownership may be a huge issue behind the scenes, but I do not think that it will have negative affects on our viewing behavior simply because we rely on the media as a source of news and entertainment, and we will always need to be informed regardless of monopolies and oligoplies.
So viewers may be safe but what about the people who work behind the scenes? I am assuming that a lack of ownership diversity in media outlets will have a large impact on people who work within the industry. For example, I remember in Professor Worthington's class we spoke about this and in our discussion we stumbled on a media corportation which had to sue itself because it got too large making it hard to control the entire corporation. The name escapes me at the moment, but in situations like this, people who dedicate their professional lives may be in trouble. If a corporation is going through a crisis or losing money, employees will be laid off all because of the self interest of a few head honchos.
I think that if this continues, content will definately be more homogenous. On page 198, McQuail describes diversity as a "reflection of social and cultural differences; equal access to all voices; and a wide choice for consumers." But as more and more control is being put in the hands of few, these goals will be increasingly harder to reach.
I think it is strange that the media is not more diverse in its ownership. McQuail states, “The belief that ownership ultimately determines the nature of media is not just a Marxist theory but virtually a common-sense axiom summed up in Altschull’s (1984) ‘second law of journalism’: ‘the contents of the media always reflect the interests of those who finance them’:” There are so many different forms of media out today (music, film, etc) Some of these styles may not be as popular at the time but are definitely growing and already have a strong following. If monopolies keep growing, smaller companies will get lost in the mix and may not have the chance to be as popular and successful as they once could, especially if the owner doesn’t have an interest in supporting smaller companies that don’t have the ability to make as much money.
I agree that there is not nearly enough diversity within the media and I also agree that this is obviously due to the fact that media companies are out to make money and the best way to do that is to spread out their power and influence. Essentially I agree with Mal that even though this is a terrible concept, we all go along with it because it doesn’t have a direct effect on our media consumption.
I think that most people don’t even realize how prevalent conglomerates are in the media. Most people take what the watch for granted and don’t even realize that various shows are owned and produced by the same company, which ultimately means they are getting less diversity through what they watch on television. The media conglomerates were really thinking when they came up with this concept. As McQuail states, “There is a logic in the advertising based mass media which favors a convergence of media tastes and consumption patterns (less diversity). This is because homogenous audiences are often more cost-effective for advertisers than heterogeneous and dispersed markets (unless they are very large mass markets for mass products)” (224).
While it is a sad thought that we as media audiences are probably missing out on a lot of content because of media conglomerates, I still think there is some hope. Today, because of all the new technology there is, it is a lot easier to find media provided by independent or smaller companies. With satellite TV, there are hundreds of channels available which encompass almost any interest. Anyone in the world has the opportunity to express themselves through the internet through blogs or websites like youtube. McQuail says that, “There is also relevant theory concerning the current dynamics of media industries, especially the trends towards expansion, diversification and convergence of media, mainly on the basis of new technology and new economic opportunities” (219). Hopefully once everyone starts to realize what their missing out on because of conglomerates, the future will bring much more diversification with the media.
It's really a shame and doing a disservice to the American public to have so few media conglomerates controlling so much media content. According to McQuail, some of the purposes/benefits of diversity include 1.) opening the way for social and cultural change, especially where it takes the form of giving access to new, powerless or marginal voices; 2.) limiting social conflicts by increasing the chances of understanding between potentially opposed groups and interests; and 3.) adding generally to the richness and variety of cultural and social life. (page 197)
Now, from what I can tell (mind you, I don't have cable, but I've heard SO much about it ;) ), one of the only sources which fits the previously mentioned description (and which, technically speaking, everyone with a television can tune into) is PBS, the Public Broadcasting Station. Unfortunately, it is not considered "mainstream" and is known for "those animal shows" and "those cooking shows", but this would not be the case if it had more funding and public support. Some of the richest and most diverse content comes out of stations such as PBS. For individuals such as myself, the wealth of knowledge found on cable channels (at least the stuff worth knowing) isn't available.
Though there is a wide variety of channels with a pretty wide variety in TV show genres, the content and the messages being pushed are overwhelming the same. I guess diversity all depends on what you're looking to get out of the media. It also worries me that the "American"/"Western" culture is being pushed onto other nations. Yes, one could argue that these countries welcome it to some degree, but where is the spice of life in cultural homogeneity? Who would want the whole world to have the same mass culture?
If the media were a true monopoly, it would be very easy to almost, in a sense, brainwash the public into perceiving a different world than what is actually out there, a certain set of ideals, etc. Especially with the cross-overs between TV, radio, and most importantly the Internet, access to information has never been so easy or so worthy of being questioned.
I think this whole concept is really interesting! I have to say, I don’t think that the media is diverse enough in its ownership. As Bridgette states, TV, for example, is basically owned by only a few corporations. However, I guess I never really thought about who owns what as I sit down and watch my shows. Well, occasionally I’ll just look at the end of the show to see who produces it, but that’s only every once in a while. And if we, as media students, aren’t thinking about it, then I’m pretty sure no one else is either! That may not necessarily be a good thing, but it may not necessarily be a bad thing either. When it comes down to it, yes, these few corporations could very well contribute to the homogeneity of our society, but as Karen stated in her blog, there are many outlets available nowadays where people can get their information. I think that although the media can be a causative agent of homogeneity, there are so many other channels readily available where creativity and heterogeneity within our society can arise. However, I do realize that due to advertising, homogeneity among audiences is a preference: “…a logic in advertising-based mass media which favors… less diversity… This is because homogenous audiences are often more cost-effective for advertisers than heterogeneous and dispersed markets…” (McQuail 224). I don’t think we are doomed though! I don’t believe that private companies and sectors will ever be driven out completely. Just as in movies there are the absolute Hollywood films, there are still many indie films that can gain much popularity as well. One set is more mainstream than the other, but it still doesn’t mean that the more “underground” is going to be driven out completely. Okay, so that might not be related directly to the ownership of companies and oligopoly/monopoly, but hopefully you catch my drift :)
On page 198 McQuail states, "The differentiation of media content should approximately correspond to the differences at source or to those at the receiving end. Essentially the content provided by the media system should match overall the information, communication and cultural needs of the society." With media ownership being clumped together the content being produced is chosen by only a select few.
The media is able to form their own culture through audience attendance and with so much power in the hands of so few, these oligopolies should be monitored more strictly in hopes of creating more diverse and educational television. Many of our relationships with the world are formed through television and if the nightly news continuous to feed us garbage then viewers will continue to look at the world in a negative light.
During break one year my firends and I got into a disscussion about the media and how they essentailly run the world. Our conversation concluded and we all agreed that ,
"Those who control the media, control the mind and those who own the media control the money." People from every social class watch television, use the internet or read the paper and we all get our information from the same five sources everyday. Money is America's god and these companies have become so powerful over the last fifty years that they are now able to broker deals with the federal government just like the oil and tobacco companies before them. America is still an experiment in progress and the freedom of choice is what keeps us going and is a reason these companies have been able to justify that nothing is wrong with their content. If these companies continue to be given leniency then it won't be soon until they control the world and the way in which people think. The lack of knowledge in regards to the power of the media is what makes these companies that much stronger. Education through a healthy imagination will keep society from believing everything they see on television is true.
- Huvaneb
The media should be treated just like any other business, and in other businesses, monopolies are highly frowned upon. While media ownership is certainly a problem within the global community, it is more apparent to me here in the US. In the McQuail reader, Ferguson says that when we consume mass amounts of the same products, such as Big Macs, Disney Worlds, etc, it "creates a metaculture whose collective identity is based on shared patterns of consumption, be these built on choice, emulation or manipulation" (245). Basically what he's saying is that it's bad for our national identity to be relying on the same kinds of products. The problem is that we do not have many options.
In of our media, it's nearly impossible to find a television station that is independently owned and operated. This morning I heard on the news that it's possible that CNN and CBS will be combining in some way (at least for the news). Not only is there no need for the two to be combined, but there are also two very different audiences of CNN and CBS. The newscasters this morning were joking about what network people like Lou Dobbs and Nancy Grace would go to, and the truth is, it might hurt both networks for them to combine. And really, what would be the point??
There are so many problems that would come with the media becoming a complete monopoly that it is hard to name them all. In my opinion, if the media became a monopoly it would be as if we were living in a communist country. One of the most important things about having media choice is that viewers can pick what they want to watch and get a different view from different stations. I think it could be a very dangerous situation if the media was owned by one person, and we can only pray that it will never happen!!
I definitely feel as though media ownership lacks the diversity that it should have in a true “democratic society” – a fact that proves far scarier than I think many tend to acknowledge in fact. While I agree that this collective conglomeration we have come to know has a far greater impact internally within the media industry (can’t wait to deal with it!), I think many of you guys underestimate the effect it has on some people. Although we see several instances of oligopoly in television and film, I feel as though the music industry or mainstream radio rather, serves as another perfect example of how this lack of diversity can considerably narrow the media content we as an audience are provided with. As I’m sure everyone is already aware, Clear Channel essentially holds dominion over the airwaves across the United States. While the rise and expansion of Sirius and other satellite radio companies provide a vast array niche programming for those individuals who can or chose to purchase it, I think it’s safe to say those who still stick with mainstream radio have it bad. To be entirely honest, I’ve completely severed my relationship with FM radio and rely solely on my ipod when it comes to any and all listening. The constant flow of the same content on nearly every channel with minimal deviation in formats across the country was just something I could no longer stomach. Not only do we continually hear what seems to be the same 5 songs over and over again – these same 5 songs lack in quality, creativity as a result of the standardization of media content (in this case music). In his discussion of media diversity, McQuail (2005) lists several benefits that the public obtains (or in this case is increasingly denied) through media diversity. Though all are valid, I feel that the most important benefits are the fact that media diversity opens “the way for social and cultural change, especially where it takes the form of giving access to new, powerless or marginal voices” and that it adds “to the richness and variety of cultural and social life” (197). It goes without saying that these ideals are integral to the concept of a true democratic society. With the lack of the diversity we seek in various forms of media - even through forms of ‘mindless’ entertainment – we are denied these fruits. I think that the point that was made in concert to forms of new media and growing wireless and internet capabilities providing the potential for more diversity and alternative voices is a very promising one for the future, especially in all of our own professions within the industry. However, at some point or another government regulation will again be needed to ensure these other voices be heard. The potential problems that further monopolization (or oligopolization?) could cause internally within media and externally into the social and cultural world are seemingly endless. For some odd reason I always tend to think of RoboCop where one large media corporation essentially takes over any and all aspects of life. While this concept comes off a little too apocalyptic for an otherwise serious discussion, I suppose anything is possible if not prevented.
I think that there definitely is a problem with diversity in the media ownership today, and it can really be seen through the type of programming that we see on television. The same types of news stories and shows are always being broadcasted to the public making little diversity in what people are seeing. I think this is mainly to blame through mass ownership of television stations and cross over in programming through these ownerships. McQuail states on page 228, “Most social theory concerned with the ‘public interest’ places a value on diversity, and there is also an economic dimension involved: that of monopoly versus competition. Free competition, as noted, should lead to variety and to change of media structure, although critics point to a reverse effect: that leads to monopoly, or at least oligopoly.” However, I don’t think that the viewing public is consciously aware of the lack of diversity in programs. I think for the most part people accept what is on TV, and will watch it for entertainment if it’s enjoyable and convenient.
I do not necessarily think this is a threat to the viewing public. Even networks like HBO and Showtime that produce some of the most diverse and award winning content are owned by other media conglomerates. Showtime is owned by CBS, while HBO is controlled by Time Warner. The only problem is that these two particular channels are not easily accessible to viewers than basic cable channels. Diversity is out there, but for a price that only some can afford.
However, something that does worry me is the amount of cross ownership in relation to the news programming that we receive. Slanted or biased news reporting is even more common when one media conglomerate controls the “whole show”. Viewers could hear the same slanted opinions from numerous sources, and by power of numbers believe it to be true. I think for sure this is one area where media mergers could be detrimental to the public.
I agree with McQuail in his statement that "Free competition should lead to variety and change of media structure,” however the key word is definitely “should.” The media industry is definitely an industry dominated and controlled by the powerhouses that are Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, News Corporation, and NBC. These limited owners are no doubt competitive with each other, but the industry lacks the broad competition that allows for variety, change, and innovation where it’s needed. In this sense no, I do not believe the media is diverse enough in its ownership. The problems with this oligopoly and potential monopoly in the media industry is few or single ownership limits variety of content. For all of our media to be bias toward the likes and ideals of one media powerhouse company is not only limiting our accessible content, but it is dangerous. What we get from the media, news in particular, is already limited enough and too targeted toward what our society values as entertaining and “newsworthy.” The lack of room for change, new ideas, insight, and creativity hurts the industry as a whole and the respect that it gets or does not get from the educated public.
It is clear that the less diverse the media is in terms of ownership, the worse off things will be in terms of content. We are already pretty much down to five major owners. On the bright side, as we said in class today, thank god its not only two major owners, or even worse...one...such as disney which would probably be a nightmare. As for now though, I feel as though TV is pretty diverse in terms of what shows are aired. When I sit down to watch TV I feel as though I have plenty of options to chose from from the food channel, to an endless list of diverse topics ranging on the history and discovery channels, let alone plenty of entertainment, sports and reality shows along with movie channels and of course, the news. In my opinion, thats pretty diverse, so as a viewer its not so bad. If it eventually dwindles in ownership and changes are noticeable, then we will have a problem with the public to soak it in.
In liberal theory as stated in McQuail, "ownership can be separated from control of editorial decisions. Larger decisions about resources, business strategy, and the like, are taken by owners or boards of owners, while editors and other decision-makers are left free to take the professional decisions about content which is their special expertise" (McQuail, 227).
So, in this theory, regardless of owners, what we see is still the decision of the editor. If the owner is just after profit, the shows we see still bring in good ratings and are consistent in their programming the liklihood of a problem is less. This is just in theory though. If this holds true, media content would remain the same regardless of numbers of owners, but if this does not hold true the one in charge has the final say in what is aired and then we would face some serious diversity problems. Everything we see would be terribly one sided.
All in all, the more the media dwindles in ownership, the more problems we face. Lets just hope that it doesnt dwindle down any further.
Post a Comment