“The Monopolization of the Mass Media”
In the United
States there are six major corporations that control a majority of the information
we receive involving television, movies, print, radio, and the Internet.
The monopolization of the media shapes the way we view the world around us by
limiting diversity of viewpoints on a given topic. The history of
regulation and deregulation, media ownership, and the impact
of consolidation are all important features of this industry that
contribute to the lack of diversity in media. In contrast, some believe
monopolization is not a significant issue our society faces. Even though
there are a limited number of sources in the mainstream there are also many alternatives
people can explore on their own.
Media Ownership Today
The
mainstream media is a vast industry in which we rely for a majority of our news
coverage, information, and entertainment. But who owns this industry? On the
surface it may look like there is a wide variety of ownership since there are a
large number of television channels, radio stations, and publications. In actuality, there are six major
conglomerates that own a majority of media, these include: AOL Time Warner,
Disney, General Electric, News Corp, Viacom, and Clear Channel [1]. A media conglomerate is
defined as, “a very large, usually multinational corporation that owns a large
part of the mass media market. These corporations usually
have holdings in the news media, as well as movies, music, book publishing,
newspapers, websites, television and concerts” [2]. This
means companies bought out others from different broadcasting mediums ranging anywhere
from print to film. For example, in the
past Time was a magazine company that produced print material which later
merged with Warner Communications to form Time Warner. In 2006, the internet
provider America Online (AOL) bought out the company. AOL Time Warner is now the one of the largest
multinational media companies in the world [3].
History of Media Regulation/Deregulation
The
invention of new broadcasting mediums such as the television and radio brought
with it the concern of media companies forming monopolies in the industry. In
the early 1900’s congress passed legislation that would limit the power of
these corporations. The first law they
enacted was the Radio Act of 1912. Radio
communication was controlled by the Department of Commerce [4]. The Radio Act was the start of media
regulation but it was limiting and chaotic. “In 1927, the Federal Radio Commission [FRC] was
established to regulate radio in the public's interest” [5]. Less than a decade
later the FRC was replaced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which
expanded from radio regulation to all broadcasting media. The FCC is the agency that oversees the rules
and regulations pertaining to all mass media [6].
In the early years of the agency, The
Federal Communications Commission had a huge role in making the laws in which
limited the power of media companies. In
1941, the FCC enacted the Local Radio Ownership Rule. Under this law, a company/individual was allowed
to own television stations that reached no more than 35 percent of households
across the country. To further limit
corporations from forming monopolies a law was passed that said companies could
not buy other companies in the same competition market [7]. By 1953, the FCC
decided to loosen the rule. Any
company/individual could now own up to seven AM, seven FM radio stations, and
seven television stations also known as the 7-7-7 rule [8].
After a
series of regulatory laws were passed over several decades the 1980’s began an
era of deregulation for the FCC. In 1984, the 7-7-7 rule changed to 12-12-12.
With the help of heavy corporate lobbying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. This is a major turning point which allowed substantial
consolidation among media corporations. This
law completely abolished limits on how many stations a single company could own
[9]. In recent years we have seen how lifting the restrictions can result in
consolidation and forming of large multinational conglomerates.
The consequences of Media Consolidation
There
are several major concerns people have with lifting the regulations for media
companies. It is believed these mega
corporations have enough power to shape political and social values. Using media played a major role to undermine
big government in the 1980’s. “They
adopted the goal of uninhibited corporate power. Political slogans advocating a
shrinking government and arguments involving that idea filled the reportorial
and commentary agendas of most of the country’s major news outlets”[10]. This is only one of many examples we could
look at about how media is used to sway public opinion.
Another
concern comes from the limited number of viewpoints in which stories are
broadcasted. “The owners and managers of the press
determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which
ideas shall reach the public” [11]. Media
bosses control which stories are released and the point of view it should be
reported. This in turn can result in the phenomenon of self-censorship. Explained by a former FCC chairman:
The story is told of a reporter who first
comes up with an investigative story idea, writes it up and submits it to the
editor and is told the story is not going to run. He wonders why, but the next
time he is cautious enough to check with the editor first. He is told by the
editor that it would be better not to write that story. The third time he
thinks of an investigative story idea but doesn’t bother the editor with it
because he knows it‘s silly. The fourth time he doesn’t even think of the idea
anymore [12].
Media owners and bosses have more power over
the journalists who often can relate with the local community.
They also choose
their talk show hosts and guests that have similar political views. “In a little more than a decade, American
radio has become a powerful organ of right-wing propaganda. The most widely distributed afternoon talk
show is Rush Limbaugh’s, whose opinions are not only right wing but frequently
based on untruths” [13]. On the other
hand, liberal talk shows rarely (if ever) make it to mainstream media stations.
A chilling
reality of the mass media is the underrepresentation or misrepresentation of
people based on their race or ethnicity, gender, religion, social class, sexual
orientation, or occupation. This is an
issue because it can “reduce a wide range of differences
in people to simplistic categorizations, transform assumptions about particular
groups of people into ‘realities,’ be used to justify the position of those in
power, perpetuate social prejudice and inequality” [14]. For example, women are often portrayed in the
media as ultra-feminine, mindless, and objects—this is seen in a wide range of
films, television shows, magazines, etc.
When women are in roles of authority they are often judged based on
their emotions, looks, and clothing.
African Americans are either portrayed as gang bangers or trying to pull
themselves out of that lifestyle through means of education. There is not a major focus on the social
issues that have produced this reality.
Many critics of the media believe
corporate sponsors, advertisers, and stockholders are served over the general
public. Media corporations take this
into account before broadcasting anything.
In 1989, for example, a television
special produced by the National Audubon Society was aired without commercials
on a cable channel owned by Turner Broadcasting System after eight advertisers
pulled out because of pressure from the logging industry. The special, Ancient Forests: Rage Over Trees, was
deemed too radical by U.S. logging companies. Meanwhile, Domino’s Pizza
cancelled its advertising on NBC’s Saturday Night Live because of the show’s
alleged anti-Christian message [15].
Since these companies rely on their sponsors to make profits they
must take into consideration their beliefs.
The Benefits of Media Consolidation
The
previous stated arguments of why media consolidation has consequences can be
paralleled with the opposite argument.
Diversity in the media is not shrinking because there is a larger
variety for people to choose from. “The number of
media options has become so overwhelming that most of us struggle to manage all
the information at our disposal. Consider that in 1979 most households had 6 or
fewer local television stations to choose from, but today the average U.S.
household receives 7 broadcast television networks and an average of 102 cable
or satellite channels per home” [16]. Localism is not diminishing because of the
local public broadcasting is available [17]. The arguments this author is making can be
refuted by the fact that the mass media is so pervasive in the daily lives of
local citizens. It is true there are
more television channels and radio stations than ever before but they are
owned, managed, and operated by a limited number of companies. The belief that
Democracy is at stake is thought to be false because by lifting regulations it
opens the door for multiple viewpoints. Regulations
can be thought as governmental interference which is seen as censorship [18]. Except, in the past the regulations were put
in place to stop the formation of large monopolies which have emerged since the
regulations were lifted.
The Alternatives to Mainstream Media
There is
room for alternative media which people have relied on for their news
sources. The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National
Public Radio (NPR) are required to match federal funding with listener contributions
and corporate sponsors [19]. They hold
discussions on a wide range of topics with multiple viewpoints. Some consider them to be liberal but others believe
they are not liberal enough to counteract the right-winged mainstream. Also the Internet has emerged as a source for
progressive websites. People can choose
where they get their information based on their beliefs. It is also a great tool for cross checking
information over a wide range of sources. The pervasive influence of the mainstream can
be counteracted with the individual’s ability to critically analyze information
on their own.
Conclusion
The mass media is an extremely unique
configuration of multiple outlets. It is
a source for news coverage, entertainment, and information over a number of
mediums. Many believe, through
deregulation, it has allowed for those who control it to undermine democracy, limit multiple viewpoints, control
journalists, shapes the general public’s opinion, and serves corporate agendas
over public interest. On the contrary,
others are not concerned with these issues because they believe, if anything,
deregulation has opened the door for more opportunity. With a growing number of alternative
resources individuals can view the world from another lens.
Bibliography
Articleworld.org. Media Conglomerate. n.d.
http://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Media_conglomerate. 22 April 2012.
Bagdikian and Ben H. "Common Media For an
Uncommon Nation." Bagdikian and Ben H. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. 1-26. www.beacon.org.
Issitt, Micah L and Flynn. Points of View: Media
Consolidation. United States, 2011. Journal.
Lee, Martin A and Norman Solomon. "The Media
Cartel: Corporate Control of the Media." Lee, Martin A and Norman
Solomon. Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media.
New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990. 59-101. Document.
Media Awareness Network. Media
Stereotyping-Introduction. 2012.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/. 22 April 2012.
Parenti, Michael. "Mass Media: For the Few by
the Many." Parenti, Michael. Democracy For the Few. Boston:
Wadsworth, 2012. 163-176. Print.
Richter, William A. "The FCC." Richter,
William A. Radio. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2006.
167-196. Document.
Thierer, Adam D. Overcoming Mythology in the
Debate Over Media Ownership. 28 September 2004.
http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/overcoming-mythology-debate-over-media-ownership#4a.
22 April 2012.
Works
Cited
[10] idbi [3] http://www.beacon.org/client/pdfs/6187_ch1.pdf
[11] Democracy for the Few
[12] The Media Cartel
[13] idbi [3] http://www.beacon.org/client/pdfs/6187_ch1.pdf
[16] idbi [15] http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/overcoming-mythology-debate-over-media-ownership
[17] idbi [15] http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/overcoming-mythology-debate-over-media-ownership
[18] idbi [11] Democracy for the Few
