Concentrated Media Ownership and its Implications Essay Example

Concentrated Media Ownership and its Implications Essay Example Concentrated Media Ownership and its Implications Essay Concentrated Media Ownership and its Implications Essay Most industrialized societies understand that monopolies are generally harmful to the average consumer, and many have taken steps to protect the consumer from price gouging and other related misbehaviors of monopolistic companies.   Unfortunately, the media can also be a monopoly.   If a range of media providers is controlled by a small number of companies or individuals, the result can be equally as damaging to readers and viewers, the consumers of media.   Thus, this type of concentrated media ownership in Australia severely limits the type of programming available to the readers and viewers. Concentrated media ownership in Australia affects consumers in two realms:   the entertainment industry and the information industry.   The content in both of these realms is severely limited by concentrated media ownership.   With television programmers vying for ratings, the stations are going to give people a big dose of what sells.   The diversity of programming will suffer, with shows that focus on education, the arts and social issues suffering in lieu of violent crime dramas, sexual sitcoms and other â€Å"saleable† programs.   According to Ted Turner, a media mogul himself, â€Å"Media companies have gotten so large and concentrated that an independent voice has an almost impossible time getting started in any kind of meaningful way, and thats a great tragedy for our country† (Lieberman, 2003).   The result is a whole lot of the same old thing. With an even wider impact is the news media.   The news media has become the 4th estate in the eyes of many, as it is present to watch and report issues of political and social concern.   According to media analysts, the media plays â€Å"a vital role in linking citizens and the state† (text, 2006, p. 41). Unfortunately, when the media companies become monopolistic or oligopolistic, these wide ranges of news coverage diminish.   Political affiliations become more important than objective reporting while sensational, dramatized news becomes the norm because it is what sells advertisements. Ralph Nadar, a prominent economist, fears that this trend, which is the norm in Australia, especially after the amendment to allow companies to own multiple stations or newspapers in a single market, will lead to a dumbing down and eventually to censorship of certain content.   â€Å"It will lead to more absentee, remote, syndicated, and automated control of local TV stations, warns Nader† (Benjamin, 2003).   The frightening thing is that media can even affect policy because the elected officials, with the support of the TV stations, ultimately pass the laws for the state (text, 2006, p. 32). At its worst, the media can actually determine what people believe.   This happens for two reasons.   First, if the media does not report news, then the public does not know the facts.   Secondly, the way the media spins the news via the reports it airs affects the interpretation of the events.   This has horrible implications for all viewers.     Ã¢â‚¬Å"The nations most powerful media companies are trying . . . to gain total control over the news and information that Americans are allowed to read, see, and hear† (Benjamin, 2003).   Once this occurs, the public will be at the mercy of the media companies. Sadly, this type of concentrated system simply feeds on itself.   It does not provide any means for competition or even dissenting viewpoints.   The public broadcasters or independent companies cannot compete for the advertising dollar or even afford the technology that the larger companies can; they are effectively edged out of the market, if they even have a foothold at all.   The politicians, through the support of the media, even affect the policies and laws that people have to live by.   This situation is not amenable for the viewing and reading public.