Trends in the ownership and control of the media PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes exploring ownership and control of the media...

Description

Trends in the ownership and control of the media

The mass media are defined as those agencies of communication that transmit information, education, news and entertainment to mass audiences. There are 3 types of media: the print media, the audio-visual media and the cybermedia/digital media (new types of media)

Ownership and control: Some sociologists have expressed concern about the recent trends in media ownership & control. The number of media outlets available to the general public has increased dramatically, 30 years ago there were only 4 television channels whereas today we have hundreds of TV channels via digital & satellite services(for example, Sky/Virgin). Regarding newspapers, the number of newspapers has remained fairly stable over the last 30 years. All these changes in the availability of media seem to imply a greater degree of choice, but sociologists who have examined recent trends in the ownership of such media suggest that despite this expansion, consumer choice has actually declined.

Concentration of ownership: Bagdikian points out that in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the USA. By 1992, 22 companies owned and operated 90% of the mass media. Bagdikian argues that if the USA’s media were owned by separate individuals, there would be 25000 owners, but by 2004 media ownership was concentrated in 7 corporations. Many of these companies started to move into cybermedia.

The British print media: Curran suggests that concentration of ownership of British newspapers is not a new phenomenon. 1937 – 4 men: Lords Beaverbook, Rothermere, Camrose ad Northcliffe owned nearly one in every 2 national & local daily newspapers in the UK Today – 7 individuals dominate the ownership and content of UK newspapers (News Corp – Rupert Murdoch, Associated Newspapers – Lord Rothermere, United Newspapers – Richard Desmond, The Telegraph group – Barclay Brothers, The

Independent/Independent on Sunday – Tony O’Reilly, Viscount Cowdray – Pearson group) Only 2 national newspaper groups are controlled by companies rather than individuals (Trinity Mirror and The Guardian Media Group) By 2002 just 3 publishers controlled two-thirds of national newspapers sold in the UK. The top five publishers also controlled 69% of regional evening papers and 75% of free sheets such as Metro. The UK magazine market is dominated by 2 major companies. IPC produces 80 magazines – owned by Time Warner. The other one, Bauer Publishing Group, published 80 magazines in 2008.

The broadcasting media: The content of commercial terrestrial TV is controlled mainly by one company, ITV plc. This company currently owns 11 or 15 regional commercial TV franchises. Access to satellite, cable and digital TV in the UK is generally controlled by two companies – News Corp and Virgin Media. The British music industry is owned and controlled by 6 companies, while only one of these, EMI is British. The UK media industry is therefore dominated by 13 companies. 10 of these are controlled and owned by wealthy and powerful individuals rather than shareholders and a considerable part of the media industry is owned and controlled by global corporations.

Horizontal integration: Known as cross-media ownership – the bigger media companies often own a diverse range of media. For example News Corp, in addition to newspapers they own a publishing company as well as US interests like 20 th Century Fox/Fox TV.

Vertical integration: Some media companies are increasingly trying to control all aspects of their industry in order to maximize their profits. For example, Time Warner makes its own films and distributes them to its own cinema complexes. They are further distributed to the satellite media channels to show them.

Diversification:

‘Lateral expansion’ Firms diversify into new businesses areas in order to spread risk. Losses made in one area may be compensated for by profits in another. Virgin is an example of this, it has major media interests in music, publishing, internet access and so on. It also runs a train service as well as an airline.

Global conglomeration: Transnational corporations with a presence in many countries, operating in a global market. For example, News Corp owns newspapers in Australia, the US and the UK.

Synergy: Media companies are using their different interests to package their products in several different ways. For example, Spiderman 2 was not only a movie but also a game and a soundtrack album.

Technological convergence: The trend of putting several technologies into one media product – for example the iPhone.

The pluralist theory of media ownership: From a pluralist viewpoint, modern capitalist societies are democratic with all interest groups given a platform to express their views to the electorate, and the most persuasive arguments will result in their representatives being voted into power. The mass media are seen to be an essential component of this democratic ideal because most people obtain their knowledge about politics from newspapers and TV. Pluralists argue that the media owners are objective, responsible and impartial facilitators of this political process.

The economics of media ownership: Pluralists point out that the behaviour of media owners is constrained by the market, media owners competing against each other in order to attract people to their product. The audience/ readers have the power placed in their hands, because they choose whether or not they want to buy/view a product. According to the pluralists, power lies with the consumer or audience rather than with

owners. The media therefore, give the public what the audience wants rather than what the owner decides. Pluralists argue that the rational for media concentration is essentially economic rather than political/ideological. Media products are costly to produce and the concentration of ownership is aimed at the maximisation of audience size in order to reduce costs and attract advertising revenue. The globalisation of the media and the conglomerates has resulted from this and are attempts at finding new audiences in order to increase profits, rather than cultural imperialism. Vertical & horizontal integration, like synergy, reduce costs because media companies no longer have to contract services out of other media companies. Profits are also enhanced because they are no longer subjected to the fluctuating prices charged by other companies. Pluralists argue that it is practically impossible for owners to interfere in the content of newspapers and TV programmes because their businesses are economically far too complex for them to take a regular interest in the content of programmes/newspapers. Whale argues that media owners have global problems of trade and investment to occupy their minds; therefore they do not have time to think about the day to day detailed running of their media businesses.

Media diversity: Pluralists argue that the range of media products available is extremely diverse and because of this all points of view in a democratic society are catered for. If some viewpoints have a greater range of media representing them, it is because the audience sees them as more important.

Public service broadcasting: Pluralists point out that a significant share of the media market in the UK is taken up by PSB (media outlets controlled by the state which are impartial). The BBC is an example of PSB, it has a legal obligation to provide specific services – to inform, educate, and entertain the full audience spectrum. Pluralists see PSB as the epitome of impartial and objective media and a counterweight to any potential bias in the private sector.

State controls:

Pluralists note that the power of media owners is also restricted by state/government controls. Many countries have cross-ownership rules preventing companies from owning more than one media form in the same area. Both the BBC and ITV have some formal legal requirements imposed upon them by a powerful regulator – Ofcom. Ofcom’s function is to monitor the content and quality of television and radio output on both the BBC and the commercial channels, and to investigate viewer/listener complaints. Pluralists argue that this combination of audience and regulator prevents media owners imposing biased content upon the general public.

Media professionalism: Pluralists stress the professionalism of journalists and editors, stating that editors would never allow owners to compromise their independence. They state that the media have a strong tradition of investigative journalism which often targets those in power.

Media audiences: Pluralists also suggest that audiences do not passively accept what is being given to them. Audiences are selective and often critical of media content. The audiences are very diverse and interpret and use the media in different ways.

The Marxist critique of media ownership and control: Marxists argue that the economic system of the UK is deeply unfair because it generally benefits a minority (capitalist class) at the expense of the majority. They believe that inequalities in wealth and income are the direct result of the way capitalism is organized. The wealth of the capitalist class is obtained by exploiting the labour power of the working class.

The role of ideology: Marxists suggest that the capitalist class uses ideology to make sure that the working class accept capitalism and do not threaten its stability. The capitalist class uses its cultural power to dominate institutions such as the education system, religion and mass media. The role of these agencies is to transmit rulingclass ideology by persuading the majority that the capitalist society is meritocratic. Working-class people experience false class-consciousness, in which they come to believe that capitalism is a fair system which benefits us all equally. They fail

to see the reality of their situation, that they are being exploited by a system that benefits only a powerful minority.

The media and ideology: Marxists believe that media owners aim to transmit a conservative and conformist ideology in the form of news and entertainment. The main function of the media is to convince the general public that ruling-class ideology is true. Miliband argued that the role of the media is to shape how we think about the world we live in. Marxists argue that owners ensure that we only get a narrow range of approved views and knowledge, with the result that alternative critical points of view are rarely heard. Marxists state that the media is happy to transmit ruling-class ideology through television and newspapers because media owners are part of the ruling capitalist class and have vested interest in it not being criticized or dismantled. Tunstall and Palmer argue that the governments are no longer interested in controlling the activities of media owners, rather regulatory favours are the norm. Newspapers owned by a conglomerate will directly support a government and even withhold information from the general public.

Evidence for the ideological nature of ownership and control: There is evidence for the Marxist account that implies that media owners and the political elite are united in some sort of ideological conspiracy to brainwash the population. In Italy it has been demonstrated that Silvio Berlusconi’s control of 3 TV stations was instrumental in his party winning the general election in 1994 and him becoming a Prime Minister. Curran’s detailed systematic examination of the British press suggests that the evidence for owner interference in and manipulation of UK newspaper content is strong. He used 4 distinct periods to explain this.

1920 – 1950 Determined by the rise of press barons; proprietorial control was a norm in this period. Lord Beaverbroook and Northcliffe exercised detailed control over their favourite newspapers in terms of both content and layout.

1950 – 1974 Period seen as the great pluralist phrase in terms of newspaper reporting because there was a greater delegation by owners to editorial authority and autonomy. It was a period of investigative reporting. Group consensus emerged among journalists and editors that proprietorial influence should be resisted. This did not mean that interventionism by the owners disappeared; most of the newspapers still supported a particular party. 1974 – 1992 New type of interventionist proprietorship appeared. An example used for this is Murdoch, who was oriented towards what sold rather than what furthered a party interest/ideological viewpoint. Murdoch shifted his newspapers to the right because he believed that right-wing economic policies were the key to making vast profits. He interfered in the production of his newspapers and this produced both overt and covert forms of censorship. Other proprietors followed his example, such as Lord Matthews. 1997 – present day Media ownership in the past ten years has been based on ‘global conservatism’ as British newspaper groups have moved into the global marketplace. Curran notes that the last ten years have seen even greater intervention because owners have undermined newspaper independence and balance in subtle ways by choosing the editors that they want and getting rid of those editors that ‘fail’. There are signs that the general public are well aware that these processes are undermining the pluralist view that journalists are first and foremost objective seekers of truth. Curran’s analysis believes the Marxist notion that there is a deliberate capitalist conspiracy to subvert working-class consciousness. He also suggests that media owners are primarily motivated by economics rather than capitalist ideology. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the actions of media owners produce media content which in the long term benefits capitalism. Curran’s analysis fits with the analysis of the GUMG which takes a hegemonic approach to media ownership and control.

The Glasgow University Media Group: Suggests that media content does support the interests of those who run the capitalist system but this is an accidental byproduct of the social backgrounds of journalists and broadcasters.

The GUMG claims that these journalists and broadcasters tend to believe in consensus views and ideas, which are generally unthreatening and which, they believe, appeal to the majority of their viewers, listeners and readers. Journalists tend to see anyone who believes in ideas outside this media consensus as ‘extremist’ and consequently these people are rarely invited to contribute their opinion in newspapers or on TV.

Economic pressures: GUMG argues that this journalistic desire not to take on radical views is mainly motivated by profit. The media is a profit making business and they make their profits by attracting advertising, and those advertisers are attracted to a specific type of media by the number of readers/viewers. Curran agrees with GUMG and argues that journalists are now only a moderating influence. Their objectivity and impartiality has been undermined by the way the labour market has changed in the UK over the past 10 years. Compliancy with the ethos of the owner is therefore more likely to secure a journalist a permanent position as the media employers take on staff on temporary contracts.

Agenda setting: The media decide what issues should be discussed by society and which ones should be avoided. The media present us with a fairly narrow agenda for discussion. In this way, ordinary members of the public never really question the workings of capitalist society. The GUMG argues that we do not get presented with the really important information that would help ordinary members of society make real choices about how society should be run. This agenda setting results in cultural hegemony.

The fallacy of choice: A number of commentators have suggested that the BBC is increasingly abandoning its PSB aims because it is losing its audience to commercial and satellite TV. The BBC has become more commercialized and populist in its programming in an attempt to hang on to its audience. Some pluralists argue that this is not a problem because PSB and ITV have had to offer more choices to their audiences in order to compete with Sky and Virgin. Critics such as Barnett and Weymour have argued that the quality of television has been undermined by these commercial pressures. The main aim of all television companies is to achieve the largest possible audience. They argue that such decisions had a hegemonic cultural effect in the sense that education, information and news have been increasingly sidelined. They compared TV schedules in 1978, 1988 and 1998 and argued that the evidence suggests that

TV in the UK has been significantly dumbed down. They further noted that even the BBC is succumbing to these commercial pressures. They conclude that despite hundreds of TV channels, we do not have more choice, just more of the same thing. Curran notes the same pressures in the popular press as the rising costs of newsprint in the 1990s led to a major decrease in serious and political news stories and a corresponding increase in stories with lowest-common-denominator appeal. This led to a fall in journalistic standards. There is little choice for audiences in the printed media. There is no radical alternative to the mainstream newspapers, and the press has failed to reflect the growing diversity of public opinion on issues.

Conclusion: Pluralist theories of media ownership and concentration seem increasingly out of touch with the modern global world. This theory has failed to acknowledge that journalistic or editorial integrity no longer has a great deal of influence in the global marketplace. On the other hand, Marxists are guilty of oversimplifying the relationship of owners both within the media world and with the political elite. Marxist conclusions about the ideological motives of media owners can also be questioned, but the GUMG is right to stress that the way media is organised and journalists are recruited has resulted in cultural hegemony of capitalist values and ways of seeing the world....