Jason Paul Grant

Media Ownership

The private ownership of the media has always been around throughout history. However, Britain has been very fortunate in terms of media expectations as through the British Broadcasting Corporation, the concept of public service broadcasting has tended to shape the media output in this country. Market driven media used to only be found in newspapers until the early 50’s when broadcasting became commercial, however they still had a remit of producing programmes in the public interest.

Y. Zhao describes how market driven media can actually improve the value of the service, the flexibility of topics and the competence of the contributers. Furthermore, market driven media can provide alternative views from the state owned services who tend to rely on experts, such as ministers, judges, clergymen and executives. They allow different voices into the argument which help to produce a more rounded point of view. The commercialization of the media has enabled the development of an extensive network which has made certain parts much more interactive to readers and viewers. Lastly, it has helped to change the elitism of media professionals and created new general awareness.

http://gipscorp.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/media-moguls-1200X849.jpg

The major opposition to this notion of market driven media is the age old concept of public service producing for the interests of the public. The mass media are expected to maintain a high standard of production which should be carried out properly. D. McQuail adds to this idea stating that the media services should function according to similar values which are used throughout society. Particular in terms of what is right, impartial and independent to outside influences and ensures that required social and cultural values are adhered to. The media are expected not to create problems or extreme offence which would clearly not be in the public interest. One of the concerning problems with this notion of public interest is who actually decides what is in the interest of the public. Society is made up of various different nations with numerous customs and values, so what one nation deems as interesting is not likely to be viewed fascinating by another. Thus the task of the media essentially trying to please everyone is near on impossible.

Many market enthusiasts have highlighted that problem and provide a solution which keeps them in a favourable position. D. Croteau and W. Hoyes suggest how the term public interest should actually be turned around into what interests the public. This enables the public to choose what is in their best interest without being spoken down to or manipulated into thinking that they have to buy into an ideology. The market media love this idea as they can argue that the media outputs that are popular, really do serve the public interest. The concerning point in regards to this view is that the market model seems to dismiss the wider cultural and political significance that the media should have. As even though reality television shows are extremely popular, they do not seem to be adding culturally or politically to the understanding of British values.

Essentially the media in a democratic society should be free from the constrains of having to make a profit. Also diverse in ownership to ensure that one view point is not always carried as when one particular voice happens to be too powerful social equality is ruined. Similarly G. Doyle furthers this point by discussing how the media should have many voices with various opinions which enable the public to be properly informed around important topics. This process helps to challenge opinions and can start up healthy political debate which in turn can influence the policy makers. It creates an arena for dissent which a democracy must have to ensure there is a balance. Also public service media assist in the cultural formation of the nation as well as helping to define identity and purpose.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20061112/edit1.jpg

The major problem found with public service broadcasting is the assumption that everyone wants to be involved in a political debate. Some find public service ideas to be very elitist and completely denying the common ideologies of the nation. D. McQuail further adds to this idea by stating that public interest, to some people means opera and intellectual discussions which are only intended for specific groups. When the media output is based around narrow offerings, that does not constitute to a public service. Again the recurring problem is does public service media provide the best interest for the public or does market driven media owned by private media moguls actually provide a better service to the public. J.Curran and J. Seaton discuss how commercial media describe how their approach actually gives the consumers the power. They regard the audiences to know what is best for them, not people prescribing them with specific programming. Market media give the people what they want by providing an extensive range of content which is completely  independent from government control. Essentially, the market gives power to the consumer which creates freedom and makes the whole process very efficient.

It may seem that the private ownership of the media actually creates a free and diverse media system which has no flaws at all. The main way in which market driven media can not ever really be in the public interest is the primary purpose of the market is to make money. The more capital made the better, even at the cost of decency or constuctive content. Media owners fundamentally want a monopoly of all different types of media which create maximum profits and drive down manufacting costs. L. Bogart uses Marxist theory to describe the intentions of private ownership

“Commercial culture perpetuates the existing social and economic structure, by making its principles the dominant and unquestioned ideology, suppressing any indications of its shortcomings and impermanence, and lulling the masses of the population into a mindless acceptance of the status quo.”

The way in which private owned media achieve this is by monopolising everything, most media companies own interests in more than one area. There are some media companies which own companies in every area of media production and most are linked to the advertising companies, banks and investment companies around the world. The media has become one of the biggest businesses to invest in and media moguls need to ensure that profits continue to rise. So even when it seems that there is more choice available, most of the content is formulised into the expected standard and as long as it is profitable, that is all that matters.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/7/10/1247182710231/10.07.09-Steve-Bell-on-th-001.jpg

One example of media ownership using the power of print newspapers for their own purposes was when Rupert Murdoch helped Margaret Thatcher into parliament in 1979. B.H. Bagdikian states how newspapers have always been a commercial business which has created numerous amounts of problems. The way in which media owners manipulate news and public information is completely scandalous, in order to further their own interests at the expense of the public. Normally to achieve more financial rewards or political power. He goes on to discuss how Murdoch used the Times newspaper to criticize and condemn liberal notions while displaying conservative values as the answer. Not only did Murdoch guarantee Thatcher’s victory, he also managed to gain a knighthood for himself as well. It was also Murdoch who switched sides in the early 90’s to enable Tony Blair to win a landslide election in 1997. Media power can be used to gain tangible results which affect the public interest.

Another example of a media owner using the power of the media to pursue their own interests is Silvio Berlusconi. G. Williams describes how Berlusconi systematically effected the 1994 Italian elections with his media position. By using his three television stations which had a 40% national audience share and other media interests to pump out messages in favour of his political party that was created out of no where. The Italians went to the polling stations and voted in Forza Italia thinking that they were making the right choice when it was really down to the one sided information that they were presented with. Instead of being given balanced arguments from both sides of the political spectrum, the public were led to believe that there was only one party involved. It seems that the private ownership of the media directly prevents it from serving the public interest as the interests of the owners are the main priority.

http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Newspapers_789_18285450_0_0_1247_300.jpg

The media on a whole have become much more profit and market driven since the media became corporatized. D. Demers argues that there are two reasons why the media have become more greedy, only interested in profits and not even considering the public interest. The first is the market power, where companies can take out the competition, control what is being advertised and the costs of the services provided. The second is public owned companies which have a purpose of making money for the stockholders and ensuring that the stock does not loose its value. With these two arguments, it is clear that the private ownership of the media has to many different functions to attend to before they can consider the public interest, which always seems to be placed at the bottom. A major example of this process in action is with News Corporation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is the 6^th largest company in the world. D. Demers continues by saying the tabloids which are owned by the corporation insist on making profits before quality of output and information. The New York Post is known for it’s sensationalization of news stories, producing content that is meant to shock the public instead of relaying the truth. Even Fox Television Network is infamous in it’s coverage of the ‘War on Terrorism’, highlighting what it thinks the public should know and creating more problems then is needed.

The private ownership of the media consists of these attributes which D. Croteau and W. Hoyes interpretated as being private companies who sell products in order to generate profits for owners and stockholders. Audiences are viewed as consumers who are encouraged to enjoy themselves, view the advertisments and buy the products. Whatever is popular at the time is in the public interest. Innovation is seen as a threat to profit making ways and diversity is viewed as a unique way to reach more consumers. Ultimately the companies are only really accountable to the owners and shareholders with success being measured in profits.

In conclusion, this essay has highlighted the main arguments for and against the private ownership of the media. By taking a critical look into exactly what the private ownership of the media entails in order to discuss the consequences of that system. Moreover demonstrating how the public interest can only be considered when looking at public service media models who have an agenda to serve the public. Finally media owners actually dominate the market with their large varied media business interests that are controlled by wealthy individuals. E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky describe how media owners companies are accountable to the market in order to make more profit. They also have close ties to other large companies in other industries, banks and the government. Thus resulting in the public interest being serverly affected by the private ownership of the media.