 "Photo: Gonzaga University")
 "Photo: Gonzaga University")
Does media consolidation threaten the nature of news?
Robert: The news as we have come to know it has always had as its business a variety of things; relaying information to readers and viewers and providing commentary and opinion on that news have been the primary elements of the news. It is the conglomerates, that is, the big players that continually provide the best news, both in fact and in opinion.
Media conglomerations are powerful, and they hold big business and big government accountable in a way that private individuals nor small independent reporters cannot. As an exercise, call the office of Alberto Gonzalez asking for an interview on behalf of the Gonzaga Bulletin, then call posing as a reporter from the Wall Street Journal. Compare responses.
Larger news firms can afford to release condemning investigative reports at the expense of losing advertisers, as their limited ad spots are in such high demand. Local independents, on the other hand, rely heavily on every single advertiser, cautioning them against any missteps. Media conglomerates can afford to get opinions and commentary from the experts, while independents have anybody and everybody comment on contemporary issues.
National news services have much faster access to news, reporters worldwide, and national lines of communication, while a local independent might take a week to get its report on something current to print. In short, big media conglomerates make news work. The media market is hardly consolidated, though and rather balanced by big corporations, smaller national publications, and local independent work. It is only in a market unhindered by government intervention that these companies can exist together in balance.
Mark: Five corporations own the vast majority of our media (Viacom, News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, General Electric in the U.S.). As a result, the mainstream news is presented through a narrow lens with little diversity, skepticism or alternate perspectives.
We've entrusted our media to the "invisible hand" of an unregulated marketplace and suffered dearly. The federal government and the media are enjoying an intimate relationship, supporting one another via relaxed policies and generous pro-government "news," respectively. In turn, the public is alienated from their own culture, armed only with a streamlined, easy-to-swallow news tablet.
Corporate interest takes precedence over public interest in our current media system. A recent Pew Research Center/Columbia Journalism Review survey suggests that nearly half (41 percent) of local and national journalists have neglected or diluted the tone of their stories to comply with the interests of their news organizations. Are we getting the news as it is, or the news according to corporate America?
The expansive freedoms awarded to the media were designed to create a firewall between government and the citizenry. Journalists, by duty, are not only to cover federal policy, but to analyze it as well. Without watchdogs, the public is socially ignorant, and democracy crumbles.
The Big Five offer an illusion of variety by providing multiple channels and programs. The only real difference between the major news stations (save Fox and its lunacy) is the channel they occupy on your television set.
Is there equal access in the media? Is it democratic?
Robert: One of the most remarkable parts of broadcast radio and television is that a receiver is open to signals from any source. While your TV antenna picks up ABC and CBS signals from giant satellites, it also will pick up any pirate station that someone decides to broadcast from a homemade transmitter. Furthermore, viewers choose exactly what they would like to watch, and are not forced to view anything.
The broadcast media, not to mention the print media, has the possibility to be the freest, most democratic institution in America. The only reason it currently is not is due to an overbearing government clamp on all broadcast signals. Most radio stations today have more paperwork in their offices regarding government regulations than they have manuals written about their transmitting equipment. New stations are rare not because of overbearing competition or conglomerates too big to allow new growth, but rather due to a government that refuses to grant use of airwave frequencies.
Presently, access is not equal in broadcasting. This is not because of anything inherently wrong in the business of media distribution, but rather due to overbearing government intervention.
Mark: Thanks to recent technological advances like the Internet and pod casting, the door to media access is ajar. Access to the mainstream media, however, where most Americans consume their daily information, is quite prohibitive.
Campaigning in America exemplifies the lack of accessibility in the media. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the broadcast industry has spent $222 million lobbying the U.S. government from 1998 to 2004. Money buys favorable candidates and legislation, and the biggest media outlets have the most money. It is a vicious cycle accessible only to a select few.
Instead of combating closed-door media policy, the government is supporting it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to make it easier for the giant broadcasters to renew their licenses with little to no public review and enact legislation that allows these corporations to consume more and more of the American audience, thereby eliminating independent news organizations.
We must work to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which emphasizes the importance of local broadcasting. In order to do so, smaller broadcasters must be allotted some of the airwaves.
Are we getting both sides of the issues?
Robert: The biggest fear from a media market that is treated like a business is that the industry might consolidate into one company and distribute a homogenous opinion. This fear is unfounded, as we do not find it to be the case in our present media market, nor in any system we might theorize.
Be the first to comment on this article!