Clear Channel and the Cultural and Socio-Political Ramifications of Media Consolidation
I.INTRODUCTION
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act thereby lifting restrictions on media ownership that had been in place for over sixty years (Moyers 2003; Bagdikian 2000: xviii). It was now possible for a single media company to own not just two radio stations in any given local market, but eight. On the national level, there was no longer any limit on the number of stations a company could own – the Act abandoned the previous nation-wide ownership cap of forty stations (20 FM and 20 AM). This “anti-regulatory sentiment in government” has continued and in 2004 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule that
…show more content…
2004: 3; Chen 2003).
While the phenomenon of rampant media consolidation made possible by the government’s deregulatory practices has been greeted with general enthusiasm by the corporate world, it has left others in society gravely concerned. Media critics and cultural studies observers have voiced concerns over the negative consequences they believe accompany the phenomenon. They see the erosion of the idea that radio is to serve the public interest; they see a stifling of diversity and less choice for the consumer; and they see a threat to American democracy in the form of a possibly insurmountable corporate media hegemony. And for many, Clear Channel is “the ‘poster child’ for what’s wrong with media deregulation” (Cornell Univ. 2004: 66).
Unfortunately however, a February 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center found that “72 percent of the public has heard nothing about the media ownership [and consolidation] debate” (Connell 2004). Understanding how corporate mergers and consolidation affect the way in which the media function (especially in the realms of production and distribution) and how the media in turn directly impacts our society, our culture, our economy, and our politics – in short, our entire lives – is a necessary
As techno capitalism moves into a dazzling and seductive information/entertainment society, mergers between the media giants are proliferating, competition is
Media corporations have been merging into fewer (and larger) entities which are better able to control the flow of information to the public. Because of their size and power, they can prevent unfavorable coverage of their activities in the media outlets they own. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. In 1992, fewer than two dozen of these corporations owned and operated 90% of the mass media; controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. Now only 5 huge corporations - Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) - now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. Democracy can't exist without an informed public. We rely on unbiased news from independent
In the past twenty years, the United States media has transformed from a broadcasting to a narrowcasting media. Each method has its unique differences, with one being the amount of bias from each source. Narrowcasting specifically, can greatly affect the media’s ability to influence public opinion.
America holds the illusion of ‘land of the free and home of the brave.’ This by any means, is not true if we continue to classify big media corporations as free press. Big corporations like Fox news, CNN, Union Tribune, etc. are also referred to as mainstream media and are completely under the control of the elite 1%. Time and again mainstream media has proved as unrepresentative, only serving the ones who pay them. In a nation where democracy is valued, people rely heavily on news sources to gather information, therefore, they need sources who can provide uncensored information that enables them to make knowledgeable decisions about their government.
This article is about the threat of merger and the influence of a monopolistic media. The
Baum, I 2003, The impact of ownership concentration in the media business on the quality of information delivered to the consumer, viewed on 15 October 2004, , pp. 15 & 17.
If Canada wants to protect their national identity, they must all embrace each other’s cultures, instead of creating multiple broadcasts that preach one view or culture. Without state governed media, the dominance of US products in Canada would diminish its identity as a nation, fail to serve the public interest and create less profits causing more advertising and less content in the media. Government regulated media proves to be more favourable and beneficial than policies based off of self-regulated solutions when addressing Canada’s media industries and cultural
The FCC has been monitoring large radio stations throughout the country for a long time now. This organization is a seven part group which is all run by Frank R. McNinch, who used to be the chief of the Federal Power Commission (Rockwell 217). This organization is primarily a licensing and monitoring assembly, which has technical regulatory powers. The licenses they give out are only valid for a period of time, and then must be renewed. These licenses decide the power and coverage the station has to broadcast on (Rockwell 218). These guidelines are very strictly enforced by the FCC because of how the public has reacted to some of the situations that have occurred. The FCC has also created criteria which has a “public mandate” that they are instituting into
U.S. adults spend, on average, over 10 hours everyday consuming media. Media is everywhere around us, whether it is the internet, television, newspapers, or even the ads that you see outside everyday. Americans are surrounded by media and it is practically impossible to avoid media for the average American. For the most part, we look towards media to make sense of the senseless, and to show us what the difference is between the lies and the truth. Many Americans feel as if the media would never skew from the complete and utter truth. But, that is a false assumption, the media, like everyone else has an opinion on topics and many times they use their great voices to make the consumers develop the same opinion.
In the early days, the radio industry was in chaos due to poor regulations and uncontrolled rapid growth. The Radio Act of 1912 was an unsuccessful attempt at regulation because it didn’t allow the government to deny radio broadcasting licenses [1]. In fact, the law did not even mention radio broadcasting since radio was not common when the law was made. Even though the law required that radio operators to be licensed, it did not allow the denial of radio licenses. Over the span of 21
On behalf of the United States, the agency operates interstate and international communications. Also the commission specifies the framework within which each of the wireless technology operates in and whether that particular technology is licensed or unlicensed. In the year 1948, FCC stopped granting new licenses for television stations, on account of the increasing numbers of the stations. Also the act strengthened healthy competition among various communication carriers making a good marketplace for the carriers. The most recent concept of "net neutrality" from FCC that made possible the concept of "open
President Bill Clinton created the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote fair competition in the United States telecommunications market. President Clinton’s goal was to establish an open market so that any business can compete in the telecommunications field. Since the creation of the Telecommunications Act, there has been a bevy of radio and television mergers. One can safely say that with all the recent mergers, some companies have become monopolies in their respective fields. The Telecommunications Act primary focus is to help businesses compete against other businesses so that the consumer can reap the benefits of lower prices for services, a wider selection of services from different companies, more jobs, and a better
Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and
Until the 1980s, the control of the media was in the hands of the national government. From then, the control shifted to private outlets and by the 1990’s, there were more than fifty multinational companies who controlled it (“Mass Media”). Today, only about six major companies control the larger fraction of media in America (Williams, Par. 1). Norman Solomon wrote in the New Political Science Journal that most reporters and editors work for just a few huge companies. These journalists and editors are on the payroll for “mega-media institutions”, of which, only about six exist (Solomon 297). How much will the public learn if these companies generally control the output of information?
Postman (1987) claims that television is an evil that destroys the purpose and complexities of public discourse. He argues that important issues are oversimplified and drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) confirm this assumption by remarking the evolution of print and radio into television and television into new media. Establishing the similarities between Postman’s chief complaints about the television medium and the new media then rearing its ugly head. Chaffee and Metzger indicate the shift in the denotations of mass, media, and communication. With technological advancements, it is impossible to ignore the new media and its impact on modern culture.