Privatised Media Theories

It being the leading source of news since the printing press. We put our faith in the media to report accurate facts unbiasedly. Between 1983 and now the media industry has consolidated from 50 individual companies to 6. That means that though the impression given is that there are a multitude of sources to attain information, the messages being communicated are all one in the same. The limitation of media sources cause a ripple effect of limited information, allowing these companies to control the public’s perception on

Media sources in current culture are construed as important as they communicate the dominant ideology promoted by the bourgeois which the lower-class public should adhere to as the correct social norm (Kress, 1988). The medium which these ideologies are shown in are important, as different medium are used by different cultures. This essay will focus on comparing print with online media through analysing the Guardian and the Australian from August 31st. This will be done by looking at the types of news shown in each, the constraints and advantages of each medium, advertising, the concept of ownership, and the way the media convinces the public of their ideologies through hegemony.

The media shouldn’t be owned by corporations or viewership numbers. The television is a power platform that is broadcasted directly into the homes, and minds, of almost every American. It has the ability to come into people’s lives to

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

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

The media influences how people experience social life. Media such as newspaper, television and film, are important sources of information, education and entertainment. It can be used to learn more about the world and the people in it. In this regard it can be said that the media represent, interpret and endorse aspects of social experience (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2005). The media are also implicated in social regulation, or in other terms, the government of society. The media are implicated in government and politics in an obvious way because modern systems of democracy are conducted through the media. But the media have a bigger role to play in government by structuring how society is controlled and maintained.

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?

In order to make a free democracy, an individual needs a well-informed public. The citizens have the right to have access to all sides of the information presented and since the media broadcasts their information via publicly owned airwaves, they have the responsibility to serve the public interests and provide their citizens with this information. But media consolidation interferes with that aspect of democracy. With the deregulations that were placed by the Telecommunications act of 1996, all that the large corporations focus on is their profit margin. Although according to article Welcome to Havana written by media critic Robert McChesney, the author states that the term deregulation sounds like a benefit for the community because it means

The media regulation in the U.K. is more extensive compared to the U.S. Ofcom is an independent regulator and competition authority across television, radio etc. The PCC, also an independent body, deals with complaints from members of the public about editorial content of newspaper and magazines. The behavior of media is far more regulated in Britain compared to the U.S. In U.S. the views can complain about the content to individual media outlets but in Britain the complaints are published on various governmental website making it more visible. This means that the impact of government regulation is more evident in British media than in the American media.

Finally the public television is used as an example to describe the peculiarities of the media and the political economy of the media.

News Corporation accounted for six popular national newspapers in the UK. This level of ownership impacts the variety of ideas and values that can circulate. Concentration of media ownership threatens democracy in political journalism(Baker, 2007), leading to over-representation of political viewpoints, values that are favoured by media owners. There is a negative correlation between media domination and levels of pluralism which is needed in society, to sustain representation. The concentration of media ownership leads to less competing suppliers, thus leaving a gap in a democratic political system. Due to Rupert Murdoch’s large media empire, it has been said that he has wielded political power through his influence over headlines. It could be interpreted this way when considering the support given by News Corporation owned newspapers, to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and Tony Blair in 1997. The impact of Rupert Murdoch can also be shown

Rupert Murdoch and a Dramatic Change in the Television Industry Critically assess this statement with particular reference to commercial television channels. Rupert Murdoch owns one of the largest media organisations in the world, called News International. This is an organisation which owns products in all mediums.

Media plays a big role in society these days. Whether it be letting society know what is going on the in the world today or something as simple as updates on current life on social media. The media's role in society not only delivers information of the world but also brings people together through common interests or general talks. In Brian Knappenberger's documentary: Nobody Speak: Trials of Free Press it is seen how media effect lives and how there is a much stronger meaning to what media stands for in society and why media needs to take its stand when it comes to people who want to devour them.

In a paper done By (Nickesha Gordon 2007) of Barry University, she stated that “Presently, Jamaican media are privately owned. Privatization affects the content shown on television by reorienting its distribution from the public to the private sphere which results in increase non indigenous programming, causing local systems to be just distributors of Western programming.” Gordon emphasised, “that media privatization allows free flow based on the fact that a free market means no barriers against the flow of cultural products.” In a programme analysis, Gordon found