Ted Turner Threats To Democracy

A liberal is a person that believes that the government should provide equality for all, while a conservative is a person that believes in limited government and that the government should provide the necessary freedom for people to pursue their own goals. Over time, it has been argued, mostly by conservatives, that there is a liberal bias in the media. Liberals have combated this idea with the belief that conservative media is devoted to making efforts to invoke fear and division in the general public. Though liberals make a fine counter-argument, it is easier to observe that the media is liberal-biased. The liberal versus conservative debate can be compared to facts versus values. Another reason for bias within the media is that a significant percentage of minorities, or smaller groups within the population that are often thought to be poorer, politically identify themselves as liberals. To make these minorities feel like the government is on their side as well as everyone else’s, the media must accommodate the needs of these minorities. Because of this, the media becomes liberal-biased.

The public can now have a say in what they see, and this differs from ‘old guard newsrooms.’ Liquid journalism is intertwined, being a very fluctuating version. Generalizations do not seem to be the same words one would associate a journalist with. TV was free, but now people pay for in time and money. They are constantly looking for profit centers. Antitrust rulings keep companies from owning too much, and the companies are no longer stopped from syndicating by fin-syn. Buying smaller channels is a way for bigger companies to make money, too. CBS and NBC were the first two major companies for broadcasting. The FCC limits the sizes of conglomerates, questioned by the NRA. Critics argue that owning so much of each media type (radio, tv, newspaper) decreases competition of

The media industry in the United States of America (US) is one such industry. As a powerful communication tool, the media has attracted many companies but only a handful has grown big. These media giants have dominated the local market and are currently seeking to conquer the global media industry in search of better profits.

The five major conglomerates that control the US media are Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs’ News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). They dominate most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, movie studios, and much of the internet news content of the US. After the Second World War, three out of four of US newspapers were individually owned. The media-control has reduced ever since due to mergers, acquisitions, and other processes. By the year 1983, about 50 corporations controlled 90 percent of US media. Contrary to this, today five conglomerates control 90 percent of what most Americans read, watch, and listen to.

News organizations that report on stories in a fair, balanced and ethical manner are essential to the functionality of this nation. A citizen’s ability to make well-informed decisions hinges on a news organization’s ability to relay the most accurate information regarding the state of the nation, the changing condition of communities, and adjustments in the government. Journalism is no longer a one-sided conversation. Journalism is an interactive process that allows for readers and viewers to create a dialogue with journalists by utilizing mediums such as social networking sites and comment sections. Audiences have a say in what stories get reported and how news stories are presented to the masses. When news organizations fail to cover all

In 1983, ninety percent of American media was owned by fifty companies (Lutz). Fifty may seem like a small number of media outlets to control what an entire country listens to on the radio, watches on television, and reads in the paper. However the reality of modern day media is that media has never been more consolidated. In 2011, that same ninety percent of media was owned by a mere six companies (Lutz). Granted, benefits can arise when companies become very large (Concession), but from a business standpoint, oligopolies and monopolies are not desireable. These six companies dictate what nearly every American citizen must perceive. The influence that these companies have on the 277 million Americans that they control makes one question whether their thoughts are truly their own. “Having a few huge corporations control our outlets of expression could lead to less aggressive news coverage and a more muted marketplace of ideas (Media Conglomerates).” This disturbing reality goes unnoticed, and by breaking up the oversized media outlets people will return to gathering their ideas from a variety of sources and companies with many different

Today’s media is far too consolidated. In 1983, fifty companies owned 90% of the media, but in 2011, that same 90% was owned by just 5 (1). This is why I propose that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lower the limit on the amount of market share that an organization can own; moving us closer to an ‘ideal democracy’. I also add the stipulation that if media was struggling to find a foot hold in the market, the FCC could grant all media outlets non-profit status; however, this stipulation is simply a clause in case breaking up outlets had unintended consequences and this will not be explored through this paper.

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

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?

Bias from major news corporations skews representations of highly contentious issues to make salient political statements.

"There is a common understanding that a strong connection exists between mass communication and democracy" (O'Neil, 1999, p. 1). The connection is that for a democracy to function there must be open access to information. Without the existence of alternative viewpoints people would not be able to make informed decisions, therefore, it couldn't be considered a real democracy. In America we are given the right to freedom of the press, which is supposed to insure that we will have access to several viewpoints. In a society where capitalism and corporations

The word conglomeration is defined as the formation of a large company by the merging of separate and diverse small firms. Media conglomerate is a large company or corporation formed by merging of different small media outlets such as TV, radio, newspapers, and internet. Big companies tend to buy out other smaller companies in the market to increase their revenue by increasing their viewership, and to control the smaller companies’ resources. This creates media oligopoly by which few firms dominate the market. This media conglomeration is threatening democracy because of its negative impact on audiences. Those

There are implications regarding production and distribution of media content to a public audience. “In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can’t compete by imitating the big guys–they have to in- novate, so they’re less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It’s called capitalism” (Ted Turner). “Today, the only way for media companies to survive is to own everything up and down the media chain” (Ted Turner). I believe that conglomerates thrive better when they aren’t in the hands of many, because the idea of the company can get changed into something it was not intended to be. With more people in the ownership, ideas can flow and possibly broaden the company, but I feel that too many people are unnecessary. In the sense of large companies, many advisors may be needed. “The

Consequently, the political sphere is now being colonised by the media, and politics has begun re-orientating itself to satisfy the logic of media organisations (Meyer, 2002, p. 71). Therefore, the media are active participants in the policymaking process and the ability to stimulate change or maintain the status quo depends on their choice of subject or policy issue and how they frame it. Active investigative reporting attempts to shape policy outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that it always represents the most successful approach for gaining policy changes (Spitzer, 1993, p. 7). In fact, sometimes passive, straight reporting can have a greater influence on policy choices. When this occurs, media independence is largely bypassed, as the news generated depends solely on the information released (as public relations material) from legitimate news sources. For example, in the United States, White House staff routinely make ‘leaks’ - expressively to influence policy decisions (Davis, 1992, p. 143; Robinson, 2001, p. 948). Robinson noted that journalists regard “leaks… as indispensable to their work” and that they are aware of their use by officials in return for scoops (2001, p. 949).