Here's our blog!
Your first post is due Saturday, April 3, 2010 (by midnight).
Your response is due Wednesday, April 7, 2010 (by midnight).
See lecture for assignment criteria.
Best,
dd
The recent uplift of the cross ownership ban by the FCC has raised eyebrows in the media world. The FCC now allows for a media company to own both a newspaper and television station in the same market. Discussions of this topic voice opinions and concerns regarding who will benefit directly from this and who will suffer. Discussions of this topic highlight the importance of opposing sides. In some articles, “Democratic” or “Republican” sides seem to be the main focus of the story while FCC uplift fades in the background.
A concern I found when reading articles about this topic is that journalists will often times emphasize the importance of a political party. For instance, the Associated Press business staff introduced certain political officials with the “Republic” or “Democratic” title. Does it really matter what political background they come from? It seems that journalists that write these articles are looking to create a biased response from the audience when they see “Republican” or “Democratic” in front of one’s name (Cleveland). Another article, goes into further discussion of the political parties when it states, “The decision comes as the current FCC, now under Democratic control, gears up for its next congressionally mandated review of its media ownership rules”(Seattle Times).
Is the battle of the bans really between the larger and smaller companies, those who will directly be affected, or between the political parties? In a recent article by the Seattle Times, the tension between the Republicans and Democrats on this issue is quite evident within the first couple paragraphs. One after another, the writer first introduces the role of the Republicans in this issue. “ That restriction remained in effect under a stay issued by the court in 2003…by two previous FCC chairmen, Republicans Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, to relax the rules” (Seattle Times). Following this statement, the Democrats power is shown as the writer says “ The decision comes as the current FCC, now under Democratic control, gears up for its next congressionally mandated review of its media-ownership rules”(Seattle Times).
As these parties continue to go back and forth of what to do about this ban, I think they should put aside their political differences to see how this will affect the larger and smaller companies in the media world. At large, these companies may allow for smaller companies to expand their markets. In our current economy, this might be beneficial in order to excel. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should focus on the nation at large rather than their differences.
Associated, Press. "Court Lifts Media Ownership Restrictions." Cleveland Ohio Business News 23 March 2010, Print.
Tessler, Joelle. “Court Lifts Ban on Media Ownership Restritions.” Seattle Press.
Cross-Ownership has always been a huge part of the media we experience today. The majority of media outlets are controlled by huge conglomerates that control magazines/newspapers, TV stations, radio, movies, and the list goes on and on. The majorities of these monopolies have been grandfathered in and have had ownership from the beginning of their time. I myself have never really paid attention to the idea of what company owned what, it was all media in some form to me. Not until my media studies began did I really start thinking about concepts like the cross-ownership ban and the idea that our journalism world can be swayed in regards to who owns what.
The recent court decision from the FCC, now under democratic rule, was reviewing the cross-ownership rules “ Yet the FCC has made no progress on that front and has instead punted the issue to the upcoming review of the media ownership rules. Tuesday's court decision allows Martin's relaxed rules on media ownership to take effect”(The Huffington Post). The lifting of the ban really doesn’t seem to make a huge difference seeing that the majority of conglomerates already have major control on every media outlet in the world. Another aspect of the recent court decision as it seems to be more politically based as a democratic rule takes place. Media and informing the public aims to have an unbiased appeal but the political views are always present.
It seems now that there will be absolutely no objectivity in the sense that political views and opinions in a network will be drawn out through every media outlet they own. How will audiences find unbiased information? Or will viewers just turn to the conglomerate who shares the same political views and opinions as they do? The lift on the ban will only allow growth for these already huge networks. Many find that this is a huge mistake by the FCC but will the majority of the world really even notice? People will always search for what they want to hear .
Tessler, Joelle. “Court Lifts Ban on Media Ownership Restritions.” Seattle Press.
Tessler, Joelle."Media Cross-Ownership Ban LIFTED." Huffington Post.
I personally believe that U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to lift the Federal Communications Commission's “cross-ownership” ban is unjust, and potentially harmful to the freedom of information. It allows for major news corporations to form media monopolies, because they can now own newspapers and television/radio shows in the same market simultaneously. This verdict may also pave the way for similar court decisions to be made, allowing for giant corporate mergers of other types. I'm not sure if many people fully comprehend the ramifications of such events. In this day and age money is power, and multi-billion dollar corporations already have way too much of that.
The corporate entities that are benefiting from this ruling are obviously very happy. “The 3rd Circuit finally recognized that unless it acted, the [FCC] had no incentive to ever look at the issue, period. We’re very happy they’ve finally given us the opportunity to move forward,” said Tribune Co. counsel Carter Phillips (Greene 1). This decision is undoubtedly a loss for those who believe in the freedom of information. If a corporation owns the newspapers as well as the television and radio shows in the same market, they have excessive control over the information that the public receives. In a country where many blindly place their trust in the information that major news sources deliver them, this could be catastrophic. A man named Gerald Massey once said, “They must find it difficult…Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” Without more prominent local news companies, the promotion of diversity of opinion will be greatly stifled.
Another thing that one must take into consideration is that because many of the news sites reporting on this court decision will be positively affected by it, they may attempt to downplay the it's significance. Examine how Joelle Tessler of the Associated Press concludes her article: “Still, John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America, said he does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market. Even the eased rules adopted under Martin come with some restrictions.” (Tessler 1) It really makes me wonder whose interests are being served here.
Sources
Greene, Jenna. “Court Lifts FCC Media Ownership Restrictions – At Least for Now.” The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes: ALM. The BLT, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
Tessler, Joelle. “Court lifts ban on media ownership restrictions.” The Associated Press. The Associated Press, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
Media Company Cross-Ownership: To Ban or not to Ban? On Tuesday, March 23, the US Court of Appeals Third Circuit has lifted the ban on newspapers and TV stations being in the same market. There are many debates within this issue, and that is why I believe that eliminating the ban was not a good decision. I think that it required more time. This post will discuss those debates and what I found important in this article. The first part that caught my attention is that this ban is lifted "temporarily."This restriction has been in effect since 2003. This makes readers wonder if/when it will be changed back. Democrats rule the Federal Communications Comission, but two Republican members took action to change this. I believe that the first conflict in this issue is between the Democrats and Republicans. I wonder why Democrats rule the FCC, and what would happen if Republicans did instead. Legal issues arose when former Republican member Michael Powell tried to eliminate the ban. The FCC had to review the rules when ordered by the court, but stalled because they were unsure. This made the court impatient. Companies have already been co-owning and this makes me wonder what would happen if the ban is reinforced. Another part that interested me was the Media Access Project's perspective on this. I thought that co-owning was a good idea, until I read that the people in this project think it'll lead to less diversity in the media. Diversity is highly important to me, and even though I didn't fully understand why it will reduce it, I wouldn't want it happening. The last debate is economical. A Republican member believes the rules were out of date, and he thinks lifting the ban will reduce economic upheavel. However, John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America believes that media companies won't buy papers and TV stations in one market. No author. "Court Lifts Bans on Media Ownership Restrictions. Los Angeles Times. 24 March 2010
There has been a ‘temporary’ five year uplift on media ownership, now allowing companies to own different forms of media in the same market. Companies already have extreme horizontal integration, for example Disney owns ESPN, ABC, The History Channel, etc. But this withdrawal of restrictions could allow many companies to become information monopolies. Not only controlling how the consumer gets the media, but it could lead to the information itself being skewed. The question everybody should be focused on isn’t ‘what’s the worst that could happen? Rather it should be ‘What will happen?’
If I hadn’t been told in my class about this recent event, odds are I would have never heard about it. It has received little, none to my knowledge, coverage on our news stations, and even searching on Google for articles regarding it is like running a marathon in flip-flops. It seems as if this isn’t a problem for many people. Today, more than ever people don’t need to rely on just one source to get their news. The Internet has been a huge catalyst for that fact. To get their political information we are no longer chained by newspapers and television.
I argue that people seem indifferent to the recent court decision, because it hasn’t affected anybody right now. But it could be a problem in future elections. The elderly typically use traditional mediums to get their news. This could result in a political problem as 18-44 year olds have much lower voter turnout than those 45 and older, 48% and 66% respectively. I extrapolate that, in future elections, each district will mimic the local paper/television bias. In conclusion, if a person is worried about this decision affecting access to information, they shouldn’t be concerned. However, it could play a very large part in our political system.
This is a very interesting issue and I lay on both sides of the fence, I think there is some good and some bad with lifting the ban. I really do not like the idea of getting the same political view on television, newspaper, and radio. The public would really only hear one side of a political conflict. Say someone has conservative viewpoints, and they own all three media outlets; how much objectivity would there really be? It woud be like reading "The Drudge Report" 24/7. Like we all want to hear that (clearly revealing my liberalness). It just would not be fair to the public to not hear two sides to one story. But then I thought about one political view owning several media outlets in one area; and it is already going on! CBS owns radio, television, and print in multiple states. Viacom owns pretty much the world (clearly an exaggeration). Even locally; The owner of the Journal Sentinel owns television media as well.
So is lifting this ban really a big deal? Is that much really going to change. In an article on latimes.com on March 23, 2010 the journalist says, "John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America, said he does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market. Even the eased rules adopted under Martin come with some restrictions". I find that to be a very interesting quote. I read multiple articles on the same issue and the fact that there will still be restrictions was only mentioned once or twice was never really brought up but makes a lot of sense. The FCC is not just going to let the guy with the biggest pocket book buy every television, newspaper, and radio station. That would be a monopoly, and the last time I checked, that was illegal (and its an awesome game that I suck at).
I really am impartial on this issue, but with reasoning. I really don't think much will change if the ban stays or the ban is lifted indefinitely. In this day and age, so many people get their news online. If they want to get two different views they will go to a liberal website and a conservative website. Also, I agree with what John Strum said. These news companies are not going to try and buy every single space they can . There are still going to be restrictions. On the other hand, in this imperfect world where I realize news is not objective I don't want to see one political view run an entire city or state. In my mind it's immoral. But I digress.
Karlee Patzlsberger- I enjoyed reading what you had to say and thought that you had a pretty good amount of information and detail about Media Monopolies, however I just have a few questions to ask you.
First off, what does FCC mean? I feel that if you don't explain this your readers could get lost very easily. Also, while I was reading I noticed that you pointed out that some people will benefit and others will suffer from this, can you tell us who those people are? Your example of how journalists seem biased when talking about "Republican" or "Democratic" was good, but I would like to see it in more detail.
Also, do you have the article from the Seattle times that you could post on here for viewers to look at it? When you mention parties in your blog and what they want to do about this ban, can you provide an example of what they might possibly want to do. All I know right now is that they want to do something, but I don't know what that is.
Lastly, I strongly agree with your last statement about the Republicans and Democrats. They should put aside their differences and focus on the nation at large. I feel that if they don't do this, they could make this into an even bigger mess. Overall, very nice blog, I already felt that I've learned so much more about Media Monopolies.
Nick Cusatis- Let me start by saying you have some good information, but I would like to actually be able to see the information. Is there any way you can post a link to the news article?
When you're talking about the ban and how it could be good or bad, you don't go much into detail. Can you explain to me how the uplifting of the ban is good or bad? If there isn't specific information it makes it harder for the reader to understand what they are reading about and how they should react.
Also, why is it important for the public to receive 2 sides of the story? I agree with you, but I feel that for some of the other readers who may disagree with you, they'll want to know your reasoning behind this.
What do you think will happen if the ban is lifted or not? I see you mentioned that in your blog, but again, maybe an example or two from an article that goes into depth about this might help you out a bit. You should also give examples of a liberal or conservative website so that your viewers can check it out for themselves. Nice blog!
I, like you was also in the dark about the media ban until media classes. You bring up some very interesting points in your post. The idea of media owners becoming "information monopolies" is really a striking way to describe the situation. Your last question (first paragraph), "What will happen?" is really important for citizens to consider. Although, I wonder what has already happened. How much information is already kept from citizens?
Going with what you said, there has been little coverage on this topic. This is very problematic. Perhaps there's a bit of self-interest for the companies who own the media outlets? This would be a really good way to keep this topic on the down-low. You also wrote that people have more access to information via the internet. Do we as citizens take advantage of that?
You bring up an extremely interesting aspect regarding future elections. Many Americans take their freedom of speech for granted. I know I do, it's second nature for us. Could the removal of this ban be an awakening? Are the elderly more informed on the news? I wonder if there is any correlation with age the amount of news media the consume.
You make some very interesting points. I'm in agreement with most of what you said, but I can't really see this decision having any positive impact on the media. I agree that the idea of the media delivering one sided political opinions would be very terrible for people who rely on papers and television for their news. Diversity of opinion would inevitably be hindered. And LOL @ watching “The Drudge Report” 24/7. That's my favorite show!! Just kidding.
One thing I noticed was that you didn't cite any sources for reference. This would help me gain a better understanding of the valid points you made. I actually used that exact quote from John Sturm quote in my first post, although I interpreted it much differently. I saw this as a disguised attempt to make the court's decision seem harmless. And yes, monopolies are illegal, but that doesn't stop them from happening. Some people believe Monsanto currently holds a monopoly on soybean and cotton seeds in the U.S. (Roberts 1). This is only one example. I urge everyone to watch “The Corporation” to gain a deeper understanding of just how many illegal actions major corporations take, and how profoundly they impact us and our world.
I don't think that the lift on the ban will have immediate effects, but in time it will. It may happen so slowly that no one notices, but I think that would be their objective. Indeed, many people get their news online, a fact I failed to take into consideration in my initial post. However, many older citizens rely solely on television and papers for their news. My parents, for example, both own a computer, but they still derive their information solely from mainstream sources. There are still restrictions, I know, but let's hope that they are enough to preserve the freedom of information and opinions.
In response to Nick Cusatis’ post I found several key ideas that correspond with mine as well. The lifting of the ban really doesn’t seem like it will affect the media world as much as people expect. The majority of major companies that provide us with the mainstream media are companies that have been grandfathered in and already own everything they can get their hands on. The ban seems to concern smaller groups trying to make their way up to the top.
There are already legal laws from the FCC that regulate what companies can own, and with more relaxed ruling its not going to make much of a difference to those who already have ownership on every type of media outlet. Another interesting point Nick discusses is the idea that the journalism world is making a fast move to online news and everyone’s opinion can be found somewhere, so all they have to do is search for what they want to read.
I think it would have been more useful to include some kind of research on this idea. I began looking myself as to where people get their news. Within my first initial post, all the links on Google suggested that the Internet is now the most popular way for people to get their news. Whether it be social networking sites, or websites that contain and reinforce the persons own opinion, the bias’ presented by these companies are only supported by those who watch their channel or visit their website. Regardless of who owns what, news can not be objective and even with the best efforts, opinion will sneak through.
The FCC regulation laws may come to late as the majority of citizens have already found the media that suits them. The companies that own these networks and media outlets only reinforce what their own audience wants to see. These companies have been expanding for decades now. Lifting a ban will not make or break a single company or have a major impact on this internet-crazed society.
As you mentioned in your post, I’d agree that this lift of the ban is giving the companies the ability to literally decide what we hear and read in the news. This raises a point that I recall many times in our lecture. Fox News will air stories that are biased towards their Republican viewpoints. Therefore, they will present their broadcast according to what they want their viewers to believe. This is creating his or her own news, rather than being a messenger of the actual. Therefore, giving companies the opportunity to merge their newspaper and TV broadcast stations together, allows for a much larger output of their own news.
I can speak for myself in saying that I believe majority of the news that is delivered to me. I do not have the time to check the facts on the information given; therefore I must put my trust in those broadcasting the news. This puts up blinders for me as a citizen. Citizens are so influenced by what they hear or read in the news. Just as you said, this takes away our freedom of information. No longer are various companies producing news. Now the media outlet has downsized to a minimal number owned by now only few major companies that join their smaller stations together. Now that this ban is gone, it gives the media companies the opportunity to pick and choose the information they wish to deliver, as you stated.
To quote you, you said that this is “unjust.” To me that seems a bit extreme. While I can see where you are coming from on this statement, I think that this also poses an opportunity for smaller companies to becoming bigger in a competing media market. Local companies are able to merge their TV station with their own newspaper to give themselves a bigger name. This is crucial in our struggling economy. Maybe the lifting of this ban will allow more room for small companies to enter in to the “big dogs” of the media market.
You also bring up that this will “pave the for similar court decisions to be made, allowing for giant corporate mergers of other types.” I think this leads to why this lift of the ban is temporary. If the court were to make this permanent, than any actions made as a result of this would be a struggle to fix. Finally, you make the point that this will create mergers in other markets. I do not believe this to be true. Maybe if this were to see a huge success financially and economically, other markets will jump on the bandwagon in attempts to succeed as well. I think that this is an old idea, and if they were to create mergers, they would have done so already.
BFulton- I would not have known of this either if I did not take JMC classes! I learned about cross promotion and horizontal integration last semester in JMC 101, and that helped me understand this topic. It took me forever to find this article on Google also. I never saw it on TV, and my parents never heard of it, and they watch AND read news! I highly agree that people should consider the good and bad from this, and not just the worst. I did not see the link to this article, so I could not read it and see if they provided any viewpoints.I know you talked about the election, and how it will reduce voters. You did not give any examples of any good consequences of eliminating the ban. The part about voters decreasing interests me, because I did not read this in my article. I did not know that the elderly use television for info the most; I thought it was newspapers. But now that the internet is becoming more popular, I wonder if they will switch to that..
The media monopoly issue is one that stands to debate. There’s always the “any monopoly is bad” argument, and I can definitely agree with that. The question comes in as to how much overwhelming power does one entity have in owning both a newspaper and television station I the same area?
On the surface, owning entities in both television and print is the ability of holding a lot of influence in a market. On a local level, the monopoly The Journal Broadcast Group has, is already in place with the ownership of TMJ4, The Journal Sentinel, as well as 620 AM WTMJ. This was in place before the ban on the monopolies. In years past, this has given them more influence than their competitors. That being said, how strong is the power of print journalism?
More and more, even people who have quoted me stories from newsprint stories, also will say “website” in their discussion. Competing new stations have also been releasing news stories on their websites, as well as offering applications to make them easier to read on mobile devices. Fox 6 here in Milwaukee has an Apple based, with more in development for other mobile devices (www.fox6now.com). According to the Pew Research Center, the rise to online news is winning over the more antiquated print news. See http://people-press.org/report/444/news-media for example.
I can understand what you’re saying, and you have a good basis on where your opinions come from. I too feel as though it may not be that major of an issue if the ban is lifted. The key is, how newsprint stands as a medium for information gathering.
I feel personally that print news is a dying media, but not as to say it’s going the way of the dodo. If anything, rather than disappearing, it’s expanding to a broader audience. If this were the mid twentieth century, there would be more concern for the monopolizing of print, and televised news. All the news stories, be it print or broadcast seem to funnel their way to the internet.
We in Milwaukee are in an interesting spot, where a television company already owns the local newspaper. A lift of the ban could theoretically give other local broadcast stations a chance to form a competing paper. A key aspect of the media ban is that it came at a time where we weren’t all wired into the system as we are today. The competition for online news is strengthening more and more every year. We aren’t just limited to the local paper, and channels 4, 6, and 12 for broadcast news.
I do not think that the lift of the cross-ownership ban will have a positive effect on America. The information Americans will receive will go from one extreme to the next; it will either be a radical conservative perspective or a radical liberal perspective, there will be no neutrality. To me, that sounds terrifying. I realize it that it is a bit like that now with television news stations such as CNN and Fox News, but I believe it will get worse with the addition of more one-sided news stations. Where will the diversity we need be?
I also don’t know how newspapers will survive. In an article I read on http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1671, a great point is made that the television industry will absorb the information from newspaper companies resulting in a decline in the quality of print journalism; it will all be about what you hear on television. There are already over forty markets with newspaper-broadcast combinations that were, what they call, “grandfathered” in when this law was first written in 1975 and listen to the radical information they provide to the public now! How bad do you think it will get if EVERY television station can own any other media outlet? It can only get worse of you ask me.
This change will make the United States media even less diverse, more commercial, and less liable to the American people. In my eyes, this change is, in no way, a positive one. And this change is not for the benefit of the public. Keep your mind set on your beliefs people or else you will become a robot under media control.
This recent temporary ban on cross-ownership of a broadcast television station and a newspaper has brought up many opinions. I can honestly say that I do not, as of today, take a particular side of the issue but I do have many concerns. I also never really cared about it until now, until I actually researched it and thought about it. A lot of people claim that they do not care and it will not affect their lives but it does. Perhaps this cross- promotion idea started back with the big 3 channels. In the network era of television there were only three channels but as time went on these channel s started to own other channels and media outlets. Regardless of how it came to be, cross-ownership happened before and still does. The fact that cross-ownership does still exist right now people do not think of it as a big deal. Well if a conservative news station also owns a newspaper and we do not realize this, isn’t the information we read biased or swayed, and doesn’t this have a huge impact on us when trying to seek the truth? Even while reading the article on this recent ban, the article states that republicans want the rules to be relaxed (Associated Press). Why mention that they are republican? This issue with being able to own multiple media outlets go hand in hand with this biased that the media can have. Also anyone who is planning on working for a newspaper or report on a news station should care about this issue. The Media Access Project says that not having the ban will cause less diversity (Associated Press). Diversity is important to me if I choose to work for a company that has many media outlets in on city, state, or country and there is no room for diversity and there will always be a biased, maybe even one that I do not agree with. For now this ban is in place and we will have to wait to see what the future holds but I would like to be able to go to different media outlet and seek the truth of a story, but this will be impossible if every one of those outlets is owned by the same person. It is funny how something like this ban can actually affect a lot more including me! Link to the article I used: http://asnycnowradio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/court-lifts-ban-on-media-ownership-restrictions/
I must say you bring up the excellent point that journalists tend to create a biased response from their audiences by tagging political figures with “Republican” or “Democrat” in front of their names. And I truly believe it is their intention. The political party a person is in is the primary deciding factor on whether the public agrees, disagrees, or even listens to what that political figure has to say. Political party does seem to be the most important aspect of news reporting, not the quality of the news being reported. This is quite unsettling.
Secondly, I agree that Democrats and Republicans should put aside their differences in order to view the nation as a whole, but, sorry to say, that is incredibly wishful thinking. I believe many politicians have become too radical on both sides to even be able to be in the same room without starting an argument, let alone, be able to agree on extremely important issues. The only way I see that happening is by force, by going from a democracy to a dictatorship. I know, its terrible right? But that’s how different we have become; that's how separate our minds have become from one another.
This nation is suffering. The major issues that should be easily agreeable on can, now, NEVER be agreed on. No one is willing to compromise; it is always a major struggle. The ability to own multiple media outlets will be each political party’s chance to become even more radical than they are now in order to shape the minds of the American people. I agree that the lift of this ban will be able to allow smaller markets to expand; hence, possibly being able to help our struggling economy, but that is not going to work since Republicans and Democrats can never see through the other’s eyes.
If both political parties would put their differences behind them, there would be no issue. The whole issue is that one political view has the chance to own multiple media outlets in one city and or state. Meaning there would be no objectivity in the news in areas owned by the same political view. In a perfect world it would be great if everyone could put their differences aside, but that is not the case. We live in a society where there are two dominant political parties that have many different views and do not like to level with eachother. I like what you said about smaller companies may have a chance to expand and improve this horrible economic crisis we are in.
I totally agree with what you say about journalists and how they always have to point out the political aspect of things. But with this sort of issue which really is not that exciting, the journalists sort of have to. They have to make some sort of controvery. Without controvery, sadly, there would not be that many readers. People want to hear about controversy and differences. That always seems to make the front page. We never hear about the philanthropists on the front page sadly.
I really liked your blog. Even though I think differently on some aspects I respect them. I'm no professional on the issue, these are just my opinions. Isn't that what blogs are all about, opinions. It's really interesting to see how other people look at an issue. It opened up my eyes to another train of thought. I would have never thought to throw away the political aspect. Great writing style as well. It kept me wanting to read more. Great work.
Starting off with the phrase, “I Personally believe” felt a little too biased to start with your article. First you should say the fact, that the FCC lifted its ban on cross media ownership, and then state your opinion. You then go on to say that it could pave the way for future acts of this kind, but you just drop it. You should either expand on that idea, and the possibilities that could happen, or you should just take it out.
I am a really big fan of your quote by Gerald Massey, even though I have no idea who that is. I feel it perfectly sums up what the controversy is all about. I also really like your take on how the television stations, since it has the capacity to increase their revenue, may report the news unfairly. I think you should talk a little bit more about how the news is already a cash cow, and how this ruling has the capacity to make it an even bigger one.
But right after you claim that media stations will downplay this event you cite that companies are in no rush to start buying up newspaper and TV stations. When I read this blog it is extremely well written, but it seems as if you are jumping around from tangent to tangent. You have a lot of great ideas about what this could possibly mean for the media industry, but one point I have a problem with is when you claim ‘where many blindly place their trust in the information that major news sources deliver them, this could be catastrophic,’ it feels a little too 1984. This seems to lead me to believe that news channels will simply ignore/change the story, instead of doing what many actually fear, which is distorting it.
@Mrinal You have alot of similar information that I have and similar concerns. I can tell you did your research and have a lot of understanding to what you are saying. I just wanted to know why you did not put more of your own opinion? You do say that you are against eliminating the ban but why? You also list important concerns you have but why are you concerned? Your opinion on everything is important and you should express it more especially in this discussion. There is a part in your post where you say that you do not fully understand the diversity issue. "Diversity is highly important to me, and even though I didn't fully understand why it will reduce it.." You do not fully understand how cross-ownership will reduce diversity? Well think about one company owning the newspaper and news station you watch in your entire state you live in , how is that diverse? How will you get different perspectives on something if these two media outlets are not supplying that to you? This issue is very important to me to and I would not like to only hear one side of something. Also , you mention a lot about republicans and democrats but you never mention if you think it is was a good or bad thing that this is even mentioned? You also raise an interesting topic when you said you wonder what would happen if republicans ruled the FCC... Well I don't know but it makes me concerned that only one side rules it and it will have an affect on things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBattle of the Bans
ReplyDeleteThe recent uplift of the cross ownership ban by the FCC has raised eyebrows in the media world. The FCC now allows for a media company to own both a newspaper and television station in the same market. Discussions of this topic voice opinions and concerns regarding who will benefit directly from this and who will suffer. Discussions of this topic highlight the importance of opposing sides. In some articles, “Democratic” or “Republican” sides seem to be the main focus of the story while FCC uplift fades in the background.
A concern I found when reading articles about this topic is that journalists will often times emphasize the importance of a political party. For instance, the Associated Press business staff introduced certain political officials with the “Republic” or “Democratic” title. Does it really matter what political background they come from? It seems that journalists that write these articles are looking to create a biased response from the audience when they see “Republican” or “Democratic” in front of one’s name (Cleveland). Another article, goes into further discussion of the political parties when it states, “The decision comes as the current FCC, now under Democratic control, gears up for its next congressionally mandated review of its media ownership rules”(Seattle Times).
Is the battle of the bans really between the larger and smaller companies, those who will directly be affected, or between the political parties? In a recent article by the Seattle Times, the tension between the Republicans and Democrats on this issue is quite evident within the first couple paragraphs. One after another, the writer first introduces the role of the Republicans in this issue. “ That restriction remained in effect under a stay issued by the court in 2003…by two previous FCC chairmen, Republicans Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, to relax the rules” (Seattle Times). Following this statement, the Democrats power is shown as the writer says “ The decision comes as the current FCC, now under Democratic control, gears up for its next congressionally mandated review of its media-ownership rules”(Seattle Times).
As these parties continue to go back and forth of what to do about this ban, I think they should put aside their political differences to see how this will affect the larger and smaller companies in the media world. At large, these companies may allow for smaller companies to expand their markets. In our current economy, this might be beneficial in order to excel. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should focus on the nation at large rather than their differences.
Associated, Press. "Court Lifts Media Ownership Restrictions." Cleveland Ohio Business News 23 March 2010, Print.
Tessler, Joelle. “Court Lifts Ban on Media Ownership Restritions.” Seattle Press.
Cross-Ownership has always been a huge part of the media we experience today. The majority of media outlets are controlled by huge conglomerates that control magazines/newspapers, TV stations, radio, movies, and the list goes on and on. The majorities of these monopolies have been grandfathered in and have had ownership from the beginning of their time. I myself have never really paid attention to the idea of what company owned what, it was all media in some form to me. Not until my media studies began did I really start thinking about concepts like the cross-ownership ban and the idea that our journalism world can be swayed in regards to who owns what.
ReplyDeleteThe recent court decision from the FCC, now under democratic rule, was reviewing the cross-ownership rules “ Yet the FCC has made no progress on that front and has instead punted the issue to the upcoming review of the media ownership rules. Tuesday's court decision allows Martin's relaxed rules on media ownership to take effect”(The Huffington Post). The lifting of the ban really doesn’t seem to make a huge difference seeing that the majority of conglomerates already have major control on every media outlet in the world. Another aspect of the recent court decision as it seems to be more politically based as a democratic rule takes place. Media and informing the public aims to have an unbiased appeal but the political views are always present.
It seems now that there will be absolutely no objectivity in the sense that political views and opinions in a network will be drawn out through every media outlet they own. How will audiences find unbiased information? Or will viewers just turn to the conglomerate who shares the same political views and opinions as they do? The lift on the ban will only allow growth for these already huge networks. Many find that this is a huge mistake by the FCC but will the majority of the world really even notice? People will always search for what they want to hear .
Tessler, Joelle. “Court Lifts Ban on Media Ownership Restritions.” Seattle Press.
Tessler, Joelle."Media Cross-Ownership Ban LIFTED." Huffington Post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to lift the Federal Communications Commission's “cross-ownership” ban is unjust, and potentially harmful to the freedom of information. It allows for major news corporations to form media monopolies, because they can now own newspapers and television/radio shows in the same market simultaneously. This verdict may also pave the way for similar court decisions to be made, allowing for giant corporate mergers of other types. I'm not sure if many people fully comprehend the ramifications of such events. In this day and age money is power, and multi-billion dollar corporations already have way too much of that.
ReplyDeleteThe corporate entities that are benefiting from this ruling are obviously very happy. “The 3rd Circuit finally recognized that unless it acted, the [FCC] had no incentive to ever look at the issue, period. We’re very happy they’ve finally given us the opportunity to move forward,” said Tribune Co. counsel Carter Phillips (Greene 1). This decision is undoubtedly a loss for those who believe in the freedom of information. If a corporation owns the newspapers as well as the television and radio shows in the same market, they have excessive control over the information that the public receives. In a country where many blindly place their trust in the information that major news sources deliver them, this could be catastrophic. A man named Gerald Massey once said, “They must find it difficult…Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” Without more prominent local news companies, the promotion of diversity of opinion will be greatly stifled.
Another thing that one must take into consideration is that because many of the news sites reporting on this court decision will be positively affected by it, they may attempt to downplay the it's significance. Examine how Joelle Tessler of the Associated Press concludes her article: “Still, John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America, said he does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market. Even the eased rules adopted under Martin come with some restrictions.” (Tessler 1) It really makes me wonder whose interests are being served here.
Sources
Greene, Jenna. “Court Lifts FCC Media Ownership Restrictions – At Least for Now.” The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes: ALM. The BLT, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
Tessler, Joelle. “Court lifts ban on media ownership restrictions.” The Associated Press. The Associated Press, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMedia Company Cross-Ownership: To Ban or not to Ban?
ReplyDeleteOn Tuesday, March 23, the US Court of Appeals Third Circuit has lifted the ban on newspapers and TV stations being in the same market. There are many debates within this issue, and that is why I believe that eliminating the ban was not a good decision. I think that it required more time. This post will discuss those debates and what I found important in this article.
The first part that caught my attention is that this ban is lifted "temporarily."This restriction has been in effect since 2003. This makes readers wonder if/when it will be changed back. Democrats rule the Federal Communications Comission, but two Republican members took action to change this. I believe that the first conflict in this issue is between the Democrats and Republicans. I wonder why Democrats rule the FCC, and what would happen if Republicans did instead.
Legal issues arose when former Republican member Michael Powell tried to eliminate the ban. The FCC had to review the rules when ordered by the court, but stalled because they were unsure. This made the court impatient. Companies have already been co-owning and this makes me wonder what would happen if the ban is reinforced.
Another part that interested me was the Media Access Project's perspective on this. I thought that co-owning was a good idea, until I read that the people in this project think it'll lead to less diversity in the media. Diversity is highly important to me, and even though I didn't fully understand why it will reduce it, I wouldn't want it happening.
The last debate is economical. A Republican member believes the rules were out of date, and he thinks lifting the ban will reduce economic upheavel. However, John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America believes that media companies won't buy papers and TV stations in one market.
No author. "Court Lifts Bans on Media Ownership Restrictions. Los Angeles Times. 24 March 2010
There has been a ‘temporary’ five year uplift on media ownership, now allowing companies to own different forms of media in the same market. Companies already have extreme horizontal integration, for example Disney owns ESPN, ABC, The History Channel, etc. But this withdrawal of restrictions could allow many companies to become information monopolies. Not only controlling how the consumer gets the media, but it could lead to the information itself being skewed. The question everybody should be focused on isn’t ‘what’s the worst that could happen? Rather it should be ‘What will happen?’
ReplyDeleteIf I hadn’t been told in my class about this recent event, odds are I would have never heard about it. It has received little, none to my knowledge, coverage on our news stations, and even searching on Google for articles regarding it is like running a marathon in flip-flops. It seems as if this isn’t a problem for many people. Today, more than ever people don’t need to rely on just one source to get their news. The Internet has been a huge catalyst for that fact. To get their political information we are no longer chained by newspapers and television.
I argue that people seem indifferent to the recent court decision, because it hasn’t affected anybody right now. But it could be a problem in future elections. The elderly typically use traditional mediums to get their news. This could result in a political problem as 18-44 year olds have much lower voter turnout than those 45 and older, 48% and 66% respectively. I extrapolate that, in future elections, each district will mimic the local paper/television bias. In conclusion, if a person is worried about this decision affecting access to information, they shouldn’t be concerned. However, it could play a very large part in our political system.
This is a very interesting issue and I lay on both sides of the fence, I think there is some good and some bad with lifting the ban. I really do not like the idea of getting the same political view on television, newspaper, and radio. The public would really only hear one side of a political conflict. Say someone has conservative viewpoints, and they own all three media outlets; how much objectivity would there really be? It woud be like reading "The Drudge Report" 24/7. Like we all want to hear that (clearly revealing my liberalness). It just would not be fair to the public to not hear two sides to one story. But then I thought about one political view owning several media outlets in one area; and it is already going on! CBS owns radio, television, and print in multiple states. Viacom owns pretty much the world (clearly an exaggeration). Even locally; The owner of the Journal Sentinel owns television media as well.
ReplyDeleteSo is lifting this ban really a big deal? Is that much really going to change. In an article on latimes.com on March 23, 2010 the journalist says, "John Sturm, head of the Newspaper Association of America, said he does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market. Even the eased rules adopted under Martin come with some restrictions". I find that to be a very interesting quote. I read multiple articles on the same issue and the fact that there will still be restrictions was only mentioned once or twice was never really brought up but makes a lot of sense. The FCC is not just going to let the guy with the biggest pocket book buy every television, newspaper, and radio station. That would be a monopoly, and the last time I checked, that was illegal (and its an awesome game that I suck at).
I really am impartial on this issue, but with reasoning. I really don't think much will change if the ban stays or the ban is lifted indefinitely. In this day and age, so many people get their news online. If they want to get two different views they will go to a liberal website and a conservative website. Also, I agree with what John Strum said. These news companies are not going to try and buy every single space they can . There are still going to be restrictions. On the other hand, in this imperfect world where I realize news is not objective I don't want to see one political view run an entire city or state. In my mind it's immoral. But I digress.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKarlee Patzlsberger- I enjoyed reading what you had to say and thought that you had a pretty good amount of information and detail about Media Monopolies, however I just have a few questions to ask you.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, what does FCC mean? I feel that if you don't explain this your readers could get lost very easily. Also, while I was reading I noticed that you pointed out that some people will benefit and others will suffer from this, can you tell us who those people are? Your example of how journalists seem biased when talking about "Republican" or "Democratic" was good, but I would like to see it in more detail.
Also, do you have the article from the Seattle times that you could post on here for viewers to look at it? When you mention parties in your blog and what they want to do about this ban, can you provide an example of what they might possibly want to do. All I know right now is that they want to do something, but I don't know what that is.
Lastly, I strongly agree with your last statement about the Republicans and Democrats. They should put aside their differences and focus on the nation at large. I feel that if they don't do this, they could make this into an even bigger mess. Overall, very nice blog, I already felt that I've learned so much more about Media Monopolies.
Nick Cusatis- Let me start by saying you have some good information, but I would like to actually be able to see the information. Is there any way you can post a link to the news article?
ReplyDeleteWhen you're talking about the ban and how it could be good or bad, you don't go much into detail. Can you explain to me how the uplifting of the ban is good or bad? If there isn't specific information it makes it harder for the reader to understand what they are reading about and how they should react.
Also, why is it important for the public to receive 2 sides of the story? I agree with you, but I feel that for some of the other readers who may disagree with you, they'll want to know your reasoning behind this.
What do you think will happen if the ban is lifted or not? I see you mentioned that in your blog, but again, maybe an example or two from an article that goes into depth about this might help you out a bit. You should also give examples of a liberal or conservative website so that your viewers can check it out for themselves. Nice blog!
In response to "BFulton"
ReplyDeleteI, like you was also in the dark about the media ban until media classes. You bring up some very interesting points in your post. The idea of media owners becoming "information monopolies" is really a striking way to describe the situation. Your last question (first paragraph), "What will happen?" is really important for citizens to consider. Although, I wonder what has already happened. How much information is already kept from citizens?
Going with what you said, there has been little coverage on this topic. This is very problematic. Perhaps there's a bit of self-interest for the companies who own the media outlets? This would be a really good way to keep this topic on the down-low. You also wrote that people have more access to information via the internet. Do we as citizens take advantage of that?
You bring up an extremely interesting aspect regarding future elections. Many Americans take their freedom of speech for granted. I know I do, it's second nature for us. Could the removal of this ban be an awakening? Are the elderly more informed on the news? I wonder if there is any correlation with age the amount of news media the consume.
@ Nick Cusatis
ReplyDeleteYou make some very interesting points. I'm in agreement with most of what you said, but I can't really see this decision having any positive impact on the media. I agree that the idea of the media delivering one sided political opinions would be very terrible for people who rely on papers and television for their news. Diversity of opinion would inevitably be hindered. And LOL @ watching “The Drudge Report” 24/7. That's my favorite show!! Just kidding.
One thing I noticed was that you didn't cite any sources for reference. This would help me gain a better understanding of the valid points you made. I actually used that exact quote from John Sturm quote in my first post, although I interpreted it much differently. I saw this as a disguised attempt to make the court's decision seem harmless. And yes, monopolies are illegal, but that doesn't stop them from happening. Some people believe Monsanto currently holds a monopoly on soybean and cotton seeds in the U.S. (Roberts 1). This is only one example. I urge everyone to watch “The Corporation” to gain a deeper understanding of just how many illegal actions major corporations take, and how profoundly they impact us and our world.
I don't think that the lift on the ban will have immediate effects, but in time it will. It may happen so slowly that no one notices, but I think that would be their objective. Indeed, many people get their news online, a fact I failed to take into consideration in my initial post. However, many older citizens rely solely on television and papers for their news. My parents, for example, both own a computer, but they still derive their information solely from mainstream sources. There are still restrictions, I know, but let's hope that they are enough to preserve the freedom of information and opinions.
Sources
Roberts, James. “Farmers Take on Monsanto's Seed Monopoly.” Organic Consumers Association. Organic Consumers Association, 26 Sep. 2004. Web. 6 Apr. 2010.
In response to Nick Cusatis’ post I found several key ideas that correspond with mine as well. The lifting of the ban really doesn’t seem like it will affect the media world as much as people expect. The majority of major companies that provide us with the mainstream media are companies that have been grandfathered in and already own everything they can get their hands on. The ban seems to concern smaller groups trying to make their way up to the top.
ReplyDeleteThere are already legal laws from the FCC that regulate what companies can own, and with more relaxed ruling its not going to make much of a difference to those who already have ownership on every type of media outlet. Another interesting point Nick discusses is the idea that the journalism world is making a fast move to online news and everyone’s opinion can be found somewhere, so all they have to do is search for what they want to read.
I think it would have been more useful to include some kind of research on this idea. I began looking myself as to where people get their news. Within my first initial post, all the links on Google suggested that the Internet is now the most popular way for people to get their news. Whether it be social networking sites, or websites that contain and reinforce the persons own opinion, the bias’ presented by these companies are only supported by those who watch their channel or visit their website. Regardless of who owns what, news can not be objective and even with the best efforts, opinion will sneak through.
The FCC regulation laws may come to late as the majority of citizens have already found the media that suits them. The companies that own these networks and media outlets only reinforce what their own audience wants to see. These companies have been expanding for decades now. Lifting a ban will not make or break a single company or have a major impact on this internet-crazed society.
In response to Matt Karwoski:
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned in your post, I’d agree that this lift of the ban is giving the companies the ability to literally decide what we hear and read in the news. This raises a point that I recall many times in our lecture. Fox News will air stories that are biased towards their Republican viewpoints. Therefore, they will present their broadcast according to what they want their viewers to believe. This is creating his or her own news, rather than being a messenger of the actual. Therefore, giving companies the opportunity to merge their newspaper and TV broadcast stations together, allows for a much larger output of their own news.
I can speak for myself in saying that I believe majority of the news that is delivered to me. I do not have the time to check the facts on the information given; therefore I must put my trust in those broadcasting the news. This puts up blinders for me as a citizen. Citizens are so influenced by what they hear or read in the news. Just as you said, this takes away our freedom of information. No longer are various companies producing news. Now the media outlet has downsized to a minimal number owned by now only few major companies that join their smaller stations together. Now that this ban is gone, it gives the media companies the opportunity to pick and choose the information they wish to deliver, as you stated.
To quote you, you said that this is “unjust.” To me that seems a bit extreme. While I can see where you are coming from on this statement, I think that this also poses an opportunity for smaller companies to becoming bigger in a competing media market. Local companies are able to merge their TV station with their own newspaper to give themselves a bigger name. This is crucial in our struggling economy. Maybe the lifting of this ban will allow more room for small companies to enter in to the “big dogs” of the media market.
You also bring up that this will “pave the for similar court decisions to be made, allowing for giant corporate mergers of other types.” I think this leads to why this lift of the ban is temporary. If the court were to make this permanent, than any actions made as a result of this would be a struggle to fix. Finally, you make the point that this will create mergers in other markets. I do not believe this to be true. Maybe if this were to see a huge success financially and economically, other markets will jump on the bandwagon in attempts to succeed as well. I think that this is an old idea, and if they were to create mergers, they would have done so already.
BFulton- I would not have known of this either if I did not take JMC classes! I learned about cross promotion and horizontal integration last semester in JMC 101, and that helped me understand this topic. It took me forever to find this article on Google also. I never saw it on TV, and my parents never heard of it, and they watch AND read news!
ReplyDeleteI highly agree that people should consider the good and bad from this, and not just the worst. I did not see the link to this article, so I could not read it and see if they provided any viewpoints.I know you talked about the election, and how it will reduce voters. You did not give any examples of any good consequences of eliminating the ban.
The part about voters decreasing interests me, because I did not read this in my article. I did not know that the elderly use television for info the most; I thought it was newspapers. But now that the internet is becoming more popular, I wonder if they will switch to that..
The media monopoly issue is one that stands to debate. There’s always the “any monopoly is bad” argument, and I can definitely agree with that. The question comes in as to how much overwhelming power does one entity have in owning both a newspaper and television station I the same area?
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, owning entities in both television and print is the ability of holding a lot of influence in a market. On a local level, the monopoly The Journal Broadcast Group has, is already in place with the ownership of TMJ4, The Journal Sentinel, as well as 620 AM WTMJ. This was in place before the ban on the monopolies. In years past, this has given them more influence than their competitors. That being said, how strong is the power of print journalism?
More and more, even people who have quoted me stories from newsprint stories, also will say “website” in their discussion. Competing new stations have also been releasing news stories on their websites, as well as offering applications to make them easier to read on mobile devices. Fox 6 here in Milwaukee has an Apple based, with more in development for other mobile devices (www.fox6now.com). According to the Pew Research Center, the rise to online news is winning over the more antiquated print news. See http://people-press.org/report/444/news-media for example.
To Nick Cusatis
ReplyDeleteI can understand what you’re saying, and you have a good basis on where your opinions come from. I too feel as though it may not be that major of an issue if the ban is lifted. The key is, how newsprint stands as a medium for information gathering.
I feel personally that print news is a dying media, but not as to say it’s going the way of the dodo. If anything, rather than disappearing, it’s expanding to a broader audience. If this were the mid twentieth century, there would be more concern for the monopolizing of print, and televised news. All the news stories, be it print or broadcast seem to funnel their way to the internet.
We in Milwaukee are in an interesting spot, where a television company already owns the local newspaper. A lift of the ban could theoretically give other local broadcast stations a chance to form a competing paper. A key aspect of the media ban is that it came at a time where we weren’t all wired into the system as we are today. The competition for online news is strengthening more and more every year. We aren’t just limited to the local paper, and channels 4, 6, and 12 for broadcast news.
I do not think that the lift of the cross-ownership ban will have a positive effect on America. The information Americans will receive will go from one extreme to the next; it will either be a radical conservative perspective or a radical liberal perspective, there will be no neutrality. To me, that sounds terrifying. I realize it that it is a bit like that now with television news stations such as CNN and Fox News, but I believe it will get worse with the addition of more one-sided news stations. Where will the diversity we need be?
ReplyDeleteI also don’t know how newspapers will survive. In an article I read on http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1671, a great point is made that the television industry will absorb the information from newspaper companies resulting in a decline in the quality of print journalism; it will all be about what you hear on television. There are already over forty markets with newspaper-broadcast combinations that were, what they call, “grandfathered” in when this law was first written in 1975 and listen to the radical information they provide to the public now! How bad do you think it will get if EVERY television station can own any other media outlet? It can only get worse of you ask me.
This change will make the United States media even less diverse, more commercial, and less liable to the American people. In my eyes, this change is, in no way, a positive one. And this change is not for the benefit of the public. Keep your mind set on your beliefs people or else you will become a robot under media control.
This recent temporary ban on cross-ownership of a broadcast television station and a newspaper has brought up many opinions. I can honestly say that I do not, as of today, take a particular side of the issue but I do have many concerns. I also never really cared about it until now, until I actually researched it and thought about it. A lot of people claim that they do not care and it will not affect their lives but it does.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this cross- promotion idea started back with the big 3 channels. In the network era of television there were only three channels but as time went on these channel s started to own other channels and media outlets. Regardless of how it came to be, cross-ownership happened before and still does. The fact that cross-ownership does still exist right now people do not think of it as a big deal. Well if a conservative news station also owns a newspaper and we do not realize this, isn’t the information we read biased or swayed, and doesn’t this have a huge impact on us when trying to seek the truth? Even while reading the article on this recent ban, the article states that republicans want the rules to be relaxed (Associated Press). Why mention that they are republican? This issue with being able to own multiple media outlets go hand in hand with this biased that the media can have.
Also anyone who is planning on working for a newspaper or report on a news station should care about this issue. The Media Access Project says that not having the ban will cause less diversity (Associated Press). Diversity is important to me if I choose to work for a company that has many media outlets in on city, state, or country and there is no room for diversity and there will always be a biased, maybe even one that I do not agree with. For now this ban is in place and we will have to wait to see what the future holds but I would like to be able to go to different media outlet and seek the truth of a story, but this will be impossible if every one of those outlets is owned by the same person. It is funny how something like this ban can actually affect a lot more including me!
Link to the article I used: http://asnycnowradio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/court-lifts-ban-on-media-ownership-restrictions/
In response to Karlee Patzlsberger:
ReplyDeleteI must say you bring up the excellent point that journalists tend to create a biased response from their audiences by tagging political figures with “Republican” or “Democrat” in front of their names. And I truly believe it is their intention. The political party a person is in is the primary deciding factor on whether the public agrees, disagrees, or even listens to what that political figure has to say. Political party does seem to be the most important aspect of news reporting, not the quality of the news being reported. This is quite unsettling.
Secondly, I agree that Democrats and Republicans should put aside their differences in order to view the nation as a whole, but, sorry to say, that is incredibly wishful thinking. I believe many politicians have become too radical on both sides to even be able to be in the same room without starting an argument, let alone, be able to agree on extremely important issues. The only way I see that happening is by force, by going from a democracy to a dictatorship. I know, its terrible right? But that’s how different we have become; that's how separate our minds have become from one another.
This nation is suffering. The major issues that should be easily agreeable on can, now, NEVER be agreed on. No one is willing to compromise; it is always a major struggle. The ability to own multiple media outlets will be each political party’s chance to become even more radical than they are now in order to shape the minds of the American people. I agree that the lift of this ban will be able to allow smaller markets to expand; hence, possibly being able to help our struggling economy, but that is not going to work since Republicans and Democrats can never see through the other’s eyes.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-media-ownership24-2010mar24,0,4593409.story
ReplyDelete-Here is a link to my source
In response to Karlee P. -
If both political parties would put their differences behind them, there would be no issue. The whole issue is that one political view has the chance to own multiple media outlets in one city and or state. Meaning there would be no objectivity in the news in areas owned by the same political view. In a perfect world it would be great if everyone could put their differences aside, but that is not the case. We live in a society where there are two dominant political parties that have many different views and do not like to level with eachother. I like what you said about smaller companies may have a chance to expand and improve this horrible economic crisis we are in.
I totally agree with what you say about journalists and how they always have to point out the political aspect of things. But with this sort of issue which really is not that exciting, the journalists sort of have to. They have to make some sort of controvery. Without controvery, sadly, there would not be that many readers. People want to hear about controversy and differences. That always seems to make the front page. We never hear about the philanthropists on the front page sadly.
I really liked your blog. Even though I think differently on some aspects I respect them. I'm no professional on the issue, these are just my opinions. Isn't that what blogs are all about, opinions. It's really interesting to see how other people look at an issue. It opened up my eyes to another train of thought. I would have never thought to throw away the political aspect. Great writing style as well. It kept me wanting to read more. Great work.
@ Matt Karwoski
ReplyDeleteStarting off with the phrase, “I Personally believe” felt a little too biased to start with your article. First you should say the fact, that the FCC lifted its ban on cross media ownership, and then state your opinion. You then go on to say that it could pave the way for future acts of this kind, but you just drop it. You should either expand on that idea, and the possibilities that could happen, or you should just take it out.
I am a really big fan of your quote by Gerald Massey, even though I have no idea who that is. I feel it perfectly sums up what the controversy is all about. I also really like your take on how the television stations, since it has the capacity to increase their revenue, may report the news unfairly. I think you should talk a little bit more about how the news is already a cash cow, and how this ruling has the capacity to make it an even bigger one.
But right after you claim that media stations will downplay this event you cite that companies are in no rush to start buying up newspaper and TV stations. When I read this blog it is extremely well written, but it seems as if you are jumping around from tangent to tangent. You have a lot of great ideas about what this could possibly mean for the media industry, but one point I have a problem with is when you claim ‘where many blindly place their trust in the information that major news sources deliver them, this could be catastrophic,’ it feels a little too 1984. This seems to lead me to believe that news channels will simply ignore/change the story, instead of doing what many actually fear, which is distorting it.
@Mrinal
ReplyDeleteYou have alot of similar information that I have and similar concerns. I can tell you did your research and have a lot of understanding to what you are saying. I just wanted to know why you did not put more of your own opinion? You do say that you are against eliminating the ban but why? You also list important concerns you have but why are you concerned? Your opinion on everything is important and you should express it more especially in this discussion.
There is a part in your post where you say that you do not fully understand the diversity issue. "Diversity is highly important to me, and even though I didn't fully understand why it will reduce it.." You do not fully understand how cross-ownership will reduce diversity? Well think about one company owning the newspaper and news station you watch in your entire state you live in , how is that diverse? How will you get different perspectives on something if these two media outlets are not supplying that to you? This issue is very important to me to and I would not like to only hear one side of something.
Also , you mention a lot about republicans and democrats but you never mention if you think it is was a good or bad thing that this is even mentioned? You also raise an interesting topic when you said you wonder what would happen if republicans ruled the FCC... Well I don't know but it makes me concerned that only one side rules it and it will have an affect on things.