Media monopolies are definitely not jumping out at me. However, I did retrieve an article from "Asnycow Radio" explaining why media monopolies are not the best option. A federal court has at least temporarily lifted government rules that blocked media companies from owning a newspaper and a broadcast TV station in the same market.
The decision Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit lifts the Federal Communications Commission’s “cross-ownership” ban. To me, the most important part of this article is when they comment that a TV station can not be in the same market as a newspaper. Why is that? Also, when will we find out for sure if the removal of the media monopolies are permanent? For more information on this article you can check out http://asnycnowradio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/court-lifts-ban-on-media-ownership-restrictions/
http://www.observatoriofucatel.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
To me this image speaks media monopoly, because it is showing us how the "Big dog" is taking over the "Little dog" and so on. Enjoy!
Saturday, April 3, 2010
My Big Media Brother
Media ownership has never been terribly important in my life. You know, I have never lost any sleep over it. Shouldn't it be more important for a journalist as an individual to do what they believe in? You know, in a perfect world where everyone fights to find the truth? Ha! After reading through some relatively vague articles on the Court's decision to lift the ban on media ownership, I attempted to speak to others about what they thought about the situation. I soon discovered that no one actually cares other than saying the basic, “Oh well, that would be bad, wouldn’t it?”
I should try to sound more poetic or scholarly on the situation. Media ownership monopolies could be quite un-democratic, sort of a “Big Brother” situation, right? This is just one more step towards our “negative utopia” where people are not informed, but I’m just trying to think realistically. This is a society that does not care. No matter how you write it, a majority of people will never care.
This nifty little graphic shows – in rather elementary form – who owns the majority of the media. According to everyone’s favorite AP article by Joelle Tessler, “…some media companies already own newspapers and television stations in the same market because they were grandfathered in when the rules were first put into place in 1974.” Perhaps neither lifting nor keeping the ban is the answer to the already-dying media. If these companies have owned both television and newspapers for decades, will this ban really make a difference to the kinds of news already being produced? Later in Tessler’s article, she quotes John Sturm, who is the current head of the Newspaper Association of America (yeah, apparently people still read newspapers), saying that he “does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market.” It seems as if though lifting this ban is not even going to make a difference, which brings up an entirely different question: is our media already the monster we fear?
Most people watch the stations and read articles from sources that agree with their pre-existing opinions. If media is going to be affected, this might be a chance to further promote citizen journalism. Honestly, will the lifting of this ban really make a note-able difference to those outside of the journalism world? You tell me. Sound off.
- Krista
PS: For a larger illustration of media ownership, you can find it here. It was found on the Red Statement blog here.
I should try to sound more poetic or scholarly on the situation. Media ownership monopolies could be quite un-democratic, sort of a “Big Brother” situation, right? This is just one more step towards our “negative utopia” where people are not informed, but I’m just trying to think realistically. This is a society that does not care. No matter how you write it, a majority of people will never care.
This nifty little graphic shows – in rather elementary form – who owns the majority of the media. According to everyone’s favorite AP article by Joelle Tessler, “…some media companies already own newspapers and television stations in the same market because they were grandfathered in when the rules were first put into place in 1974.” Perhaps neither lifting nor keeping the ban is the answer to the already-dying media. If these companies have owned both television and newspapers for decades, will this ban really make a difference to the kinds of news already being produced? Later in Tessler’s article, she quotes John Sturm, who is the current head of the Newspaper Association of America (yeah, apparently people still read newspapers), saying that he “does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market.” It seems as if though lifting this ban is not even going to make a difference, which brings up an entirely different question: is our media already the monster we fear?
Most people watch the stations and read articles from sources that agree with their pre-existing opinions. If media is going to be affected, this might be a chance to further promote citizen journalism. Honestly, will the lifting of this ban really make a note-able difference to those outside of the journalism world? You tell me. Sound off.
- Krista
PS: For a larger illustration of media ownership, you can find it here. It was found on the Red Statement blog here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)