You are on page 1of 10

Concentration of media ownership is a threat to democracy.

Belief in a direct relationship between a healthy democracy and an unbiased, diverse media is near universal (Horwitz, 2005, p. 3). Our political and economic system is based upon an idea of freemarkets, a concept dependent upon not just freedom from government coercion, but the presence of competition. Any monopoly is dangerous but in the media it is even more of a threat as concentrated control of news is different from control of other commodities (Bagdikian, 1980, p. 63) because the control is of the very information which people use to make 'informed' decisions. This paper will discuss how concentration of media ownership represents a direct threat to democracy..

The media is often referred to as 'the fourth estate' because they are supposed to hold the powerful to account by keeping the public well-informed. It is claimed though, that the medias role in strengthening democracy may be put in jeopardy by special interest groups that use the news providers to manipulate the public opinion (Corneo, 2006, p. 37). The media represents the primary, if not sole, information source used by public to construct their understanding and make decisions on political structures, policies, actors and events (Wasburn 1995, p. 647) meaning that they supply most of the information people use in voting (Strmberg, 2004, p. 265) thus having tremendous impact upon collective decision-making (Corneo, 2006, p. 37).

The ideal media role is to help the public create a coherent sense of the broader social forces that affect the conditions of their everyday lives (Gamson, 1992, p. 373) but recently their role seems largely negative, promoting apathy, cynicism, and quiescence at the expense of political participation (Gamson, 1992, p. 375). The shift towards negativity in the media is apparent in figures reporting that in 1980, 25% of the press coverage of presidential candidates was negative; by 2000 it was over 60% (Schudson, 2003, p. 99). We tend to be blind to such changes, either

because of the power of the media itself to tell us what is 'normal' or because of our propensity either to deny that power or at least to fail in understanding fully how to deal with it. (Dill, 2009, p. 5).

Each year American children spend more time consuming media1 than they spend in school (Dill, 2009, p. 6). It has been shown that by being exposed to a show in which people of different races form friendships, viewers develop more positive feelings about members of the other race (Dill, 2009, p. 7) and reading romance novels has been shown to increase negative attitudes about using condoms (Dill, 2009, p. 13). Some theorists even claim that when we consume media content we accept beliefs... involuntarily. (Dill, 2009, p. 14). The media's influence on political decisionmaking appears to be significant given that more than a quarter of voters vote for a candidate who does not share their basic substantive beliefs (Dill, 2009, p. 190). This effect is allegedly due to the media being in a position to manipulate the beliefs of the electorate (Corneo, 2006, p. 38), especially in the case of global, diversified corporations capable of cross promotion and wide dispersal of ideas. The influence of such corporations is dramatic because the ability to control connection points between different networks... is a critical source of power in contemporary society (Arsenault, 2008, p. 488). So if the media is so tremendously powerful the crucial question is: how should the media be organised? (Djankov et al., 2003, p. 2). Mass media's history is one of a constant tug-of-war between fear of government control and fear of private monopolies. Which is a more legitimate threat and which is more dangerous?

In highlighting changes to media ownership and regulation this paper will primarily discuss the US because of the availability of extensive scholarly analysis. Until the mid 1940s governments approaching media regulation were wary of both private and governmental monopolies. For example the case, Associated Press v. United States (1944) 326 US 1, showed that Freedom of the
1 In the form of TV, movies, video games, surfing the net, etc.

press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests. Within three years, in response to the fear that there is a real danger that government control will be extended, and that freedom of the press will be lost(Gerald, 1947, pp. 559-560) and under questionable assertions thatgood practice in the interest of public enlightenment is good business as well" (The Commission on the Freedom of the Press cited Gerald, 1947, p. 561) the focus switched towards protecting media freedom from government influence and ignoring the risk of private monopolies.

Since the 70s the direction of regulatory change is almost entirely one-way: towards a more liberal and deregulated environment (Barnett, 2004, p. 9). In 1996 the Telecommunications Act further eroded regulation as it changed regulation of media ownership in both substantive and procedural ways (DiCola, 2007, p. 103). The Act placed the burden of proof on the FCC2 to defend any media ownership rule it seeks to retain (DiCola, 2007, p. 104). In 2003, the FCC removed many of the remaining restrictions on US media ownership (Jenkins, 2004, p. 39) sparking concern that even as media corporations are becoming larger and presumably more powerful, ownership regulations are being rescinded or struck down (Horwitz, 2005, p. 1).

The results of the deregulation of the industry can be seen in changing ownership patterns. In the US in 1968 the ten biggest media companies controlled 11% of all daily newspaper companies, by 1978 they controlled 20 percent (Bagdikian, 1980, p. 62) and by 2004 just 6 conglomerates were said to control the majority of the media, not just in the US but internationally (Jamieson and Campbell, 2006, p. 141, Winseck, 2008). The concentration can be seen in global media profits as well: while the size of the global media market in 2005 was a staggering $258 billion, the 'big 10' global media firms account for just over 80% of all revenues. (Winseck, 2008, p. 37).

In recent years, while overall global media profits have grown astronomically, some sectors of the
2 The Federal Communications Commission.

industry, specifically newspapers, have become significantly less profitable than the ' licenses to print money' that they once were. In this new media environment, where newspapers compete for a share of a shrinking readership, large corporations, with deep pockets and diversified portfolio's, have a huge advantage. Rupert Murdoch, CEO and chief shareholder of News Corp, one of the 'big 10', owns 70% of the newspapers in Australia (Manne, 2011, p. 2), including the only daily paper in three capital cities (Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart), the newspaper with the highest circulation (The Herald Sun) and the only national newspaper (The Australian).It is claimed that Murdoch's Australian has never made a profit (Manne, 2011) and neither has his New York Press (Arsenault, 2008). What purpose can there possibly be for the ongoing funding of a loss making newspaper except to push an important ideological agenda, an agenda whose dissemination is more valuable to the corporations larger business aims than the loss represented by the newspaper individually? How can small, independent media companies, or non-profit organisations, or individuals and academics working outside the mainstream ideology hope to compete with multi-billion dollar, multinational corporations, able to cross promote within their empire and even willing to make losses on individual investments in order to push a long term ideological agenda and business goals?

The steady deregulation of the media is said to be due to a vast gulf in lobbying power between on the one hand powerful corporate interests wishing to push back the boundaries of state intervention, and on the other fragmented public interest and consumer groups attempting from an array of different perspectives to persuade governments to put citizens before corporations. (Barnett, 2004, p. 8). So we find ourselves with an alarming concentration of mainstream commercial media, with a small handful of multinational media conglomerates dominating all sectors of the entertainment industry (Jenkins, 2004, p. 33). So what are the consequences of this steady change towards fewer and fewer and weaker and weaker regulations on a more and more concentrated media?

Research has shown a positive relationship between consumer welfare and the number of firms in

the broadcast industry (Cunningham, 2004, p. 557) because the media is is more likely to be corrupt if there are few outlets (Corneo 2006, p. 39). Media diversity is seen to ensure unbiased and objective news coverage (Corneo, 2006, p. 39) because, if a biased newspaper buries a story a... rival will happily report it and the information will enter the public arena (Bagdikian, 1980, p. 61) so conversely concentration of firm ownership makes the occurrence of media bias more likely (Corneo, 2006, p. 37).

Research also shows that increased concentration of media ownership may lead to a decrease in the total amount of nonadvertising broadcasting (Cunningham, 2004, p. 557) primarily because audiences tend to switch off if advertising percentage increases but, without diversity and competition, fear of audience switch-off is of less consequence to the producer (Cunningham, 2004) but also because the goals of a loosely regulated, commercial media have no educational, cultural, or informational imperatives... they are there to maximise profits and to serve a set of corporate interests (Lewis 1998, p. 110). The mass media operate under increasing-returns-to-scale3 (Strmberg 2004, p. 265) and for this reason, among others, I ist more profitable in a concentrated environment.. It is claimed that, without more government regulation and as long as mass advertising... is the major support of papers, the economies of scale will result in monopoly papers. (Bagdikian, 1980, p. 64). These monopolies then begin a vicious cycle because when concentration is high, there is a high potential for big players to use anti-competitive and collusive behaviour to squelch competition (Winseck, 2008, p. 36).

These economies of scale and focus on profits also directly influence what non-advertising content makes it into the media because advertiser pressures force the media to cater to large groups and the wealthy or powerful at the expense of the poor and minority groups who are unattractive to advertisers (Strmberg, 2004, Horwitz, 2005) because large corporate advertisers will have little interest in sponsoring media content that targets audiences with little buying power or that produces
3 Meaning that, while initial production is expensive, subsequent use costs the producers very little.

images critical of corporations. (Herman & Chomsky cited Gamson, 1992, pp. 377-378). Advertisers also regularly influence content in order to protect their brand image, for example: Procter & Gamble is known to have ordered media outlets that "its products were not to be placed in any issue that included any material on gun control, abortion, the occult, cults, or the disparagement of religion. Caution was also demanded in any issue covering sex or drugs, even for educational purposes" (Steinem cited Gamson, 1992, p. 378) and it is likely that these sorts of demands are far more common than we know.

Media bias can also come about because ownership may force, directly or indirectly, their own ideological views upon their media empire. Herman and Chomsky claim the mass media is a propaganda machine which serves to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity (Chomsky and Herman, 2010, p. xi). For example, while millions of citizens around the world were openly against the war in Iraq from the outset, all of Rupert Murdoch's 175 newspapers around the world were vocal in their support for the invasion (Manne, 2011, p. 16). Murdoch even informed an ABC journalist during an interview: With our newspapers we have indeed supported Bush's foreign policy. And we remain committed that way (Manne, 2011, p. 16). If one is open to the possibility that media have a powerful influence on the ideas and behaviour of the public then a media mogul imposing an ideological bias upon their empire represents tremendous and frightening power in the hands of an unaccountable individual.

So if the media has at least significant potential power and media concentration increases the risks of bias, we must ask: where does the health of the global media environment stand now? According to Gamson the bad news is that all the trends seem to be in the wrong direction toward more and more messages, from fewer and bigger producers, saying less and less (1992, p. 373). The emergence of massive, multinational media conglomerates, able to simultaneously market the same message in multiple forms through a dazzling array of new technologies (Gamson, 1992, p.

375) has led to a private ministry of information (Bagdikian cited Gamson, 1992, p. 376). The concentration and size of these corporations means that the issue is no longer simply that the media may be compromised by their links to big business; the media are big business (Horwitz, 2005, p. 16) and the only real danger to its unrestricted growth and profit maximisation is a critically informed public (Lewis, 1998, p. 117). Reuven Frank, former president of NBC News is quoted as having said it is daily becoming more obvious that the biggest threat to a free press and the circulation of ideas is the steady absorption of newspapers, television networks and other vehicles of information into enormous corporations that know how to turn knowledge into profit (Croteau and Hoynes, 2000, p. 91).

It is often claimed by the conservative right that the media has a liberal bias. While no research into global media bias has ever been conclusive, it is difficult to doubt that the continuing shift of media into big business means that they generally avoid presenting political viewpoints of the left, largely due to the lefts intrinsic critique of commercialism and corporate power (Horwitz, 2005, p. 17). Insiders claim that commercial sponsors and advertisers now control all facets of television content, from advertising itself to news and cultural programming (Jamieson and Campbell, 2006, p. 106) and it is claimed that the public is now so accustomed to being interpolated as mere consumers in a corporate world that any notion of democratic input seems difficult to grasp (Lewis, 1998, p. 114). What this means is that a small number of unimaginably powerful individuals and corporations are gaining, or have already gained, monopoly control of the media and we are allowing the rules governing them to be steadily removed.

Some argue that only a state owned media can properly cater to the diverse, and not always necessarily profitable, needs and desires of the public. Organisations such as the BBC in the UK attest that state ownership protects the public from exposure to 'extreme' views (Djankov et al., 2003, p. 3). Others recognise that state ownership of at least some media is supposed to expose the

public to information, such as culture, which might not be otherwise provided by privately owned firms4 (Djankov, McLiesh et al. 2003, p. 3). There is of course a legitimate danger in this; that a state owned or funded media may be unable or unwilling to properly scrutinise the workings of the government and hold them to account, concentrated control of the media creates opportunities for abuse of power regardless of who has the control. The challenge is how to provide government regulation while maintaining freedom from government coercion in order to achieve a diverse and unbiased media.

How do we judge bias in the media? There is, after all, no litmus test for accurate political language (Dill, 2009, p. 194). In 1947 the Commission on the Freedom of the Press said that "The situation approaches a dilemma. The press must remain private and free, ergo human and fallible; but the press dare no longer indulge in fallibility it must supply the public need" (The Commission on the Freedom of the Press cited, Gerald, 1947, p. 561). The concentration of media ownership in the hands of a small number of individuals and corporations has lessened the reality of concerns about government control of the media, and the spectre of Soviet Russia such ideas raise in our dogmatically neo-liberal world, but nonetheless, if new regulations were to be introduced and existing regulations tightened we must ask the question: where does government regulation of a free media become government control of a propaganda machine? A media, even a diverse and unbiased one, that promotes negativity, apathy and political disconnection, and that the public feel is outside of their sphere of influence or understanding, is unhealthy for democracy regardless of any other factors, so perhaps the only solution is to raise the standards demanded by the public, to educate the masses to a desire for something better (Gerald, 1947, p. 561).

4 This is known as the 'Sesame St. effect'.

Bibliography

1944. Associated Press v. United States, 326 US 1. New York. ARSENAULT, A. 2008. Switching Power: Rupert Murdoch and the Global Business of Media Politics. International sociology, 23, 488. BAGDIKIAN, B. H. 1980. Conglomeration, concentration, and the media. Journal of communication, 30, 59. BARNETT, S. 2004. Media ownership policies: pressures for change and implications. Pacific journalism review, 10, 8. CHOMSKY, N. & HERMAN, E. S. 2010. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Random House. CORNEO, G. 2006. Media capture in a democracy: The role of wealth concentration. Journal of public economics, 90, 37. CROTEAU, D. & HOYNES, W. 2000. Media society: industries, images, and audiences, Thousand Oaks CA, Pine Forge Press. CUNNINGHAM, B. M. 2004. A theory of broadcast media concentration and commercial advertising. Journal of public economic theory, 6, 557. DICOLA, P. 2007. Choosing between the necessity and public interest standards in FCC review of media ownership rules. Michigan Law Review, 101. DILL, K. E. 2009. How fantasy becomes reality: seeing through media influence, Oxford, Oxford University Press. DJANKOV, S., MCLIESH, C., NENOVA, T. & SHLEIFER, A. 2003. Who Owns the Media? Journal of Law and Economics -Chicago-, 46, 341-382. GAMSON, W. A. 1992. Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual review of

sociology, 373. GERALD, J. E. 1947. A Free and Responsible Press. Public opinion quarterly, 11, 264. HORWITZ, R. B. 2005. On media concentration and the diversity question. The Information society, 21, 181. JAMIESON, K. H. & CAMPBELL, K. K. 2006. The interplay of influence: news, advertising, politics, and the Internet, Belmont CA, Thomson Wadsworth. JENKINS, H. 2004. The cultural logic of media convergence. International journal of cultural studies, 7, 33. LEWIS, J. 1998. The struggle over media literacy. Journal of communication, 48, 109. MANNE, R. 2011. Bad News: Murdoch's Australian and the shaping of the nation, Melbourne, Black Inc. SCHUDSON, M. 2003. The sociology of news, New York, WW Norton & Company. STRMBERG, D. 2004. Mass media competition, political competition, and public policy. The review of economic studies, 71, 265. WINSECK, D. 2008. The State of Media Ownership and Media Markets: Competition or Concentration and Why Should We Care? Sociology compass, 2, 34.

You might also like