Analysis of media ownership

 

 

 By: Liu Yandong(Reggie)

 

The so-called concentration of media ownership means that most media or media companies are owned by a few media groups or companies, thus forming a harmful and dangerous mass media ownership structure. In the UK, with the disappearance of the traditional boundaries of the media market and the intensification of the pursuit of economies of scale by media owners, the concentration of media ownership is becoming more and more obvious. The merger of Carlton and Glenda, the acquisition of consumer media group by guardian media group, and the acquisition of Blackville by Willy and son... Mergers and acquisitions in the media industry have led to the concentration of media ownership.

 

 There is an obvious debate about the impact of media ownership concentration. The author believes that we should dialectically look at the concentration of media ownership, not only to see that it can play a positive role in some aspects in the short term, but also to realize the harm it causes to social politics, economy and culture in the long run. When the Federal Communications Commission forcibly passed a new deal aimed at relaxing the ban on cross industry mergers and acquisitions of U.S. media on December 18, 2007, then presidential candidate Barack Obama believed that "the FCC is completely ignoring the will of the public".

 

On the harm of media ownership concentration, a study sponsored by the Benton foundation in the United States shows that "it is not in the public interest of the United States to hold media ownership in the hands of a few people". Specifically, the concentration of media ownership mainly has the following disadvantages. Threaten the independence and impartiality of the media. Independence and impartiality are the soul of the media. Only by maintaining independence and impartiality can the media have credibility.

 

 However, the increasing concentration of media ownership poses a serious threat to the independence and impartiality of the media. In the face of pressure, large media groups often increase self censorship of content products to meet the needs of major interest groups. For example, the South African media have gradually increased the discussion on topics of interest to urban life and consumers, while the attention to the poor and farmers has gradually decreased. The main reason is that the media consumption capacity of the poor and farmers in South Africa is very poor.

 

Obviously, once the media pay too much attention to the interests of themselves or special groups, their independence and impartiality will inevitably be affected. It is not conducive to the development of democratic politics. The concentration of media ownership may lead to the powerful media related to politicians or interest groups to spread a single political point of view, or spread words unfavorable to competitors, which may threaten the diversification process of Western democratic politics.

 

The reason why Berlusconi was successfully elected Italian Prime Minister for three times is closely related to his election strategy and platform, but the role of his media empire in publicizing his platform and suppressing the public opinion of his competitors can not be underestimated. It is an indisputable fact that the concentration of media ownership poses a potential threat to Western democratic politics. It is not conducive to the diversified development of culture. Gillian Doyle believes that "unless the cultural values of all groups can be reflected in the media, the diversified development of culture will be greatly threatened."

 

With the concentration of media ownership, the media will selectively spread the cultural products they think valuable, thus affecting the supply of cultural products and the development of cultural diversity. In the United States, a study by groups trying to prevent the FCC from deregulating media ownership found that children's interests were violated as a large number of television stations were merged. In the "double monopoly" or "three monopoly" market (a market has only one owner and two or three TV stations), the time of TV stations broadcasting children's programs decreased by an average of 70% from 1998 to 2006. It may damage the public's right to know.

 

When media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs, these oligarchs usually release relevant information according to the wishes of major advertisers or interest groups, thus damaging the public's right to know. Reporters often find that their manuscripts are either rejected by the media or modified beyond recognition. Because, in media practice, it is easy to appear a tendency that all information that has potential threats to media customers or media companies will not be published; On the contrary, information that is beneficial or even exaggerated is published immediately. This practice of ignoring the public's right to know will bring huge losses to the public and ultimately cause great harm to enterprises.