LARGE COMMUNICATIONS CONGLOMERATES.   Term Paper ID:30108 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Impact on consumer choice and quality of product of huge media conglomerates.... More...

12 Pages / 2700 Words 8 sources, 13 Citations, APA Format $48.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Impact on consumer choice and quality of product of huge media conglomerates. Argues that the growth of power of media moguls is a threat to consumer freedom, and to the well-being of a democratic society. Effect on entertaining, news, and a democratic society. Role of advertising. Profits. Discusses media mergers. Moguls Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. Paper Introduction: The mergers which have created giant communications conglomerates led by moguls such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch affect consumers both negatively and positively. The primary positive effects are the technological advances made, while the major negative effect is the commercialization of products, including entertainment, news and information. The incredible amounts of money involved in acquiring and operating huge communications media organizations make it inevitable that the decisions made by the leaders of those organizations will be based on little but economic pros and cons. This means that the aim of the giant communications organization is to sell advertising, which means in turn that the primary consideration is the number of viewers, listeners, readers, including their age and spending capacity. When profits are considered above all Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Again, the impact of such mergers decreases consumer choice over thebroad spectrum, despite the fact that channels will be added to the menu.Adding 2 sports channels and movie channels to a consumer's choice listhardly adds to the likelihood of an educated electorate or a strongerdemocracy. (2 ). When profits areconsidered above all else, the value of the product--whether entertainment,news, or information--can only suffer. Also,the problem is now global, with local and national considerationsincreasingly irrelevant. (1999). would create very substantial cost savings and be a source of incremental new profits for Turner as well as the network. This dangerincreases under the conservative Republican administration of PresidentGeorge W. Ted Turner is a maverick media owner in that he sometimes speaks out on environmental and world peace issues, but there's nothing original about CNN's talkshow lineup. The future of the realm of media moguls and conglomerates is likelyto be even more dominated by fewer and more powerful individuals andcorporate entities. CNN could easily replace or complement a network's entire news operation, creating instant savings of $1 -$2 million, which would fall straight into the profit column (Bibb, 1993, p. Uncertain Guardians. The lower the common denominator atwhich the media aim its product and advertising, the more watered-down isthe product to appeal to the biggest audience. A vice-president from Walt Disney Co.testified, for example, that his company had stayed out of the AT&T-MediaOne Group merger and the open-access fight, but it was compelled toenter the AOL-Time Warner fray because of the market power the twocompanies will have. Bibb, P. Inevitably, the people, their institutions, anddemocracy as a whole will suffer. They are disappearing also in America. 416). However, "asformidable as the technical and cultural problems were, onlineentertainment failed because it was so new and different that it didn't fitanyone's models or business practices" (Geirland and Sonesh-Kedar 1999, p.251). . Murdoch. "The product" is news, information, ideas, entertainment and popular culture; the public is the whole world. The argument of the moguls and their representatives, of course, isthat the developing technology (made possible in part by the wealth of theconglomerates in support of research and development) allows for greaterconsumer choice in terms of channels and content. "This massive aggregation of market power cannot beleft to voluntary promises of good behavior. Shawcross, W. However,the case of Ted Turner puts the lie to such a claim. Bibb's description of a proposed Turner deal demonstrates that theconsumer and consumer choice are not major choices with which the mediamogul is concerned. In addition, considering that conglomerates deal in everyaspect of media product, an advertiser's clout can be felt across the mediaspectrum. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.----------------------- 1 Bagdikianpresented a dark picture of the negative impact of such monopolies in theearly 198 s, when 5 or so large corporations controlled the media. . (199 ). You can control expenses and generate revenues almost arbitrarily (Bagdikian, 1983, p. Some of the arguments themoguls make, however, are preposterous. Violenceand sex are what sells, and violence and sex, legal products in Murdoch'srealm, are what the moguls sell. The point is a crucial one--once the monopoly comes into being, itspower allows it to do what it wants to do, especially when one considersthe political clout that such giant firms have, meaning that they canforestall interference from government regulatory bodies. The goal of monopoly is precisely tocontrol, as much as possible, the market for whatever goods and servicesare in question. Such a statement is terrifying when one realizes that Murdoch's mediaempire is expanding, and that his and other moguls' hold on the public asproviders of entertainment, news and information is a global rather merelya national issue. They include Michael Eisner ofDisney (annual revenues: $23 billion, with a corporate presence in China,Japan, Europe and Latin America); C. [produce] a documentary on a controversial domestic issue involving an important advertiser (Sparrow, 1999, p. Murdoch's blatantconservatism is such that any discerning viewer who watches Murdoch's FoxNews Network will see that conservative agenda in action. Bagdikian gives a warning in the early 198 s which was not heeded. The commondenominator, which becomes the god of the media conglomerate, eventuallyproduces a mainstream set of choices, with little radical expression forthe media consumer. New York: NewPress. Case's argument that the AOL-Time Warner merger is apopulist effort is an insult to the intelligence of the FCC and theconsumers of America. Lee, M., and N. . a general cosmicconsciousness.'" That global village has come about, and indeed the peopleof the world are closer together in terms of the speed and scope of thedissemination of images, but the idealized future of the "global village"has not occurred. . The more staggering the sum involved, now in the hundreds of billionsof dollars annually, the more than the economic bottom line is the majorconsideration in determining what content to disseminate. These companies that are worried about us are worried because we are populists (Connell, 2 , p. Digital Babylon. Still,there are such men as Rupert Murdoch whose expanding medias empire showsthat a few rare individuals maintain their power. New York: Simon and Schuster. The suggestion is that the political inclination of the mogul himselfbecomes increasingly irrelevant the larger the conglomerate, for the largerthe conglomerate, the more the mogul must be concerned with profits ratherthan expression on any cherished ideas he might have. ---. That indirect censorship by advertisers, to which the powerfulNational Broadcasting Company acquiesced passively, is even more a threattoday when much more money is involved, and when competition foradvertisers and consumers is far greater than it was more than threedecades ago. 82 ). It Ain't Easy As It Looks: Ted Turner's AmazingStory. 76). 79). 1). Even other huge multimedia conglomerates recognize the threat of suchmedia mergers as AOL-Time Warner. (1999). You can engineer your profits. 2). This is why TV,movie, music and news programming and content is increasingly similar. References Bagdikian, B. In response to aquestion about the limitation of choices threatened by the growth of mediaconglomerates, Case argued, This notion people are putting out that we are constraining choice is a little silly. He notes Marshall McLuhan's vision of a"global village" and the prediction that "an information network wouldenvelop the planet, spreading democracy and leading to 'a Pentecostalcondition of universal understanding and unity . Unrealiable Sources. As Geirland and Sonesh-Kedar write of the stunninggrowth of the Internet, which will be one gateway to that media future:"The Internet of the mid-199 s was like a fourteen-year-old whose growingbody has outpaced his coordination." It was to be expected that manyspeculative internet enterprises would make great profits and that manymore would collapse as the new realm worked itself out. The more money that is involved, the less riskwill be taken because of the fear of loss of that money. Today,a relative handful of multinational conglomerates control the media asmergers and acquisitions continue to create mammoth organizations. When the media are run by peoplewho do not want to upset their audience, who do not want to drive away thataudience, who want only to expand that audience, the needs of a democracyare not important. "The Lords of the Global Village." (1989). (1993). Most of them confidently announce that by the 199 s they--five to ten corporate giants--will control most of the world's important newspapers, magazines, books, broadcast stations, movies, recordings and videocassettes (Bagdikian, 1989, p. Bagdikian, predicting in the 198 s the coming of such moguls andmonopolies, wrote that each of these planetary corporations plans to gather under its control every step in the information process, from creation of "the product" to all the various means by which modern technology delivers media messages to the public. Murdoch's stunningly low standards for the definition of"public service" are frightening when one considers that Murdoch is one ofthe most powerful men in the media world, and his power is increasing, asopposed to Turner's which is on the decline, relatively. These nine moguls and theirfirms not only control the majority of the media in the world, they areconstantly seeking to expand their empires, including devouring one anotherwhen possible and profitable. One negative effect of such conglomerate power and their need toplease advertisers is that advertisers can shape content and thereby robconsumers of their democratic right to know what is going on in theirsociety. For example, America OnlineChairman Steve Case and Time Warner Chairman Gerald Levin, in testimonybefore the Federal Communications Commission on the merger of AOL and Time-Warner, "extoll[ed] the virtues of their merger as one that will 'take theInternet to the next level' and 'increase consumer choice in communicationsservice and content'" (Connell, 2 , p. Boston: Beacon, 1983. McChesney, R.W. Henotes that "the voices of ordinary men and women" played a part in nuclearde-escalation, then writes, "From this start must come a drastic reorderingof power in American society, including a reduction in the concentratedcontrol of new, public information, and culture" (Bagdikian, 1983, p. To the contrary, there have grown other networks designed to penetrate the world with messages far from the enlightenment and openness of "a general cosmic consciousness." A handful of mammoth private organizations have begun to dominate the world's mass media. . The argument might be made that media giants do not limit consumerchoice if there are moguls on each side of the political spectrum. McChesney (2 ) lists the top nine global media moguls who he saysnow run the bulk of the media in the world. New York: Crown. Again, when economics are theprimary essence of an enterprise, then consumer choice is reduced as aconsideration. (2 ). In addition, the media conglomerate will be very unlikely todisseminate information which could be damaging to itself, its reputation,its stockholders, or its income. This means that the aim of the giantcommunications organization is to sell advertising, which means in turnthat the primary consideration is the number of viewers, listeners,readers, including their age and spending capacity. New York:Arcade. The larger the conglomerates due tomergers and acquisitions, the more controlled will be the informationdisseminated to the people. The incredible amounts of money involved in acquiring andoperating huge communications media organizations make it inevitable thatthe decisions made by the leaders of those organizations will be based onlittle but economic pros and cons. The arrogance ofMurdoch with respect the choices of consumers is on full view in WilliamShawcross's biography of the man. Such radical voices frighten away advertisers, andadvertising income is the gauge by which success in the media is measured. Those companies that accuse us of being a monopoly are not worried because we are going to be a monopoly. Sonesh-Kedar. 427). The Media Monopoly. . The larger the firm, the more the concern for maintainingprofits and expanding markets, which are essential factors of capitalism,and the less room for concern with offering the consumers a broad choice ofcontent and services. In a democracy, this is particularly dangerous, for true democracydepends on a fully informed electorate. In the free market which Murdoch champions, only the number of viewers matters. Rich Media, Poor Democracy. Connell, D. Yet, as newspapers decline in importance as people's primary source of news, television needs more than ever to become the vigilant watchdog of a free society, That is not happening (Shawcross, 1992, p. 3). Jeff Cohen, thefounder of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, analyzes the minimal impact ofTurner's alleged liberal attitudes on the programming on his network CNN: [CNN's political talkshow lineup] offers the same center-to- right spectrum as PBS. The argument against monopolies has always been that they will cornerthe market and that consumers will have to buy whatever the monopoly isselling at whatever prices the monopoly decrees. However, gradually, such models and practices are being invented andrefined--by the moguls and conglomerates who can afford to do so, and whowill control the Internet just as they now control TV, radio, newspapers,and the music and movie business. 238). Shawcross recognizes that the greater number of choices provided bymedia conglomerates to the public does not mean that the quality hasimproved. The future will likely be a place where the media choices are great--in terms of quantity, at least--but where the quality and scope of contentis increasingly limited. The mergers which have created giant communications conglomerates ledby moguls such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch affect consumers bothnegatively and positively. One way in which advertisers can influence the content ofprogramming "is to withhold, or threaten to withhold, advertisements fromundesirable programming." For example, as Sparrow writes, when NBC ran a news special on the conditions of migrant workers who picked citrus crops for Minute Maid, Coca-Cola [the parent company of Minute Maid] pulled its multimillion-dollar account. The size of the conglomeratesforming in the new century truly boggles the mind and surpasses the abilityof individuals to control them independent of group considerations. 1-4.http://www.postindustry.com/article/mainv/ ,722 ,1 3352, .html Geirland, J., and E. In fact, Turner is less the leading media mogul in the early years ofthe 21st century that he was decades earlier. Chandler extolled the virtues of media monopolies: If a newspaper is noncompetitive, it gives you as franchise to do what you want with profitability. Itis also why the growth of the power of the media moguls is a threat toconsumer freedom and the health of a democratic society now and in thefuture. "FCC Goes Easy on Case, Levin." PostIndustry.July 28. Opponents of the environmental and peace movements are everywhere on CNN, proponents nowhere (Lee and Solomon, 199 , pp. In fact, exactly the opposite has taken place, with more and more ofsuch media power and control concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The competition among the shrinkingnumber of conglomerates is for the same audience and the same advertisers,and the product put out is increasingly similar in every field. The fact is, however, that therapid expansion of mergers related to the Internet have created logjams inwhich service is terrible, particularly in DSL lines. of Seagram (annual revenues of $12.3 billion;Seagram's Universal Music Group is the largest firm in recorded music inthe world, owning Universal Studios and theme parks in Asia and TV stationsin Europe and Latin America); Gerald Levin of Time Warner (annual revenuesof $26.8 billion, with 2 subsidiaries, a major global power in everymedia sector except newspapers and radio, including CNN International andHBO, reaching 2 nations); Sumner Redstone of Viacom (annual revenues of$12.1 billion, with its Paramount Pictures and MTV distributing heavilyoutside the United States, including Nickelodeon, channels from Uzbekistanto the Philippines, and Blockbuster, with 6, stores in twenty-sevencountries); Thomas Middelhoff of Bertelsmann (annual revenues of $16.4billion, the largest TV and radio firm in Europe, including BMG Music,Random House and other publishingcompanies in Germany, Britain, and Argentina). In his response, Casesimply ignores this fact and reverses the argument, claiming that those whoargue against the AOL-Time Warner merger are actually against the people!Populism, which refers to the needs of the people, a grass-roots appeal inpolitics, is not the goal of monopoly. 355-356). Bush which has already shown a pro-business propensity and whichwill likely translate into a reluctance to challenge additional mergers. The Nation. One of the most influential and respected of works analyzing theeffect of media monopolies is Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly. What is true today with respect to the arrogance and profit-obsessions of such moguls as Murdoch was true twenty years ago with respectto such moguls as Otis Chandler, head of the conglomerate, Time MirrorCompany. . New York: LyleStuart. Writing six years later in The Nation, Bagdikian updated his viewsand it is no surprise that his forecast was far less hopeful than theending of his 1983 book suggested. To the contrary, he is concerned with power and wealthand increasing that power and that wealth; The combination of Turner Broadcasting System with any one of the major broadcast networks . In that work, Murdoch argues: "Anybodywho, within the law of the land, provides a service which the public wantsat a price it can afford is providing public service" (Shawcross, 1992, p.427). (1992). . 8 6). Just because the media giants are able to provide improvedtechnology and better pictures and sound to the public does not mean thatthe messages and images sent are bettering humanity in any way. The number ofviewers and advertisers becomes as important to the media mogul andconglomerate as drugs to a junkie. Michael Armstrong of AT&T and JohnMalone of Liberty Media (annual revenues: $55 billion, holdings in SouthAmerica and Asia in cable, satellite and broadcast television, with stakesin Time Warner, News Corporation, CNBC and Sprint PCS Group); Nobuyuki Ideiof Sony (annual revenues: $56.6 billion, with TV programming on fivecontinents); Jack Welch of General Electric (annual revenues of $1 billion, including NBC, CNBC and MSNBC, reaching 7 million households inAsia and Europe); Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation (annual revenues of$13.6 billion, the biggest English-language newspaper producer in theworld); Edgar Bronfman Jr. The primary positive effects are thetechnological advances made, while the major negative effect is thecommercialization of products, including entertainment, news andinformation. In his biography of Ted Turner, Porter Bibb makes clear that the aimof the moguls above all else is profit. To thecontrary, Much of what is being transported down fiber-optic cables is either lies or pap. June 12,pp. For at least eight years thereafter, "NBC [did] not . Deregulation lowered the quality of all television channels in France [and] threatens the end of serious drama and current-affairs programs in Britain. If the conglomerate is trying to draw in the greatestnumber of consumers in order to lure advertisers and increase advertisingprices and revenue, then the lowest common denominator will prevail. . Sparrow, B. Both AOL and Time Warner have demonstrated their propensity to abuse their bottlenecks and market strength to limit and skew consumer choice and to inhibit competition (Connell, 2 , p. Solomon. The driving force for all this is simple: these closed corporate circuits are worth staggering sums (Bagdikian, 1989, p. 8 5-2 . If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.