As stated on page 169 of our reading, "97% of the nation's daily newspapers enjoy a local newspaper monopoly." Additionally, the chapter refers to many instances of corporate controlled news.
Use evidence from the reading and your own opinion to explain why or why not monopolies are a good thing in the newspaper/news distributing industry. Possible inclusions may be employment, the desire for the truth, monetary cost, Federal laws concerning monopolies, and many more.
Don't be afraid to dream up something big. Enjoy...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with many aspects of the book on the side in which monopolies are bad in the newspaper/news distributing industry. I believe that in the media the more voices being heard the better because its easier to evaluate who is telling the true story.
ReplyDeleteThe book notes about the huge staff cuts that took place when consolidations occurred. This just causes for fewer opinoins and also less stories to be covered.
Also, I liked the point that the news corporations are worried about profits and not serving the public. Before monopolies the news did not come secondary to business as the book stated. Also, when companies are worried about making profits from news the message may become manipulated to make it sound more exciting than it is to draw a larger audience. I believe that news should only be the facts.
Lastly, I think the monolopies are way out of hand when it comes to synergy. It is not necessary for the same company to own the movie studie that makes a movie, the video store that rents it and the tv networks that advertise it. When they used this example in the book of "Forest Gump" I couldn't believe that it would be legal for one company to achieve that much power.
I believe that media monopolies are not a good thing in the media industry today, however, as much as we all don’t like it I believe that they are here to stay. With that said, I think that the text gives a lot of reasoning as to why media monopolies are a bad thing in our society today. On page 158, the following sentence sums up why media monopolies are not the best thing for our society, “Today, the business of news is business, not news…News has become secondary, even incidental, to markets and revenues and advertisers, and consumer preferences.”
ReplyDeleteThe above sentence is blatantly stating that our society is so money-focused these days that the news that used to be important because it was doing the job of informing the public, is not so much concerned with informing the public, but rather making money. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with one of Tuesday’s discussion questions about whether we should trust the media or not, and the answer is, in a lot of circumstances, probably not because the real reasoning behind newscasts seems to be disappearing in our society today.
Some other negative aspects about media monopolies that the text points out are: staff cuts, loss of serious political content, and loss of local news that isn’t of regional or national interest. All of these negative effects point back to the above sentence in the first paragraph: the focus of the news isn’t the news but rather how much money can be generated.
I do not think newspaper monopolies are good for the newspaper industry. One reason is that it cuts down local news. Page 165 of our textbook says corporate ownership of media can eliminate timely weather information and local news. This is important information most people in a community would like to hear. Unfortunately if a monopoly owns a newspaper or radio station, local community members may miss out on important news.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I do not think newspaper monopolies are good for the newspaper industry is that they limit the variety of views on issues. Instead of hearing local views on an issue, most readers will only hear what the people in the city that owns the newspaper think. Page 163 of our textbook says “Concentrated ownership cuts voices and views to public.” I agree with this statement. If every newspaper is owned by a monopoly, readers will only hear a centralized opinion. Also, the centralized opinion may scare people into saying what they truly believe because they are scared of going against what they think is the majority.
I don't believe that media monopolies are for the media/news industry.
ReplyDeleteI think that monopolies limits competition between corporations. To make the most out of the news a little competition is fine because the journalists gains critical thinking and make the news more attractive towards the public.
The survey from page 163 of our text mentions a few effects brought by monopolies."corporate ownership hurts news quality", one aspect could be that since the newspaper, radio, television is controlled by monopolies, the news coverage could be based only on those that could influence the image of the corporation. Many of the news coverage are reduced for advertising purposes such as political events. Another aspect is that the profit is the main focus rather than news, corporate reduces the number of stories and decreases the quality of the news which to the audience is not a fair thing because the public has the rights to know what is going on rest of the world.
In my opinion, no monopoly is a good monopoly, and the media industry is certainly no exception. The fact that much of the media I consume, goods that I buy, books that I read, and many other daily tasks I perform are ultimately fueled by goods, services, and media from only five major national/international companies is quite disheartening to me. To clarify, I raise the example on page 167-168 of the text that quotes the Washington Post: “Viacom’s Forrest Gump blitz exemplifies the cross-marketing ‘synergies’ that companies are trying to achieve by owning the movie studio that makes the hit, the video stores that rent it and the TV networks that advertise it.” While I do agree that these kinds of business tactics are quite successful and generate exorbitant amounts of revenue, I do not agree with five major companies strategically controlling our media messages as well as a large amount of our consumer activities. The role of the media is ultimately to preserve the democratic process and to promote free speech and gaining of worldly knowledge; in my opinion, the most important political function of media in promoting democracy is diminishing quickly, because instead of being able to listen to media messages about the issues of the day with trust that all of the facts are being presented neutrally, we must watch the media with a critical eye; the same story can be construed and presented in extremely different ways and with different factual evidence from media on either side of the spectrum, such as MSNBC (a generally liberal news outlet) and Fox News (a generally conservative news outlet). This type of control over the media not only affects the messages we consume, but Americans financially. In the book, it is stated that when Newsweek was taken over by a conglomerate, Newsweek staff was reduced by 50 percent. HALF of Newsweek employees were left without jobs, which is detrimental to American society. I would rather a small, local company be able to decide what is newsworthy and be able to present the news without having to worry about what the parent company will do. To conclude, I reiterate the point that I think media monopolies are detrimental to the media industry. As quoted in the book by John Silver, executive director of Free Press, “Now what Rupert Murdoch decides is news suddenly becomes news.” This statement, however exaggerated, makes the strong point that five major media companies wielding all media power is harmful to our democracy.
ReplyDeleteA monopoly, by definition, is exclusive control. In my opinion, producing quality news requires that competition exist; therefore a monopoly is a problem. It has been said that competition breeds excellence and I believe that is true especially in the news media. Without the need to be better than another newspaper in order to sell more papers, a company can produce mediocre work and still sell it. In a monopoly, readers must simply accept what the paper offers, instead of having a choice.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with a monopoly could be what issues are covered as well as how they are portrayed. For example, if a paper takes a particular stance on an issue, the other side may never be heard. Along with that problem could be the issue of censorship, in which certain stories are cut because an editor or publisher does not want to run them. Often stories would be chosen or not chosen based on whether it agreed with the viewpoint of the producer of a program or the publisher of a paper. As the book points out on page 166, "Consistent with self-interest, corporate owners prefer programming reaffirming their beliefs and values, ..."
Overall, I believe that monopolies only hurt the news industry. Newsworthiness of stories and motives of those in charge may be called into question, but without competition people have no other choice.
I think that the monopolies in media are a bad thing. The book talked about how Murdoch’s News Corporation has control over hundreds of radio news services. Through this ownership Rupert Murdoch can essentially decide what news is worthy.
ReplyDeleteI think these monopolies make unfair new coverage more prevalent. An example of this would be the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The US media is overwhelmingly bias toward the Israelis and very often portrays the Palestinians as terrorist. If you watch news from other countries, the coverage is much more realistic about the conflict.
US new monopolies creates unfair news coverage because they usually have a stance which penetrates the news venues it controls.
I don't think that monopolies in the media are a good thing. Like our reading states, our current news business focuses more on ads/money than it does the actual news, and I find that to be rather sad. People read their local newspaper/tune in to their local news stations to become more informed on issues important to them; but that is becoming fuzzy these days because monopolies are making these particular decisions of what is newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteOn page 158, our book states that "Staff cuts translate into fewer voices and perspectives in the news process." I agree with this statement and I also think it's sad that monopolies have taken out any competition and difference of opinions in the news process. Monopolies are so worried about money that they are making news less trustworthy.
Overall, I think that monopolies are taking away so much from the news industry and I think they are bad. The centralized themes and cutting out of important news gives the news business less credibility. I find it sad that news in the news business is no longer the focus: money is.
We are constantly hearing how major news corporations enjoy a monopoly. The mention News Corp. People do not realize that Rupert Murdoch controls News Corp. which owns and operates Fox News radio and television, the Wall Street Journal, and several other new outlets. MSNBC is a member of the parent company General Electric. GE owns and operates the entire family of NBC channels, CNBC, MSNBC, and NBC. Essentially NBC controls and operates two of the four major cable news broadcasts. These are just two examples, but look at the power that these two ownership groups enjoy. Not only do they have control over network channels, but they also enjoy control over cable news and print/online journalism.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with major corporations controlling the news is that each of these companies has many stockholders. These companies have an obligation to their stockholders and to themselves to turn a profit. As I have mentioned in class, these companies cannot possibly maintain their respective audiences if they reported the news according to straight facts, they more than likely would lose a portion of their audiences. All forms of media are strictly businesses. Any news corporation that operates at a non-profit level is more than likely not very popular or appeals to a very small base.
With sales of news corporations going for several billion dollars, and newspapers constantly filing for bankruptcy, there really is no difference between news corporations and Wall Street. There have been rumors of a bailout for several large news corporations. Monopolies are definitely not a good thing in the news reporting field. I believe that news corporations have a hard time sticking to the facts when they are concerned about their pocketbooks.
In Fargo, the Fargo Forum is a news monopoly. As the Red River Valley's main newspaper outlet, the Forum is a powerful source of news. Although all newspapers can now be accessed online, Fargo residents' rely on the Forum for local news. For North Dakota I do think newspaper monopolies are a good thing because to get local news, this is the only way it can be accessed.It makes sense that there would be a monopoly because of so many of the small towns in North Dakota.
ReplyDeleteThe text explains that "22 companies account for 70 percent of the country's newspaper circulation." This number means that there is much control over what is read in newspapers all over the country. "Control over what we see and read in news, television, books, and movies has brought steadily increasing political power to these media conglomerates."
I think that monopolies are okay when it comes to local news, but as for national news, I do not agree with this idea. I think that us as viewers do not really realize that the media does control what we watch and read. As we fall deeper and deeper into this trap, our own opinions about issues are just what the media is telling us.
In many ways, monopolies are nearly impossible to avoid in newspapers. If a company is able to fund the paper with forest harvesting like Time Warner does, they can then reduce the cost of the publication, charge less for ads (or more because they have the market for themselves) and thus, the consumer buys more of their product.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying I believe monopolies are a good thing. When a few companies own the only resources for news, the consumer is the one who loses. Josh Silver said in the book, "What Rupert Murdoch decides is news suddenly becomes news." This statement is alarmingly true. If Fox News is heavily supported by oil companies, they are going to attempt to put a positive spin on any news related to the sale of oil (or they may choose to ignore it completely) because the news entity doesn't want to lose their funding.
Monopolies are also bad on the employment front. When a big company is able to corner the market, smaller news organizations are not able to keep up and maintain a staff. Staff are also forced to stretch themselves out to cover the web, radio, newspaper and any other type of media their company may cover.
Altogether, I know we will always have monopolies in the news. It is inevitable. I do not agree that monopolies are the best way to produce and distribute the media we see as unbiased on a daily basis.
I think news monopolies are not a good thing for citizens. How are people supposed to received unbiased news when only a few people control what is considered as news?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we are partially responsible for these monopolies. The book discusses many instances where news staffs have been cut, sometimes as much as 50 percent, due to budget cuts in the industry. With advances in technology, people are not subscribing to the newspaper anymore. When I visited Minneapolis recently, there were people out encouraging people to help support the Star Tribune and save it from bankruptcy. And the Tribune is a large newspaper that has circulation even in Fargo.
I understand that lower circulation is not the only reason for newspaper decline however I think it's a large piece of it. With lower circulation, advertisers pull their ads because they are not reaching people and that increases the losses for newspapers.
Monopolies limit the flow of information to average Americans however there are some remedies. While you can blame technology for newspaper decline, it also increases access to other forms of information. People can now read the BBC or The Washington Post from anywhere in the world. While monopolies are not a good thing in any industry, people do have the ability to get a variety of information as long as they choose to.
News media monopolies are definitely a double edged sword and there are good and bad characteristics. For one, the consolidation of media sources to fit under one giant corporation umbrella results in job loss for thousands of journalists. Unfortunately, media monopolies create collateral damage in the form of firing employees. The decrease in individual voice is also another unfortunate effect of such monopolies.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a major reason that monopolies are focusing more on the business of making than the actual news is a reflection of society at large. Sales of advertising spots are based on the number of viewers each station has, or readers each paper has. When a station runs news pieces that are thought-provoking or serious, many people don't pay attention to those. They'd rather read excerpts online or watch less intellectually stimulating fare. As a result, the station or the paper is much less likely to present another program like this for fear of advertisers backing out.
What we choose watch or read influences what a news network chooses to air or print. Because of this, news monopolies are focused more on the business aspect of the news and entertainment and I feel that it's just another side effect of public opinion on news and entertainment.
I believe that newspaper monopolies are bad. They are definitely not a good thing in today’s society and can cause numerous problems. One example of this is how much of a full story is covered. If a newspaper takes a particular stance, or looks at a situation in a particular way, the other side of the story may be deemed as unimportant and ends up not being recognized like it should. It a newspaper has a particular agenda, and the individual in charge favors a certain side of a story, this could be detrimental to readers of the newspaper who want to hear both sides.
ReplyDeleteMonopolies have always been known to be money hungry. It is because of this that I also do not agree with monopolies. Stories could be exaggerated in order to make the newspaper seem more appealing. I think this could be bad for stories that are only showing one side of the story. For example, if a story focused on a murder suspect and how that person was “guilty” by using flashy headlines and trying to grab the reader’s attention, and that individual turned out to be innocent, it could be very negative for the newspaper. Page 167 states, “Competition among alternative media has taken the place of competition among newspapers.” This statement exhibits how some media could possible alter stories to get buyers and sound more appealing.
Monopolies for newspapers are negative for readers and the public. I feel that by expanding newspapers, more points of view could be seen and it would be less about the money and more about content.
Any monopoly is bad, unless it's the board game. I agree with what most people have already written. News is "suppose" to be unbiased. The information is given so that the public can form their own opinion.
ReplyDeleteThese days everything is about who has money and how much they have. Even the publications that claim they are against that kind of work, still fall into the trap. Hard to say no when things can be made easier for you with large sums of money.