The film Rich Media Poor Democracy asserts that journalism in the United States does not serve the interest of the public, instead they serve the interest of media corporate bosses. Moreover, the film points out the media corporate bosses are to blame for the absence of choice and diversity in the media which stems from a shortage of competition created through mergers. Rich Media Poor Democracy proposes that citizen involvement can and should rescue the media, otherwise corporate bosses will maintain their stronghold and riches providing and even poorer democracy.
Opponents of company mergers is not a new concept. In fact, Medoff and Kaye note that since the beginning of the century, consolidation of station ownership began to raise issues …show more content…
I have seen the reports of company mergers on the television just as the ones in the displayed in the film. However, I never really thought of it as a problem nor did I grasp the magnitude of consolidation and the affect it could have on the population. There has been a number of occasions where I can remember hearing or seeing on television or radio of companies merging. The latest one I know of is Time Warner Cable, supposedly now Spectrum. Others were ATT and Cingular Wireless, Infinity and Comcast, Verizon has even dabbled with Time Warner Cable to some extent. It seems every time you turn around, there is some merger taking place regarding electronic media and often too many to keep up with. Some I know of because I am subscriber and have received a letter with a new name of the new company. These mergers also eliminate much of the competition, which is what the film Rich Media Poor Democracy explains as a concern. Perhaps, electronic media consolidation deserves a …show more content…
From what I gather, the opportunity consist of profits and pushing agendas, while the concerns raise issues of false pretenses or lack of variety. Medoff and Kaye indicate, only a few voices are heard and the range of information, viewpoints, and opinion is limited through vertical integration (2011, p.69). The federal government has sought to maintain diversity in broadcasting keeping as many voices and viewpoints on the air as possible, yet more difficult to maintain as more cable and online content competes with newspapers and broadcast stations (Business and Ownership, 2011, p.189). The federal government traditionally encouraged diversity of opinion and ownership and discouraged the formation of monopolies, but since the 1970’s, the government has relaxed electronic media regulation thus permitting the market place to decide how electronic media should function in the U.S. society (Business and Ownership, 2011, p.191). Presently, there are no ownership limits on the size of cable MSO’s noted Medoff and Kaye (2011, p.191). For this reason, I believe the mergers have spiraled out of control and will continue until the public calls for action. The film, Rich Media Poor Democracy, adequately illustrates the level of control companies have on media outlets. Furthermore, they propose a solution to
Opponents of company mergers is not a new concept. In fact, Medoff and Kaye note that since the beginning of the century, consolidation of station ownership began to raise issues …show more content…
I have seen the reports of company mergers on the television just as the ones in the displayed in the film. However, I never really thought of it as a problem nor did I grasp the magnitude of consolidation and the affect it could have on the population. There has been a number of occasions where I can remember hearing or seeing on television or radio of companies merging. The latest one I know of is Time Warner Cable, supposedly now Spectrum. Others were ATT and Cingular Wireless, Infinity and Comcast, Verizon has even dabbled with Time Warner Cable to some extent. It seems every time you turn around, there is some merger taking place regarding electronic media and often too many to keep up with. Some I know of because I am subscriber and have received a letter with a new name of the new company. These mergers also eliminate much of the competition, which is what the film Rich Media Poor Democracy explains as a concern. Perhaps, electronic media consolidation deserves a …show more content…
From what I gather, the opportunity consist of profits and pushing agendas, while the concerns raise issues of false pretenses or lack of variety. Medoff and Kaye indicate, only a few voices are heard and the range of information, viewpoints, and opinion is limited through vertical integration (2011, p.69). The federal government has sought to maintain diversity in broadcasting keeping as many voices and viewpoints on the air as possible, yet more difficult to maintain as more cable and online content competes with newspapers and broadcast stations (Business and Ownership, 2011, p.189). The federal government traditionally encouraged diversity of opinion and ownership and discouraged the formation of monopolies, but since the 1970’s, the government has relaxed electronic media regulation thus permitting the market place to decide how electronic media should function in the U.S. society (Business and Ownership, 2011, p.191). Presently, there are no ownership limits on the size of cable MSO’s noted Medoff and Kaye (2011, p.191). For this reason, I believe the mergers have spiraled out of control and will continue until the public calls for action. The film, Rich Media Poor Democracy, adequately illustrates the level of control companies have on media outlets. Furthermore, they propose a solution to