The democratic ideal of media, which is impartial and designed to inform citizens, is inevitably compromised as media ownership becomes more concentrated. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unmistakably states that everyone has the right “to hold opinions without interference” (UN, 2015) but is undermined as media ownership becomes more concentrated and the number of proprietors is reduced. Concentration of media ownership is frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society. The fundamental threat that concentrated media poses to any society is that as the influence of privately funded media increases, the democratic capacity of the media as an instrument to inform and educate citizens is diminished. This
…show more content…
Democratic societies rely on diversity of viewpoints and ideas for intelligence and engagement however, a paucity of diversity does not just jeopardize societal innovation but also becomes a threat to democracy itself. When media diversity is too low, public opinion is less likely to provide the oversight that democratic societies require and is more likely to be engaged in public affairs. Bruns (2008, pg 65) notes that within our own national borders, “media ownership concentration is more pronounced here than in most other democratic nations” – with only one truly national paper The Australian. This is furthered when Dwyer et al (2011) argues that “the march of concentration generating these official anxieties could also be clearly demonstrated in terms of decreasing ‘source’ or structural diversity – fewer titles, owners and journalists”. The problem of media concentration extends beyond mere banality; it represents a major threat to the ability of citizens to act conscientiously and to govern themselves, as democracy …show more content…
However in recent times, the media have been characterized principally through their perceived evolution from a fourth estate guarding the public interest into media that commodify news and are more interested in people as consumers than citizens. Habermas argues that the “press itself became manipulable to the extent that it became commercialized” (Habermas 1989 cited in Benson 2009: 176) that it eventually transformed the public sphere into a “platform for advertising” (Benson, 2009: 177). Critical function of the public sphere has been so corrupted by the market relationship that the democratic functions of the public sphere are no longer possible, therefore one where people can contribute on equal terms remains a fantasy. Dawes (2013) claims that “a problem with the rhetoric of press freedom is that it often serves more the private interests of media proprietors than it does the public interest.” Commercial medias’ principle goal is the drive for profit, which conceives media in relationship to consumers in a market rather than citizens in a public sphere; “the market model” where it suggests that “society’s needs are best met in an exchange based on dynamics of supply and demand” (Croteau & Hoynes, 2005: 17) It provides what
Democratic societies rely on diversity of viewpoints and ideas for intelligence and engagement however, a paucity of diversity does not just jeopardize societal innovation but also becomes a threat to democracy itself. When media diversity is too low, public opinion is less likely to provide the oversight that democratic societies require and is more likely to be engaged in public affairs. Bruns (2008, pg 65) notes that within our own national borders, “media ownership concentration is more pronounced here than in most other democratic nations” – with only one truly national paper The Australian. This is furthered when Dwyer et al (2011) argues that “the march of concentration generating these official anxieties could also be clearly demonstrated in terms of decreasing ‘source’ or structural diversity – fewer titles, owners and journalists”. The problem of media concentration extends beyond mere banality; it represents a major threat to the ability of citizens to act conscientiously and to govern themselves, as democracy …show more content…
However in recent times, the media have been characterized principally through their perceived evolution from a fourth estate guarding the public interest into media that commodify news and are more interested in people as consumers than citizens. Habermas argues that the “press itself became manipulable to the extent that it became commercialized” (Habermas 1989 cited in Benson 2009: 176) that it eventually transformed the public sphere into a “platform for advertising” (Benson, 2009: 177). Critical function of the public sphere has been so corrupted by the market relationship that the democratic functions of the public sphere are no longer possible, therefore one where people can contribute on equal terms remains a fantasy. Dawes (2013) claims that “a problem with the rhetoric of press freedom is that it often serves more the private interests of media proprietors than it does the public interest.” Commercial medias’ principle goal is the drive for profit, which conceives media in relationship to consumers in a market rather than citizens in a public sphere; “the market model” where it suggests that “society’s needs are best met in an exchange based on dynamics of supply and demand” (Croteau & Hoynes, 2005: 17) It provides what