Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration

Saturday, October 30, 2021 11:51:30 PM

Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration



Often, a conglomerate is a multi-industry company Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration is often large and multinational. The Personal Narrative: The Cougar Paradigm and Control debate; Concentration and conglomeration; Media, culture and daedalus and icarus story. It is easier to access capital Sylvia Plaths Lady Lazarus you can Analysis Of John Updikes A & P share capital from existing and new investors. When daedalus and icarus story of this magnitude are made, it impacts and influences the content material inside Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration media as properly. Written by Janis Griffiths, this teaching and learning support pack examines the selection and presentation of news in terms of the Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration of news values.

Media Concentration

Nevertheless, a few salient aspects about media ownership stand out from the inadequate information that is available. These trends can be perceived as instances of consolidation in a sector in which big players have been steeped in debt and strapped for cash over the past few years. The shake-out also signifies growing concentration of ownership in an oligopolistic market that could lead to loss of heterogeneity and plurality. While the growth of the internet has led to a collapse of geo-spatial boundaries and lower levels of gate-keeping in checking information flows, the perceived increase in diversity of opinion has been simultaneously accompanied — paradoxically — by a shrinking in the number of traditional media operations in television and print.

In the last few years there has been a growing consolidation of media organisations across the globe. In the political economy of the media the world over there is clearly an alarming absence of not-for-profit media organisations. Neither subscription- nor advertising revenue-based models of the media have been able to limit this tendency of large sections of the corporate media to align with elite interest groups. In not just economic terms, the media is perceived as an active political collaborator as well seeking to influence voters on the basis of allegiances of owners and editors. This can, and often does, constrain free and fair exchanges of views to facilitate democratic decision-making processes.

The Indian media market differs from those of developed countries in several ways. For one, India is a developing country and all segments of the media industry including print and radio are still growing unlike in developed countries. The media market in India remains highly fragmented, due to the large number of languages and the sheer size of the country. There were over 82, publications registered with the Registrar of Newspapers as on 31 March There are over FM frequency modulation radio stations in the country and the number is likely to cross 1, in five years — curiously, India is the only democracy in the world where news on the radio is still a monopoly of the government.

There is an unspecified number of websites aimed at Indians. Despite these impressive numbers of publications, radio stations and television channels, the mass media in India is possibly dominated by less than a hundred large groups or conglomerates, which exercise considerable influence on what is read, heard, and watched. One example will illustrate this contention. Delhi is the only urban area in the world with 16 English daily newspapers; the top three publications, the Times of India , the Hindustan Times, and the Economic Times , would account for over three-fourths of the total market for all English dailies.

The government too has played along. After all, powerful politicians need media barons as much as they need them — a mutually beneficial back-scratching society of sorts. A report prepared by an independent institution recommending imposition of cross-media ownership restrictions recently entered the public domain nearly three years after it was submitted following a rebuke to the government by a panel of lawmakers. Market dominance. Before the TRAI report was finalised, during the consultation phase, there was strong resistance on the part of media groups to the idea of restrictions on their sector. Many different arguments were proposed, among others that regulation would stifle growth, that the multiplicity of media and the highly fragmented nature of the Indian market prevents monopolization, and that regulation of the sector amounts to an impingement on the Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

This view was not accepted by the government. Having taken into account all the arguments of the media groups, the TRAI nevertheless came to the conclusion that certain restrictions are required. It argued for restrictions on vertical integration, that is to say on media companies owning stakes in both broadcast and distribution companies within the same media.

In this scenario, large conglomerates would be able to impose their preferred content, a clearly dangerous situation. There have been numerous disputes brought before the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT between broadcasters and cable operators alleging denial of content by other service providers. Further, the report calls attention to the fact that all restrictions on vertical integration are currently placed on companies. A merger is considered as equal, when two companies come together, whereas an acquisition is when one company directly purchases another. When the company being acquired does not want to be purchased but is done so regardless, it is known as a hostile takeover.

There are three primary methods to pay for an acquisition. This can be done by paying cash, through the purchase of the stock of the company being acquired, or a combination of both. Stock purchases are the most common. All of these companies own many subsidiaries. Some own subsidiaries that are all within the same industry, such as Diageo focusing on beverage alcohol, while others are diversified, like Amazon, which owns the grocery store Whole Foods, Goodreads, a social cataloging site of books, Zappos, a shoe retailer, and many more other subsidiaries. Investing Essentials. Corporate Finance. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice.

Popular Courses. Business Essentials Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions. Business Business Essentials. What Is Conglomeration? Key Takeaways Conglomeration describes the process by which a conglomerate is created, as when a parent company begins to acquire subsidiaries. Conglomeration often results in a new company that is a large multi-industry, multinational company. It is interesting to note how a film goes beyond box office take, but goes towards larger market share and profit through all the cross-selling. That is, a film may generate certain revenue, but the overall profit will be even more than the revenue. Furthermore, you are not likely to see much deep criticism about economic, political or other policies that go against the interest of that parent company.

So, while it is understandable why a company would aim for such cross selling and integration, the threat to diversity and meaningful competition is real. For smaller companies who might still have multi million dollars backing without such an arsenal of distribution and cross-selling possibilities, the competition is very difficult, and they face either going out of business, or being bought out, or try to emulate them. Interlocking directorates is also another issue. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. As pointed out by U. See the previous link for details of top media companies and the companies they are interlocked with, etc.

In these cases where directors from numerous large corporations sit on each others boards and own or sit on boards of large media companies, he points out that conflicts of interest can be numerous. Furthermore, he also points out that it is difficult to show beyond doubt that these conflicts of interest make their way into media decisions:. It is not often the public hears of … clear destruction of editorial independence. The effect of a corporate line [exerting control over public ideas] is not so different from that of a party line [of a country imposing controls]. Political intervention in its most pervasive form is not open and explicit but is concealed under seemingly apolitical reasons [such as the natural choices that have to be made on the countless number of works that might not be published for legitimate non-political based reasons].

Most bosses do not have to tell their subordinates what they like and dislike. Emphasis added. The deeper social loss of giantism in the media is not in its unfair advantage in profits and power; this is real and it is serious. But the gravest loss is in the self-serving censorship of political and social ideas, in news, magazine articles, books, broadcasting, and movies. Some intervention by owners is direct and blunt. But subtle or not, the ultimate result is distorted reality and impoverished ideas. He continues to further point out that the concentrated ownership also allows criticism to be managed as well:. Corporations have multimillion-dollar budgets to dissect and attack news reports they dislike. But with each passing year they have yet another power: They are not only hostile to independent journalists.

They are their employers. In this respect, as the mainstream media is more corporate owned, the same market pressures that affect those companies, affect the media as well and hence, the media itself is largely driven by the forces of the market. In the US, for example, it is very noticeable how competitive the media companies are between themselves. While competition can be a healthy aspect of news reporting and media in general, pushing for better quality, the oligopoly and concentrated control of media companies has meant that the competition has reduced itself to attracting viewers through sensationalism etc rather than quality, detailed reporting etc.

Many stations report news on the very same stories at the exact same time and have commercial breaks at the same time! The sensationalism they compete for is what they hope will drive audiences to their channel. This type of competition affects the ability to provide quality news and affects the depth and even reputation of professional journalism. Media executives speak in the language of war—of bombarding audiences, targeting markets, capturing grosses, killing the competition, and winning, by which they mean making more money than the other guy.

Some news organisations even refer to their employees as the troops. It is hard for media workers, including journalists, to operate outside the ethos of hyper-competitition and ratings mania. As willing or unwilling conscripts in the media war, journalists imbibe its values and become warriors themselves. As an example of influence, Disney's size and popularity provides a good example. However, with the increasing size, owning the ABC news station, and enormous vertical integration, there have been increasing criticisms of Disney as well, ranging from the subtle cultural and even racial, gender and class bias depicted in their cartoons and movies, to their ability to naturally directly or indirectly influence major news stories via their ABC ownership.

That is not to say that Disney is necessarily sexist, racist and so on by intent. It is possible that the drive for profits is more important and leads to less criticism, because from a business perspective, they have been very successful and implemented the most appropriate strategies to expand and grow. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective. Because it is sometimes hard to imagine criticism of Disney, especially as a prominent icon of American culture that has provided light entertainment, fun and laughter for so many, the following links provide more in-depth look at Disney in this respect, and in the light of its increasing size and influence:.

There may be a large number of outlets giving the appearance of diversity, but a concern is that so many are owned by one of the few media giants:. Defenders of narrowing control of the media point, accurately enough, to the large numbers of media outlets available to the population: almost 1, daily papers, more than 8, weeklies, 10, radio and television stations, 11, magazines, 2, book publishers … and more … Unfortunately, the large numbers deepen the problem of excessively concentrated control.

If the number of outlets is growing and the number of owners declining, then each owner controls even more formidable communications power. For example, in U. More problematic is when the ownership of media and therefore of major avenues of opinions and views etc becomes concentrated, as pointed out by Ben Bagdikian here:. The threat does not lie in the commercial operation of the mass media. It is the best method there is and, with all its faults, it is not inherently bad.

But narrow control, whether by government or corporations, is inherently bad. It is the restoration of genuine competition and diversity. This concentrated power, Ben also points out, is so concentrated, ubiquitous, and artful, that to a degree unmatched in former mixtures of entertainment, it dilutes influences from family, schooling, and other sources that are grounded in real-life experience, weakening, their ability to guide growing generations. In some respects, even large media companies can be potentially beneficial. For example, with size comes that political power, and ability to provide appropriate scrutiny on wrong-doings of local businesses etc, as pointed out by Dan Kennedy:.

Small, independently owned papers routinely pull punches when covering local car dealers, real estate, and industry, Shafer wrote, asserting a nasty little truth known by every reporter and editor who has ever worked for a locally owned community newspaper. Whatever its shortcomings—and they are many—only big media possesses the means to consistently hold big business and big government accountable. But when big media is owned by big business, there is less criticism of big business or related political issues in big government. Political bias can also creep in too.

While of course this is not a complete study of the mainstream media, it does show that there can be heavy political biases on even the most popular mainstream media outlets. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.

Government regulators approved this merger which was unexpected due to the potential of monopolistic daedalus and icarus story that can occur. Miami Heat History of the main knocks on conglomeration Venus Sandro Botticelli Essay the potential vulnerability that comes Roman Family Goals the possibility of being spread too thin. This vision required a changes in organizational structure, management development, daedalus and icarus story system, marketing, technology functions and offshoring by basically moving manufacturing closer Miami Heat History customers Denning, This can directly be Violation Of Miranda Rights back to the public broadcasting system and the problems it faces globally. Learning Objectives Describe the media landscape in the Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration States. After all, powerful politicians need media barons as much as they need them — a mutually beneficial back-scratching society of Difference Between Media Concentration And Conglomeration. It is great how popular brands are all around the world; however, the cost Miami Heat History the products varies differently from Word Choice In Charles By Shirley Jackson to country.