In addition to this pluralists raise a number of points to support their views such as the media are not all-powerful as governments hold legislations against media owners having to much power ruling out such trends in ownership as vertical integration. This was due to vertical integration being considered as unfair for two main reasons: the first, it doesn’t allow competition to survive because smaller companies cant compete with the cheaper costs of conglomerates: and second, it reduces customer choice, because one person's or group's views or products can become too dominant and argument much considered with Rupert Murdock and his dominance in media.
Additionally, many countries have cross-ownership rules preventing companies from owning more that one form of media in the same area as well as many journalists and editors disregarding the owners demands and finally pluralists believe the media have a strong tradition of investigate journalism which target those in power e.g. two reporters on the 'Washington post' forced the President of the USA - Richard Nixon - to stand down after they exposed him for authorizing the bugging of his opponent's offices at Watergate in 1972.
Furthermore Sociologists Katz and Lazarsfield exemplify their strong pluralistic views in their published account of their arguments in 1955 based on data collected in 1945. They argue that in general the media have a rather limited influence due to the mass communication process ability to be affected in unpredictable ways by five 'Variables'. Firstly, Variable exposure, access or attention to the media messages as well as personal, political, practical or technological factors can shape the nature and extent of an individual's or group's exposure to any particular message or medium.
Secondly, they believed that the type of medium used to convey the message had a significant impact on the effectiveness of the message (image based is more effective then text). Also the nature of the content, and the form, presentation and language of the message will have important consequences for its effect, as illustrated by the police reactions to terrorist offences instigating increases in recruitment and security.
Finally, Katz and Lazarsfield state that beliefs and attitudes among members if the audience can modify or completely distort the message portrayed as well as leaders and opinion makers within communities mediating messages received from the mass media. Moreover, as i mentioned pluralist authors such as Nicholas Jones (1986) argue that the radio is neutral, fair and balanced.
However, Marxist and neo-Marxists that disagree with pluralist ideas heavily criticize the pluralist theory. Firstly many believe that pluralist theories are frequently part of, or funded by, the media industries themselves e.g. Glasgow Media groups disapproval of pluralist Martin Harrison in his relations with ITN news. Furthermore, pluralists claim that the media are generally diverse and neutral is criticized by the sociologists Blumler and Gurevitch who highlight the dependence between journalists and politicians which result in journalistic diversity narrowing, journalistic 'objectivity' is compromised, and media content becomes prey to professional 'spin doctors'. Overall the main predicament with the pluralist model is that is bases its theories on assumption rather than demonstrating that media content as a whole differentiates.
In conclusion the Pluralist theory is heavily based on assumption yet develops an understanding between the publics freedom of choice in what to view or read. However examples of this reliance between the media and politicians to promote ideas can be portrayed by Tony Blair in item B whom "would not impose further restrictions on cross-media ownership" who may be acting in order to gain support from large media institutions which rules out Katz and Lazarsfield ideas that power and status are of little relevance in this particular context as people who vote for politicians may have been subdued to bias in the media. Overall, pluralists assert that there is little proof to claim audiences submissively accept what is being fed to them and that audiences are selective in their choices of media.
