There is general consensus that he mass media is "not just any other business" (McQuail, 2005: 218). Explain why this is so by applying three rationales or reasons that you consider significant to the argument.

Name: Ben Ong Seng Hean Student Number: 30520395

Essay Topic: There is general consensus that he mass media is “not just any other business” (McQuail, 2005: 218). Explain why this is so by applying three rationales or reasons that you consider significant to the argument.

From small road side stalls to large multinational corporations; whether selling fruits or microchips, they all can be called a business. So what exactly is a business? A business is categorised as an enterprise, commercial entity, or firm in either the private or public sector each concerned with providing products or services to satisfy customer requirements (Georgetown University Information Services 2007). Or blatantly stated by Business Law.com, “a business is an activity performed for profit.” Of late, the mass media has been compared to these profit seeking businesses. Mass media is a term that is used to symbolise a section of the media corporations specifically designed and envisioned to reach a very large audience (Wikipedia 2007). Traditionally mediums such as the television, radio and newspapers and text were associated with public mass distributors of news and entertainment. With the rise of new products in the mass media industry, such as audio and video technology, text messages, Internet access, podcasts and blogs, it has helped to expand the industry as a whole. As a consequence, it is egging critics to further associate the mass media as a monopolising business venture. However, mass media is distinctive from any other business because of it is a powerful institution that has responsibilities when influencing the entire society.

While mass media is said to be a dissimilar from other industries, it still revolves around who has ownership of power. McQuail (2005, 8) states in the text that:

“Communication as such has no power of compulsion but is an invariable component and a frequent means of the exercise of power, whether effectively or not. Despite the voluntary character of attention to mass media, the question of their power is never over audience if never too far away.”

In today’s society of sensationalism and competition for ratings, mass media has taken its turn in playing on these power structures by presenting information in the form of entertainment more than facts. The mass media still obeys the business objectives such as profit maximisation, to make the most profit possible, most likely to be the aim of the owners and shareholder. Secondly, profit satisfying in which is tries to make enough profit to keep the owners comfortable (Tutor2u n.d.). Lately, current affairs programs are of one sided reports and of speculations. In this sense, I see the mass media failing to be different but does indeed act like a business.

Media concentrations can be manipulated to benefit the public because it is a medium of communication. With the emergence of new media in this information age, the power now lies in the hands of the audience. Through “digitalization” (McQuail 2005, 137) of all modes of communication, we are in fact experiencing “The Communications Revolution” (McQuail 2005, 38). Traditionally, mass communication was always a one-way process where the producers made and the viewers watched. But this one-way process has quickly evolved into an essentially interactive form of communication. As McQuail mentioned, there is a shift in the “balance of power” from the media to the audience. As a result, the power now lies directly in the hand of the people consuming mass media, people like you and me. Especially with the emergence of the Internet or the World Wide Web; some applications such as online news are now extensions of the newspaper journalism or their real and more physical counterparts such as newspapers, magazines and periodicals. Evolving in new directions in terms of capabilities and content as the public adopts the role of the journalist enabling the audience to examine a less biased account of current issues and from a different standpoint. It can be beneficial to public interest because the people are the ones who control the media, we will be able to manage trends. Before the advent of the increase tenure of personal computers and commercial Internet, media was in the possession of entities we can call capitalist. Based on the Marxist theory, it meant the people and companies with the financial wherewithal to own the means of production and distribution. Jason Chervokas a veteran journalist who co-founded @NY, The New York Internet Newsletter gives a simple down-to-earth description:

“This was true even at the lower end of the scale: the local newspaper. What the guy at the panel was talking about was probably published by the man in town who owned the printing press and was a vanity publication that served the press owner's personal fiscal and political agendas supported economically the sale of printing services.”

(Chervokas 2006 par. 12)

This is a preview of the whole essay

(Chervokas 2006 par. 12)

Chervokas, in corresponding terms as McQuail (2005, 39), who states the main changes so far have been the increased volume of traffic in the capacity of the networks, at a lower costs all round. In the past, the control and means of production and distribution were essential to any media business model. The two defining models were; the media companies who produced and sold the goods and services or the companies who sold advertising because of their control in the printing presses and radio and television stations. This of course meant that the consumers only had entertainment and information that were inevitably controlled. In contrast, today’s means of production and distribution consist of a RM1000 PC, a RM88 a month unlimited broadband connection, a free Blog account, and, possibly, a webcam or recording media. For less than RM1100, the means of production and access to the global distribution of media is available to almost anyone. Of course, the bond that ties this all together is The Internet -- Free and does not discriminate against nationality and operated under no legal structure. This environment has no parallel in history created by the people for the people.

The mass media’s current open architecture structure is designed to allow universal interoperability. This structure is more commonly known in economic terms as globalisation. There are many different definitions of globalisation, but according to Global Education, the most conceded is “the greater movement of people, goods, capital and ideas due to increased economic integration which in turn is propelled by increased trade and investment”; in other words, a move towards living in a borderless world. In recent years, the improvement in technologies and a reduction of barriers meant that although there has always exist a sharing of goods, services, knowledge and cultures between people and countries, the speed of exchange is much faster. In media context, media internationalisation has a somewhat different meaning as to the good and services traded may not be physical. Nonetheless, it is similar in terms of the nature of which it has managed to expand is due to technology. As mentioned by McQuail (2005, 38), new media is so powerful because of it’s interconnectedness; their accessibility to individual users as senders and/or receivers; their interactivity; their array of use and open-ended character; and their ubiquity and 'delocatedness'. Mass media speaks a global language. Because it would be impossible to directly measure “cultural globalisation” or the extent to which cultural values and ideas are diffused across national borders. Hence, it is necessary to seek out alternative signifiers to help indicate the extent to which beliefs and values are moving across national boundaries. Randy Kluver and Wayne Fu from the University of Nanyang, Singapore conducted a study and proposed three key indicators of cultural globalisation were: foreign television programs and films, books, and recorded music (2004 par. 2). These choices three mediums of mass media gives a clear illustration on the “meanings of media globalisation” according to McQuail (2005, 252). Firstly, cinematic films. Although rarely producing their own movie content, it is true that many nations are likely to be influenced by Hollywood blockbusters. Nevertheless, many highly globalised nations, including upcoming ones such as Malaysia, consistently screen movies from around the world in local cinemas. Thus, fulfilling McQuail’s statement, “audiences can choose media from other countries” and “trends of cultural homogenization and westernization” (Box 10.2 point 4&5). Secondly, television programming and music is an added useful indicator as it is less prone to demonstrate cultural dependence due to the lower cost of television and music production, making it considerably easier for many nations to have a local industry. For example, in many cases, these programs can become regionally important, among Spanish or Chinese-speaking nations as a sign of local identity. Many more nations then become capable of producing and exporting this form of media, making the pool of sources much larger for other nations. A convergence and spread of cultures made even easier through mediums such as YouTube, a site which literally allows anybody and everybody around the world to post music or video recordings online.

Lee Gomes from the Wall Street Journal has some data about YouTube:

In a single month the number of videos on the site grew 20% to 6.1 million
Video views reached 1.73 billion
The total time people spent watching YouTube since it started last year is 9,305 years

(Gomes 2006, Wall Street Journal: Online)

The third component is one that has readily available data through its transmission of international print publications such as newspapers, magazines, books and other periodicals. It is through these imported print mediums that one gains access to political and economic opinions around the world. This demonstrates the way in which these media types help to create a way of looking at the world that is not bound by cultural tradition (Kluver and Fu 2004). Once again, fulfilling one of McQuail’s statements of “reduction in national communication sovereignty and more free flow of communication” (Box 10.2 point 7). Seán Siochrú (2004) makes an interesting point in his working paper, “special characteristics of the globalisation of the media and communication sector is as a powerful agent in the transformation of social, cultural and political structures.” Clearly, mass media has provided a platform of a melting pot of language and cultures; something unachievable by any other business.

Media change is driven by a combination, of not only technology but also by economics and politics. Mass media holds a heavy responsibility on its shoulders by always being a figure in the public eye. Without media sensationalism, hardly anybody would pay attention to the news and is what the masses want to see. As previously stated, the people are now demanding for the truth. With the Internet booming, independent news portals such as COA News () are reporting both sides of the story, reporting news that large news corporations such as BBC and CNN are not reporting. In this day and age, media change is slowly changing with by technology to overcome economics and political influences which once governed what can or cannot be shown to the public (Globalisation and the Media, YouTube 2006). Not too long in the past, politics and economics and companies with big PR agencies presided over the mass media. But perhaps with cheaper production alternatives, society will be able to disseminate their own analyses and not only consume viewpoints that are heard on mainstream media (Globalisation and the Media, YouTube 2006). The people are now demanding for the truth and like economy, when there is demand, there is supply.

The mass media has always been considered to be a very “personal medium” because it targets its niche markets. For instance, based on an article by Fortune Magazine’s senior writer, Marc Gunther (2006), mass culture is becoming extinct. He quotes Chris Anderson’s book “The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More”, he writes “… and we're entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things.”… “Abundant, cheap distribution means abundant, cheap and unlimited variety.”

With the explosion of choice, mainstream media has been left poorer in two arenas.

The first is journalism and the second is the network. National news magazines, evening newscasts, and big-city newspapers who once had the capital, access, proficiency, commitment and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important issues on the national agenda are “today, they are all diminished. Soon diminish to become niche media instead of mass media” (Gunther 2006 par.15).

The current media environment in no way resembles anything that was before. The thing with mass media is that is constantly evolving. One could boldly say that media is the only conglomerate out there which has never run out of business because it has molded it self in terms of economic, politics and technology composition. It is ever growing to suit the generation and technological capabilities in this current day and age. Older mass media mediums such as books, magazines and newspapers will survive in the Internet age because can change. Perhaps, it may no longer be in the form of a volume book, but is now words on the screen of your computer. Its flexible nature has successfully adapted to the changes over the years and as a finally, its power is never to be questioned as its ability to manipulate culture and society.

Reference List

Chervokas, Jason. 2006. Mass Media: Not Dead Yet. Astounding Trickster! () (accessed May 3, 2007)

Business Law. Free Advice. What is a Business? http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/profit_business.htm (accessed May 1, 2007)

Georgetown University: University Information Services. 2007. Data Warehouse: Glossary. (accessed May 1, 2007)

Global Education. 2007. Background: What is Globalisation. Globalisation.

(accessed May 1, 2007)

Kluver, Randy and Wayne Fu. 2004. Measuring cultural globalization. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

Gomes, Lee. 2006. Will All of Us Get Our 15 Minutes On a YouTube Video?

The Wall Street Journal: Online. (accessed May 5, 2007)

Gunther, Marc. 2006. The Extinction of Mass Culture. CNNMoney.com. (accessed May 3, 2007)

McQuail, Denis. 2005. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Fifth Edition. London: SAGE Publications.

Siochrú, Seán Ó. 2004. Social Consequences of the Globalization of the Media and Communication Sector: Some Strategic Considerations. Working Paper No. 36. Geneva: Policy Integration Department Word Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization International Labour Office.

Tutor2u. Business Aims and Objectives. Business Organisation. (accessed May 1, 2007)

Wikipedia. 2007. Mass Media.

(accessed May 1, 2007)

YouTube. 2006. Globalisation and the Media. Documentary. Directed by Paul O’Conner. US: Undercurrents Production. (accessed May 6, 2007)