This leads to the argument that pluralism “depends not only on a diversity of ownership but on a range of other interrelated variables” (Gilliam Doyle, 2002). The main and most influential within media are the diversity of suppliers and the diversity of output. Nonetheless, other factors like the size and wealth of a given market and the tendency to consolidate resources can impact the pluralism in a given society.
In studying the diversity of suppliers and its affects on society, we can see that media ownership is of great significance with the continuous debate of when such ownership becomes an exploitation of power, influencing the content of its products. There are of course, rules and regulations limiting the power of what ideas can (or can not) be passed into the public domain through media representation, but ownership rules alone are not always enough to sustain the required diversity.
This is made evident through cases showing that increased levels of media concentration, can also lead to an increased risk of abused power (i.e. propaganda) and a corrupt system. Looking at Murdoch one of the largest US owners and government supporters, he dictates and standardises the political line of newspapers (he editorialises). He has the ability to control the airwaves of entire cities which is “fine with Bush and Powells, since Murdoch is one of their biggest boosters” (Amy Goodman and David Goodman, 2005) It is the more powerful individual suppliers like Murdoch that can often pose a greater threat to pluralism.
Another case to consider is the Berlusconi in which there was a clear link between this concentrated ownership of the media and a dangerous decrease in the diversity of the political opinions available to society by the media. This actually caused a change of vote when viewers had been watching the Berlusconi channels, becoming more right wing. Hence, media ownership is of great importance because this complex issue can have serious consequences on the reflecting society, and so, certain media policies are in place to strengthen that which is most important; pluralism/diversity.
On the contrary, there is yet again another counter-argument to this. For if we allow for concentrated media ownership, there is the high possibility of producing cost-efficiencies, which in turn would support a greater level of diversity of content and also the development of new products, therefore aiding to pluralism and benefiting society.
To conclude issues of pluralism, we see that a diversity of owners prevents any single supplier from obtaining absolute control and therefore reduces the risk of public influence through minimised voices. It is also strengthened by certain media policies which promote a diversity of programmes genres and a duty of impartiality, both within the need for diversity of content.
Secondary to the main seeming danger of over-representation, is economic welfare of the media industry and how efficient the business is run. In studying the different formations of ownership through expansion we can see the various benefits it can have for the firms, namely increased ‘efficiency’ and increased ‘market power’. Efficiency suggests that the produce of a firm is of the “right quality and quantity to satisfy the wants and needs of society” (Gillian Doyle, 2002), and therefore, if its gains are used for innovation of resources than it can be very beneficial to the public. However, with regards to increased market power this poses more of a threat with greater possibility for monopolies and ability to increase prices or abuse a dominant market position.
Following this, a more major economic concern of increased concentrated ownership of the media is its impact on competition. Competition is by and large perceived to be an essential method of promoting efficiency and of avoiding anti-competitive behaviour by dominant firms (not abusing their power as such). It serves as a form of motivation for firms to better their performance due to rivals, which is a positive impact on consumers and society, added to the fact that it keeps costs and prices down encouraging more efficient use of the available sources.
The problem lies with excessive concentration of media ownership, where monopolists hinder improvement and modernism, becoming complacent about the quality of their produce. They are often seen to waste money in the attempt to obtain their dominance and become involved in practices trying to weaken any competition there is. However, “a media industry in which ownership is too fragmented is also susceptible to inefficiency” (Gillian Doyle, 2002).
Hence, there are numerous competition policies and the 1998 Competition Act in the UK, which allow for only a certain amount of market power, promoting efficiency through pressure from rival suppliers and providing solutions to the anti-competitive behaviour often present within the larger more dominant markets. It would seem therefore, that promotion of competition is an ideal way of avoiding market dominance/media concentrations.
Nevertheless, it has also been proved that concentrated media ownership can encourage efficiency gain through costs with higher levels of gross investment, a speedier adoption of advanced technologies and so faster growth of a firm. Therefore, strategies of expansion/ concentrated media ownership can accomplish greater efficiency, yet the problem still exists that it’s difficult to determine a firm’s genuine interest. Expansion can also lead to the exploitation of market power and thus the issue becomes more complex.
In addition to this we have the problem of monopolies forming due to technological change. This can often bring about concern for gateway monopolies or bottlenecks, where an individual firm has complete control over vital communications, choosing who they do (or do not) allow access to their activity. This confirms the anxieties had about excessive concentration of media ownership where systems can become corrupt, diminishing competition and thus efficiency, pluralism and thus overall diversity of the media industry.
The topic of media ownership therefore is one of vital importance and great controversy. It matters because it is something that forms and shapes the media industry, which in turn forms and shapes the society we live in. We are an active audience and thus choose what and what not to believe, however it is the restrictions and regulations of media policy that aid to find a balance within this whirlpool of conflicts. Media ownership is significant because there are pros and cons in each extreme case and the ultimate balance will never be perfect in any field. It is a situation of complete compromise and often trust in the firms who provide produce, and whilst there is evidence of certain monopolies abusing their power, we have a fine example in the UK of a monopoly that is beneficial to our society.
The BBC is confirmation that there can be no consistent philosophy within the ownership of media (i.e. monopolies abuse power; it isn’t the case here). It is an important and complex issue and should always remain significant to the society we live in.
Bibliography
-
Gillian Doyle “Media Ownership”, Media Concentrations and Pluralism p11.
-
Amy Goodman and David Goodman “Why Media Ownership Matters”, April 2005, Seattle Times.
My main reference throughout the essay was Gillian Doyle from “Media Ownership” Part I Why Does Ownership of the Media Matter.