Independent And Non Profit Media example essay topic

1. Introduction Over the past few decades, nations around the world have become increasingly democratic. The media plays a large part in this process, bringing information, news, and entertainment into people's lives, and giving different communities the ability to obtain various types of information, regardless their age, race, and gender. During the second half of the eighteenth century and in the early nineteenth century in the United States of America, a part of the commercial press became more politically independent, resulting from the growth of advertising.

This extra revenue reduced dependence on political financial backing, and also encouraged the press to refuse government funding. The last paper to do so was the Observer, in 1840. The change also improved the salary and security of employment of journalists, so that they became less inclined to take government bribes. As well as this, costs and spending related to newsgathering were financed by these advertisers, letting the press become less reliant on official sources and less willing to exchange their independence in return for receiving! yen prior intelligence! | from the government.

(Curran and Seaton, 1988, 10). Nevertheless, the expansion of the media and the growth of advertising did not continue to support this increasingly independent press. In fact, the development of modern political parties from beyond the 1860's encouraged the intervention of political parties and profit-making journalism. This became apparent when several national newspapers were discovered to have been subsidised by political parties until mid twentieth century. This, of course led the media to become much less independent.

In fact, newspapers were an extension of the party system. 2. Conspiring with Political Entities Media practices within the current democratic system should be independent and critical, overseeing and helping to control the economically and politically powerful, not concealing or covering up for them. In the U.S., although there are claims that the press has a rivalry relationship with the government, in reality, the media usually follows Washington's official line. This is perceptible during time of war, and in foreign policy coverage. Owners and managers of media outlets often share the worldview, background and income bracket of political leaders, and the most influential and dominant media companies habitually make vast contributions to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

This is, in return, repaid in the millions of dollars spent by these parties on press campaigns and political advertisements. (! SS Official Agendas!" , FAIR, web) When the media has such relationships, it places itself under certain restrictions, as it would not be likely to report anything which contradicts these parties! | standpoints. Nowadays, news and reports often consist largely of the actions and proclamations of people in power. Less powerful individuals tend not to have a voice at crucial times. In addition, many reporters rely on official resources to give them access and! yen leaks! | for many of their stories, and will not risk critical coverage of these sources.

Commercial media outlets try not to antagonise the officials who regulate their businesses. 3. Profit-oriented Corporations Mergers within the media industry in the recent years may have reduced the variety of sources of opinions, beliefs and viewpoints in the mass media. This limits what the public sees, making it all the more difficult for individuals to get a wide spectrum of views to help them decide issues for themselves. Most mass media in the U.S., is owned by profit-oriented corporations, which are sustained by advertisers. Advertisers provide much needed funding, revenue and income, making them very important, as well as giving them a level of control over what the media decides to broadcast or write about (!

SSCorporate Ownership!" , Naureckas, web). In order to provide the public with non-biased and genuinely diverse media coverage, a restructure of the leading media companies may be required. Non-profit making substitute sources of information should be encouraged from a wider range of sponsors too, to ensure that media outlets are only providing the public with only what these sources perceive to be desirable. 4. The Monopolistic Media Media corporations who own many channels, must, by law, put their investors! | profits and benefits first.

This goal nearly always results in a conflict of interest. Not only do these corporations aim for profit regardless the need for non-biased media, but they are also growing very fast. Many have taken over rivals, limiting and reducing the amount of competition. This reduces the diversity of opinions provided and gives them greater power over the public. (web) Most such corporations diversify in their investments, for example into producing snack foods, or even manufacturing defence missiles. This both will interferes with newsgathering, and results in a conflict of interest. (!

SSCorporate Ownership!" , Naureckas, web) Many media corporations now control most of the dissemination of information to the general public. This is gradually eradicating non-profit making and non-corporate media channels, and I believe that means to prevent this should be found. The breaking up of these monopolistic media corporations is vital, and government support and the non-profit division is needed to help fund the non-profit making and independent media, so that a more balanced approach can take place. 5. Consolidation within the Industry There are other problems as well. For example ABC, a network in which the Walt Disney Company is in the process of taking over, demonstrates nearly all the arguments against the consolidation of media ownership.

ABC began in 1919, when RCA was created by the combining of AT&T, Westinghouse, United Fruits, and General Electrics! V all large profit making organisations. RCA and partners controlled patents for radio and broadcasting, holding a monopoly until they were declared to be violating anti-trust laws in 1932. During this period, RCA launched NBC. The Red and Blue Networks, in which NBC owned and controlled, dominated the broadcasting industry at the time, and the Federal Communications Commission ordered NBC to sell one of its networks, to minimise. In 1943, the Blue network was sold for $8 m to a conservative businessman named Edward J. Noble.

Subsequently, the Blue network was renamed, and became ABC. ABC merged with the Paramount theatre chain in 1953. Paramount was itself a product of anti-trust actions that separated movie studios from theatre chains. This came about when the U.S. Justice Department decided that break-ups in the media industry were necessary to provide the public with media which was reliable and which provided diverse viewpoints.

It was thought that if producers of film were also to be in control of distribution, then the public would be denied free access to competing ideas. (! SS Media Monopoly: Long History, Short Memories!" , Naureckas, web) Because of the envisioned free access to competing ideas, the merger of ABC and Paramount was thought by two FCC commissioners to threaten to create a! SS monopolistic multimedia economic power!" (Networks of Power, Mazza cco). 6.

Selling Audiences and Conflict of Interest In the commercial media, income does not come from the audience, but from advertisers. Although some corporations say that what they sell is determined by supply and demand, it is undeniable that the most important transaction in the media market is that of media companies selling audiences to its sponsors. (! SS Advertiser Influence!" , web) Because of this, sponsors of media corporations have an immense influence over what audiences see and hear on television and radio. Unavoidable conflicts of interest will emerge, and sponsors will not support media which regularly criticises their products: rather they will support media that puts audiences into a passive and non-critical state of mind, so that it is easier to sell their products, goods and services. Furthermore, not only do sponsors prefer certain types of information, but also typically favour middle to upper class audiences, understandably so, because they want to sell things to audiences, therefore the wealthier, the better.

Young, white males have been what they prefer over others, and obliviously, this limits and shapes the range of content offered. Perhaps commercial advertising should be taxed to help discourage and reduce its effects on the public's access to unbiased information, and the proceeds used to fund truly independent media. 7. Sources of the Media In 2001, Nielsen Media Research found that, on an average weeknight, roughly one quarter of U.S. television-viewing homes tune into ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News (! SSPower Sources!" , Howard, 2002, fair. org / extra /0205/powersources. html). This means that about 67 percent of the U.S. public which participated watch news programmes regularly.

These programmes deliver national and international news, but also influence the coverage in other media. Not only this, but the networks also help to decide the range of debate on those matters by their choice of sources. This affects the democratic process extensively. The study also found that the company owners are favoured in source selection. But do such sources really represent the public's views? News networks tend to put forward the opinions of the influential political and economic leaders, while being reluctant to give access to ordinary people who might contradict them, although they may also be rather boring or inarticulate.

Over the past few years, news in the U.S. have given Republican Party representatives, the party in power, much more airtime than the Democrats. Moreover, views from independent politicians or other parties are hardly heard at all. 8. Evidence of Partisan Imbalance During 2001, in the time period between January 1st and December 31st, the German-based media analysis firm, Media Tenor Ltd (a non-partisan company with an office in New York City), compiled data relating to the different sources in which the news media employs (! The firm's researchers coded the time period, topic, location and information source, including partisan affiliation, race, gender and nationality facts for every report broadcast. 14632 sources from 18765 reports were included, and the results where startling.

Throughout this year, is was found that more than one quarter of all sources and one in three Americans quoted on all issues were bias elite politicians. Of these the ones with an identifiable partisan bias were 75 percent Republican, and 24 percent Democrats. Only 1 percent were third-party representatives or independents. After September 11th, Republicans predominated even further. Before the attacks, Republicans made up to 68 percent, Democrats 31 percent, and independents 1 percent of the sources, but afterwards, Republicans made up to 87 percent, Democrats 13 percent, and independents only 0.1 percent. This shows the bias in the information shown by the media, making it very difficult for the public to obtain varied views.

As we all know, voices from the general public are very important, as society is made up of people, not just its political elites.! yen Unclassified citizens! |, the description used for ordinary Americans provided 20 percent of all quotes, after U.S. politicians. Despite this, ordinary people do little to influence the nation's political debate, especially as they were usually confined to human-interest stories. More serious and important news topics are generally confined to people with expertise. Another problematic area is the gender of quoted sources in news broadcasts. Only 15 percent of total sources are women, although they represent 40 percent of the population.

Thus men are portrayed as being more authoritative than woman, who made up only 9 percent of sources. Representatives from various ethnic backgrounds are also necessary in a multicultural community, nevertheless in the study, 92 percent of all personnel were white, with only 7 percent black, Latinos and Arab-Americans represented only 0.6 percent each, and 0.2 percent of Asian-Americans. This is hugely disproportionate to the U.S. population, which in the 2000 census consisted of 69 percent white, 13 percent Hispanic, 12 percent black and 4 percent Asian. 9. Educational Responsibilities Children are a country's future, hence the importance of educational children's programming. Commercial broadcasters resist this idea, seeing it as a burden on their profit making.

The 1990 U.S. Children's Television Act says! SS! Broadcast television networks are required to provide three hours a week of educational or informative programming for children aged 16 and under!" . As the Los Angeles Times reported on the 23rd February 2002, ! SS Broadcasters and their advertisers see educational programming as the TV equivalent of leafy green vegetables! They! |re being force-fed a restriction that drains profits!" .

Over time, more and more commercial television broadcasters have begun to lose interest in children's programming. In order to avoid prosecution, many channels have sold off their children's airtime to companies such as Nickelodeon and Disney to avoid an extra workload that generates no profit. (! SS Abandoned Children!" , Jackson, 2002, fair. org / extra /0207/kids-tv. html) 10. Policies, Censorship and Limited Views The First Amendment is the source of the United States! | original communications policy. The Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press, because in a democratic society, the exchange of information and unfettered debate were thought to be essential (!

SS Telecommunications Policy!" , web). In our day, however, government policy is designed to protect the investments of corporations, rather than ensure and assist democratic discussion. Regulations set out by the government tend to encourage the creation of large media corporations, and discourage innovative, competing and independent media. The government almost always controls the free flow of information in a country to some extent.

In our time though, censorship is exercised more by large corporations. Powerful companies may even threaten expensive and prolonged lawsuits to discourage genuine and rightful enquiries. Alongside all this, the most ubiquitous censorship is self-censorship: when journalists themselves decide not to write about certain issues to avoid conflict with their own superiors. 11. Conclusion Study of the media has expanded rapidly over the last twenty years, and challenge has been posed by contradictions between free, independent and non-profit media and that sector mainly motivated by profit.

Mass communication is very important, providing information relating to many issues debated by society. In order to obtain the media we need, it will be necessary to restructure the monopolistic media corporations and balance their output with that of independent sources at present suppressed by the advertisers and sponsors. Independent media channels will need support from governments and other independent organisations to sustain and gradually develop them. Commercial advertising taxation could be used to fund truly non-commercial media, to provide a greater diversity of views. The undue influence of the few commercial media corporations around the globe poses a serious danger to the future.

People are entitled to a press that is honest, unbiased and willing to present to the public a balance and equitable view of the world. 1. Curran, J. and Seaton, J., Power Without Responsibility, 1988, Routledge, London. 2. Bennett, T., Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. and Woollacott J., Culture, Society and the Media, 1992, Routledge, London.

3. LeMahieu D.L., A Culture for Democracy, 1988, Oxford University Press, New York. 4. web 5. web 6. web.