Ownership and Control (Media)

Ownership of private media is now largely in the hands of multinational corporations (Golding and Murdock, 1991). The power conferred by ownership to influence the ethos, editorial direction and market definition of commercial media – principally through the hiring and firing of staff, the setting of organisational policy and the allocation of rewards within media organisations – is significant. Critics see a fundamental contradiction between the idea that; public media should operate largely in the public interest, and the reality of concentrated private ownership. They fear that the proprietors would use their property rights to ‘restrict the flow of information and debate’ upon which the vitality of democracy depends. These fears were fuelled by the rise of the great Press barons at the turn of the century who had no qualms about using their large circulation to promote their pet political causes or to denigrate people who disagree with them. Since then, we are faced with multimedia conglomerates with significant stakes across a range of central communications sectors. The most well known example is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire (Fenton, 2000).

The rise of communication conglomerates perpetuates the debate about potential abuses of owner power. Not only are there problems of proprietor power influencing editorials and the firing of staff who do not share their political philosophies, but different parts of the media industry have come together in support of each other toy exploit the overlaps between the company’s different media interests. The company’s newspapers may give free publicity to their television stations or the record and book divisions may launch products related to a new movie released by the film division. The effect is such that it reduces the diversity of cultural goods in circulation. Growing concentration of ownership has increased to potential for centralised control of the media. Its dangers were illustrated in Italy’s 1994 election where the Fininvest TV Channel (with 40% market share) gave ill-disguised support to its controller and right wing business man, Silvio Berlusconi, who was thrust into the Prime Minister’s job without having ever held office (Curran, 1996).

The production of communications, however, is not merely a reflection of the controlling interests of those who own or control the broad range of capital and equipment which make up the means by which cultural goods (e.g. film, music, publishing or broadcasting and so on) are made and distributed. It is also subject to those who produce the words and images on a daily basis – the media professionals. News is shaped by the methods used in the news-gathering process which is in turn affected by information sources available, the organisational requirements, resources and politicise of particular institutions. For example, the need of news organisations to secure regular and usable copy (words/information) means that certain means that certain journalists are assigned to specific beats – such as Westminster or law courts. This encourages fuller reporting of these areas. It also places journalists close to key sources where information is often traded for publicity (Gandy, 1982). With several newspapers covering the same beats, it has also been said to encourage a pack mentality in which journalists on the same beat form collective news judgements (Tunstall, 1971). News creation is seen as a constant struggle between different players, each attempting to present their own version of reality. However, the opportunities to access the news-making process are not the same for all. Those in positions of power are given the added advantage of speaking as an authority on a topic and asserting the primary definition of an issue to which all other interpretations must respond (Fenton, 2000).

Although agencies of the state (government, parliament, police, army, etc) and other powerful elites enjoy many advantages in getting their message across, their ability to define the news is not absolute. Tensions within political systems, investigative journalism, inter-government conflict, and political interventions by non-official sources who have gained credibility within the media, can and do open up media debate on certain issues (Deacon and Golding, 1994)

One way of analysing how the media present limitations to freedom is to look at the output of the cultural industries to gauge the type of imagery and information in circulation that we take for granted (Fenton, 2000).

(SOURCE: Natalie Fenton, 2000: Steve Taylor, 2000)

REFERENCES:

Curran, J (1996) Rethinking Mass Communications (IN) J. Curran, D. Morley and V. Wlakerdine (eds) Cultural Studies and Communications London: Arnold

Deacon, D and Golding, P (1994) Taxation and Representation: The Media, Politocal Communication and the Poll Tax London: John Libbey

Fenton, N (2000) Mass Media (in) Sociology: Issues and Debates Taylor, S (ed) Hampshire: Palgrave

Gandy, O (1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex

Golding, P and Murdock, G (1991) Culture Communications and Political Economy (in) J. Curran, and M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society London: Edward Arnold

Tunstall, J (1971) Journalists at Work London: Constable