While some areas of the mass media, e.g. printed newspapers, have seen a 'consolidation' of titles - fewer titles, owned by larger media conglomerates - other areas of the mass media, such as television, have experienced diversification in recent years.

Looking at your notes from last week if necessary, list the main areas of diversification in the media in the last 20 years.

Do we really have more choice than we did before? Has an increase in production been at the expense of quality? Are there any other factors - positive or negative - that should be taken into consideration?

Does the internet sound the death knoll for the traditional media, or does it offer a myriad of opportunities for the media to evolve and expand? The internet's major advantage has always been its accessibility; anyone with access to a PC and a modem can not only access the internet, but produce their own website and publish their own material.

In the late 90s' the 'dot.com boom' made many paper millionaires, but was followed by a slump in new media, with many lost-making internet companies going out of business. Even for established businesses, making money from the internet has proved to be a major headache.

Nearly all UK newspapers, both local and national, now maintain an internet presence.

Note the advertising that accompanies both sites - the major source of income for most websites.

The debates around globalisation are relevant to many of the media issues we have discussed. How does globalisation affect the function and scope of the media? Concentration and ownership concerns are not limited to the UK; the media conglomerates we have examined have interests spanning entire continents.

Working in small group, consider what we mean by globalisation and how it affects the media. Is the effect inevitably negative?