Media Structure and Organisation

Media Institutions and organizations

Theory of Critical Political Economy

Module 2: Media Structure and Organisation

Media Structure & Performance

Media Institutions and organisations

Media Institutions in India

Production of Media Culture through media institution

Nature of the Mass Communicator/Sender

Mass communication is produced in complex formal organizations

With multiple gatekeepers

Using a great deal of money

Increasingly in private sector institutions in the West

Existing to make a profit

In a highly competitive market, working to reduce risk by merging and oligopoly

Characteristics of Mass Communication

1. Message produced in complex organizations

2. Message fixed in some form with information and symbolic content ( either in digital bits or commodity form)

3. Message is sent/transmitted or diffused widely via a technological medium eg. Newspaper, magazine, CD or videocassette, radio, television, satellite or Internet

4. Message is delivered rapidly over great space

5. Message reaches large groups of different people simultaneously or within a short period of time

6. Message is primarily one-way, not two way

Functions of media

Dennis Mc Quail (2002)

Attracting and directing public attention;

persuasion in matters of opinion and belief;

influencing behaviour;

structuring definitions of reality

conferring status and legitimacy;

informing quickly and extensively.

One may examine media power in the context of the media imperialism thesis, which relates to globalization, and the next section. It has been proposed that cultures, espe- cially the USA, export an empire of ideas to other countries. They promote their ideology, along with the media product that those countries buy. But again, the prime driver is to sell. This is not a process analogous to evangelical Christianity in the nineteenth-century age of empire. No one is explictly trying to sell Western capitalism to the developing world. Some media critics argue that this may be happening, none the less. Herbert Schiller (2000), in referring to new technologies and ‘new global alliances’ talks about control of information. He asserts that ‘the world information order remains for the large part still America’. Still, one would have to say that assessment of the effects of control of information flow or of textual production also has to be evaluated in terms of the production of meaning – of understanding at the point of reception. It is not the quantity of material which the USA exports that counts – it is what the receiving cultures make of it, what they do with it in their heads. The conceptualization of media power and what it does partly depends on the ideological starting position of the critic, and on how this person models society in particular.

Three ways of media influence

The media impose on society

Society makes use of media

Media and society interact and effect each other.

M E D I A

S O C I E T Y

Mythologies

Ideologies Beliefs and values about power

relationships

Representations of the world

Mediation of experience and events

Discourses Ways of thinkinand talkinabout a subject

Conventions of media texts

Questions of ownership:Who owns the content and the communication networks?

Who is profiting from the sale of media texts?

Who is selling us as an audience?

Economic ownership is centralised, and this has political consequences.

Basic features of Critical Political Economy

Contemporary heir to Marxist theory

Studies how media is produced, distributed and consumed

Economic control and logic

Concentration of Media structure

Global integration of media

Commodification of contents and audiences

Decrease in diversity

Marginalisation of opposition and alternative voices

Public interest is subordinated to private interests.

Media-Society Theory IV: Critical Political Economy Critical political-economic theory focuses primarily on the relation between economic structure and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media. The consequences of this close connection can be observed:Accordinto critical political-economic theory, the media institution has to be considered as part of the economic system with close links to the political system. It makes mainly the empirical analysis of the ownership structure and control of media and the way media market operates. the reduction of independent media sources, concentration on the large markets, avoidance of risks, reduced investment in less profitable media tasks such as investigative reportinand documentary film-making.

Basic features of critical political-economic theory: Economic control and logic are determinant Media structure tends towards concentration Global integration of media develops Contents and audiences are commodified Diversity decreases Opposition and alternative voices are marginalized Public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests.

Control

Government

Advertisers

Corporate interests

the production of cultural goods by institutions; regulation by those institutions and by government; media texts with reference to the relationship between representations and the conditions of production and consumption; cultural consumption with relation to cultural and social inequalities.

OwnershipGovernment controlled Private control

Corporations Multinational National

Individual Community media Public service broadcasting Mixed

Public service broadcasting Pluralists point out that a significant share of the media market in Britain is taken up by public service broadcasters (PSB), i.e. media outlets controlled by the state such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC has a legal obligation to inform, to educate and to ensure that all programming is pluralistic and diverse, i.e. that all sections of society are catered for. Pluralists argue that PSB is impartial and objective, and balances out any potential bias in the private sector. Pluralists note that the power of media owners is also restricted by state, or government, controls, e.g. in some societies, owners are not allowed to own too much media or different types of media. Many countries also have crossownership rules preventing people from owning more than one type of media. Furthermore, newspapers, television and radio in Britain are subject to legal controls and rules imposed on them by The Press Council and the Office for Communications (Ofcom).

Media professionalism Pluralists stress that the professionalism of journalists and editors also constrains the power of owners. They argue that journalists are fierce in their pursuit of the truth and consequently they have too much integrity to be biased regularly in favour of one particular perspective. Investigative journalism also has a good reputation in uncovering abuses of power and corruption among the ruling elite.

The Marxist critique of media ownership and controlMarxists argue that the economic system of Britain, i.e. capitalism, is characterised by great inequalities in wealth and income which have been brought about by the exploitation of the labour power of the working classes. Marxists believe that in order to legitimate and reproduce this system of inequality, the capitalist class uses its cultural power to dominate institutions like education and the mass media and transmit ruling class ideology. The function of these agencies is to socialise the working class into accepting the legitimacy of the capitalist system and capitalist ideas. Consequently, Marxists argue working class people experience false class-consciousness – they come to accept that capitalism is a just system that benefits all social groups equally. They fail to see the reality of their situation that they are being exploited by a system that only benefits a powerful minority.

Types of OwnershipCross media ownership OR

Horizontal/Lateral integration

Vertical integration

Media Conglomerates

Diversification

Multi-nationalism

Chain ownership

Cross-Ownership Cross-ownership refers to common control over different media genres (eg, print, film, electronic). It indicates the extent to which intermedia competition thrives or is restricted.

Horizontal Lateral integration – refers to a company move sideways, buying across different media. The biggest companies, like NI, provide examples of both vertical and lateral integration. An example of lateral strength would be the Walt Disney Company, which in respect of films owns Miramax and Touchstone, as well as Walt Disney Pictures. In terms of television, it owns the ABC network, as well as Touchstone and Buena Vista television, plus a number of cable channels. In radio, it owns ABC radio networks. In music, it owns Walt Disney and Hollywood records. In publishinit owns, amonothers, Hyperion books, seven daily newspapers and a variety of magazines.

Vertical integration refers to the pattern of business ownership in which a company buys or sets up other companies which relate to the core business – say, publishing. In particular, bimedia organizations tend to try and control production, distribution and exhibition/retailing. So when NewsCorp moved into the USA it bought Twentieth Century Fox which is about film production and distribution. These films provide product for Fox TV, which itself was greatly expanded in respect of its production and distribution of TV material. News International also owns a chain of 33 TV stations in major US cities, which gives it some guaranteed exhibition of its product. This integrated power also gives such a media institution the power to cut one-sided deals with apparently independent makers of film and TV.

Media conglomerates /Concentration of Control Concentration refers to the number and size of competing outlets within a market or audience grouping, eg, newspapers in a community. Concentration indicates the degree of monopoly power enjoyed by the media owner(s) and hence the owners' power in determining conditions of access within the relevant market. The "marketplace of ideas" is premised on notions of equitable access to the media by all segments of society. Conglomeration refers to a tendency to buy into similar businesses in order to meet competition and to dominate the media sector which a given company is in. So in Britain, over the last few years, Granada Television bought controlling interests in Yorkshire, Tyne Tees and London Weekend television companies, and has now merged with the other biplayer, Carlton, to form ITV plc. To take another example, my local newspaper The Gloucestershire Gazette was owned by a group called Southern Newspapers, but the group was taken over by another called Newsquest, which as a conglomerate is now one of the biggest groups in the country (and is itself owned by a US media company called Gannet).

On another scale, the failinFrench global media business, Vivendi, which owned Universal Pictures, sorted out financial problems (2003–4) by negotiatina merger deal with General Electric, owner of NBC TV, radio and cable.

Convergence Two or more types of media coming together.

Synergy Different elements of a company working together to promote related products.

Concentration of media ownership

The process by which an increasingly smaller number of companies own most media outlets.

Conglomerate A large parent company which owns a range of smaller companies.

Subsidiary Smaller companies owned by a parent company.

Oligopoly When the market is dominated by a small number of companies.

Key terms

No. Name/ annual earning in Euro Companies owned

1 Alphabet Inc. (Google) (USA) € 68 bn

AdWords, AdSense, Google analytics, Double click, G mail, Gnews, Gchrome, Android, You tube, Google+, Zagat

2 Comcast (USA) € 67 bn NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Cloo, Chiller, Universal HD, Comcast SportsNet, Universal Parks & Resorts, Universal Studio Home Video

3 The Walt Disney Company (USA) € 47.287 bn

ABC Television Network, ESPN, The Disney Channel, A&E, Lifetime, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, Disney Mobile, Disney Consumer Products, Interactive Media, Disney Theme Parks, Disney Records, Hollywood Records, Miramax Films, Touchstone Pictures

4 News Corp. Ltd. / 21st Century Fox (New USA) € 34 bn

Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Sports 1, National Geographic, FX Movie Channel, Fox Sports Networks, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, SmartMoney, HarperCollins, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures

5 AT&T Entertainment Group (DirecTV) (USA) € 32 bn

6 Time Warner Inc. (USA) € 25 bn CNN, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros., Castle Rock, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Marie Claire, People Magazine

7 Viacom Inc./CBS Corp. (USA) € 24 bn

MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, Country Music Television (CMT), The Movie Channel

8 Sony Entertainment (Tokyo / JP ) € 22 bn

9 Apple Inc. (USA) € 17 bn

10 Altice Group (Amsterdam / NL) € 17 bn

No. Name/ annual earning in Euro Companies owned

11 Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA (GER) € 17 bn

12 Cox Enterprises Inc. (USA) € 16 bn

13 Facebook, Inc. (USA) € 16 bn

14 Liberty Media Corp./Liberty Interactive/Starz (USA) € 14 bn

15 Tencent Holdings Ltd. (China) € 15 bn

16 Dish Network Corporation (USA) € 14 bn

17 Thomson Reuters Corporation (USA) € 11 ban

18 Vivendi S.A. (Paris/ FRA) € 10 bn

19 The Hearst Corporation (USA) € 10 bn

20 Rogers Comm. (Toronto / CA) € 9 bn

Reasons for conglomeration

Profitability;

Economies of scale;

Control of the market;

Suppression of competition.

Consequences Global “information economy,” - convergence between telecommunication and broadcasting.

Reduction of independent media

Concentration of media

Concentration of markets

Deregulation

Privatisation

Liberalisation

Digital divide

Avoidance of risks

Reduced investment in less profitable media tasks

The relevance of political-economic theory has been greatly increased by several trends in media business and technology. 1. There has been a growth in media concentration worldwide; more and more power of ownership has been concentrated in fewer hands, and there have been mergers between electronic hardware and software industries.2. There has been a growinglobal “information economy,” involvinan increasinconvergence between telecommunication and broadcasting.3. There has been a decline in the public sector of mass media and in direct public control of telecommunication especially in Western Europe, under the banner of “deregulation,” “privatization,” or “liberalization.”4. There is a growinrather than diminishinproblem of information inequality. The expression “digital divide” refers to the inequality in access to and use of advanced communication facilities.

Commercial functions of media

finance,

distribution,

exhibition

retailing,

production

Media institutions and finance

Direct purchase of the commodity – e.g. the cost of the magazine;

A charge for access to the point of distribution or display – e.g. box office charge at the movie theatre, or the Internet provider charge;

Indirect financial support, though the commodity is free at the point of sale – e.g. commercial television;

Indirect financial support, plus a cover cost – e.g. advertising in newspapers.

AdvertisingIdeology of marketplace

Commercial competition,

company expansion,

promotion of product,

pleasing consumers,

Maximizing profits

Quantification of audiences to satisfy the advertisers.

Circulation figures or TRP rating

Supports dominant ideology and status quo

The radical media literature is bedevilled by a system logic which assumes that state- controlled media serve the state and corporate-controlled media serve business corpor- ations. This ignores, or downplays, countervailininfluences. Privately owned media need to maintain audience interest in order to be profitable; they have to sustain public legitimacy in order to avoid societal retribution; and they can be influenced by the professional concerns of their staff. All these factors potentially work against the sub- ordination of private media to the political commitments and economic interests of their shareholders.

Advertisinas an activity stands for the ideology of the marketplace – commercial competition, company expansion, promotion of product, pleasinconsumers, maximiz- inprofits – at any price. It effectively underwrites the tendency of media owners to support the dominant ideology, the security of the status quo and conservative values. The free press in Britain is largely only free within a market economy model. In this model, minimizinproduction costs and maximizinaudience consumption prevails over any genuine pluralism of material or of ideas. So it is that, of its nature, advertisinwill not support alternative or radical material.

In this respect I am also arguinthat the meanings of media texts, the dominant discourses which produce certain kinds of meanings about how the world should be, are a consequence of the patterns of ownership and of the production practices of media owners. They are also the result of a collusive relationship with advertising. This interest in the work of institutions in manufacturindiscourses within a text is part of a political economy critique of the media. Whereas approaches which analyse the text and the discourses themselves would come from a more specifically culturalist critique. One may argue that media study should include both kinds of analysis.

Pluralist theory of media ownership

Democratic process

Powerful audience

Consumer demand

Economic rationality - low cost maximum profit

The pluralist theory of media ownershipPluralists argue that media owners are generally responsible in the way that they manage information because media content is mainly shaped by consumer demand in the marketplace. They therefore only give the buying public what they want. Moreover, editors, journalists and broadcasters have a strong sense of professional ethics which act as a system of checks and controls on potential owner abuse of the media.Pluralists suggest that the mass media are an essential part of the democratic process because the electorate today glean most of their knowledge of the political process from newspapers and television. Pluralists argue that owners, editors and journalists are trustworthy managers and protectors of this process.Furthermore, pluralists argue that media audiences are the real power holders because they can exercise the right to buy or not to buy. If they did not like the choices that media owners are making available to them, or if they suspected that the media product was biased, such audiences would respond by not buying the product. The media, therefore, supply what the audience wants rather than what the owner decides. If some viewpoints have a greater range of media representing them, this is not necessarily biased. It merely reflects what the audience wants or views as important.Pluralists also argue that concentration of ownership is a product of economic rationality rather than political or sinister motives. It is driven by the need to keep costs low and to maximise profits. Globalisation too results from the need to find new audiences rather than from cultural imperialism.Pluralists argue that it is practically impossible for owners to interfere with the content of newspapers and television programmes because their businesses are economically far too complex for them to regularly interfere in the day-to-day running or the content.

Media and audiences

A disparate collection of individuals who happen to be consuming one text at one time;

A coherent social group who have in common characteristics outside their consumption;

A mass group whose identity comes from the very fact of their consumption.

Control and ownershipAllocative control - overall goals and scope of the corporation and the way it deploys resources.

The formulation of overall policy and strategy.

Decisions on whether and where to expand

The development of basic financial policy

Control over the distribution of profits

Following Pahl and Winkler (1974, p. 114–15), we can distinguish two basic levels of control—the allocative and the operational. Allocative control consists of the power to define the overall goals and scope of the corporation and determine the general way it deploys its productive resources (see Kotz, 1978, p. 14–18). It therefore covers four main areas of corporate activity: 1. The formulation of overall policy and strategy.2.Decisions on whether and where to expand (through mergers and acquisitions or the development of new markets) and when and how to cut back by selling off parts of the enterprise or laying off labour. 3. The development of basic financial policy, such as when to launch a new share issue and whether to seek a major loan, from whom and on what terms.

4. Control over the distribution of profits, including the size of the dividends paid out to shareholders and the level of remuneration paid to directors and key executives.

Control and ownership

Operational control

decisions about the effective use of resources

implementation of policies already decided upon

Operational control on the other hand, works at a lower level and is confined to decisions about the effective use of resources already allocated and the implementation of policies already decided upon at the allocative level. This does not mean that operational controllers have no creative elbow-room or effective choices to make. On the contrary, at the level of control over immediate production they are likely to have a good deal of autonomy. Nevertheless, their range of options is still limited by the goals of the organizations they work for and by the level of resources they have been allocated. This distinction between operational and allocative control allows us to replace the ambiguous question of ‘who controls the media corporations?’ which is often asked, with three rather more precise questions: ‘where is allocative control over large communications corporations concentrated?’, ‘whose interests does it serve?’ and ‘how does it shape the range and content of day-to-day production?’.

Ownership

Legal ownership

Economic ownership

Investors

shareholders

The answer most often given to the first of these questions is that allocative control is concentrated in the hands of the corporation’s legal owners—the shareholders—and it is their interests (notably their desire to get a good return on their investment by maximizing profits) that determine the overall goals and direction of corporate activity. However, as with ‘control’, we need to distinguish between two levels of ‘ownership’: legal ownership and economic ownership (see Poulantzas, 1975, p. 18–19). This distinction draws attention to the fact that not all shareholders are equal and that owning shares in a company does not necessarily confer any influence or control over its activities and policies. For legal ownership to become economic ownership, two conditions have to be met. First, the shares held need to be ‘voting’ shares entitling the holder to vote in the elections to the board of directors—the company’s central decision-making forum. Second, holders must be able to translate their voting power into effective representation on the board or that sub-section of it responsible for key allocative decisions (since each share usually carries one vote, the largest holders are normally in the strongest position to enforce their wishes). As a result, economic ownership in large corporations is typically structured like a pyramid with the largest and best organized voting shareholders determining the composition of the executive board who formulate policy on behalf of the mass of small investors who make up the company’s capital base.

Shareholders with voting rights are both legal and economic owners.

Shareholders

Elected Executive board

Management + Executive board

When we are talking about the relationship between control and ownership then, we are talking first and foremost about the connections between allocative control and economic ownership. Unfortunately, as we shall see presently, a number of commentators have failed to make these crucial distinctions with the result that there has been a good deal of arguing at cross purposes. Nevertheless, when the confusions of terminology have been cleared away there remains a fundamental division of opinion over the relative importance of share-ownership as a source of command over the activities of the modern corporation and the general direction of the corporate economy.

Corporate controlFocus of analysis Capitalism Industrial Society

ACTION/POWER

‘Who controls

the operations’

Instrumental approach Centrality of ownership to control policies and activities.a. Specific level - Control

by individual capitalists for their interest.

b. General level - Advances the interest of the capitalist or dominant class as a whole.

Pluralist approach -Ownership is relatively unimportant and is declining in power. a. Specific - Use of power by

managerial strata and autonomyy of creative personnel

b. General - Autonomy of media elites and their relation to other institutional elites.

Corporate controlFocus of analysis Capitalism Industrial Society

STRUCTURE/

DETERMINATION

‘what factors

Neo marxist Political Economy Policies and operations of corporations are limited and circumscribed by general dynamics of media industries and capitalist economies.

Commercial laissez-faire

Focusses on ‘consumer sovereignty’ Range and nature of goods supplied is shaped by the demands of consumers expressed through their choice between competing products in the ‘free’ market.

Types of power

Garnham (2000)

Structural power - allocation of resources

Economic (corporate power)

Potential power - apparent capacity of media to influence

Actual power

Power of production of meaning - through the technologies and in the expertise of those who use them

Garnham (2000) refers to two kinds of power – Structural power: which is about allocation of resources (see Althusser and allocative control) which operates within the institution; Economic (corporate power): which operates within structural constraints within the marketplace and in the context of regulation. Power is both potential and actual. By this I mean that the apparent capacity of media to influence the attitudes of audiences is power enough itself. It is this potential which causes politicians to court media appearances. It is the potential which leads to censorship and regulation – as much as actual examples of the exercise, even abuse of power. Globalization and the need for financial muscle to meet competition leads to larger conglomerates which lead to less competition and therefore to less actual choice. The workings of the market contradict aspirations to healthy pluralism. The numbers of newspapers, the variety of content and the range of audience has closed down as the numbers of owners has decreased. Power of production of meaning In respect of production, power exists materially through the technologies and in the expertise of those who use them. The idea of professionalism is one which endorses expertise and the right to do things in certain ways. It is the case that a relatively small number of media workers collaborate to represent the world to us.

This economy may have indirect effects. For instance, in 2001 competitive game shows were provinto be very popular on British television. ITV competed with the BBC for ratings. Its reschedulinof Saturday night programmes had proved to be a failure, and its share of advertisinrevenue was slipping, so it introduced Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, which proved to be very successful. Similarly, the BBC brought in an equally successful programme, The Weakest Link, which it later exported to the USA. The meanings that will be reinforced through a glut of such game shows are, for example, about the value of beincompetitive, the stigma of beina loser, the desir- ability of acquirinmaterial goods. This is ideology at work. These meanings are political because they are ideological. They refer to the power of beina winner – and the disempowerment of ‘losers’. But these meanings are not intentional. The insti- tutional imperative is to get people watchinand to keep them there. This is what power is

Media and government Mechanisms of regulation by the govt.

Govt uses media to

disseminate policy,

to promote initiatives,

to release information into the public domain,

to test reactions to possible new laws,

to present in a public sphere a favourable view of government work.

Symbiotic relationship is ideal

The relationship between the institutions of media and government is similarly one of mutual self-interest, though not entirely one of equals. When the chips are down, it is government that makes law and controls the flow of information vital to media. Mechan- isms of regulation (see below) are controlled directly or indirectly by government. Never- theless, the access of media to the audience means that government often wants to use media to disseminate policy, to promote initiatives, to release information into the public domain, to test reactions to possible new laws, and most of all to present in a public sphere a favourable view of government work.

The regulation of media institutions

Publics right to know vs right to privacy

Public interest vs interests of financial backers

Four main areas in which constraints operate.

Law

Finance/the market

Professional practices

Public responsibility

The concept of regulation of media institutions does not only refer to intentional and external forces. If one connects it with the notion of constraints on institutional practices, then there are four main areas in which constraints operate. 1 Law – respects in which the fear of legal action or actual legal intervention constrains the media from ‘publishing’ anythinthey please. . 2  Finance/the market – lack of resources or concern about performance in the market may constrain media from ‘publishing’. This constraint may limit or shape the media product, or even simply stop its production.

. 3  Professional practices – what media workers have agreed it is OK to ‘publish’ or not, and in what ways, will in effect constrain what institutions put out, and therefore what we are ‘allowed’ to have in the public domain.

. 4  Public responsibility – is also about the beliefs of media workers actinas a constraint. They will share beliefs about the nature of their responsibility to the public and therefore again about what should be ‘published’.

Institutions and power control of financial resources which fund media distribution and production;

control of technical resources which manufacture media goods;

control of human resources which develop relevant technology and make specialist production possible;

control of legal resources which copyright and control the scope of distribution and production, and which amplify profits;

control of a management centre which holds the reins of ownership, which produces policy, which directs distribution and production.

The material base and source of institutional power may be identified as control of financial resources which fund media distribution and production; control of technical resources which manufacture media goods; control of human resources which develop relevant technology and make specialist production possible; control of legal resources which copyright and control the scope of distribution and production, and which amplify profits; control of a management centre which holds the reins of ownership, which produces policy, which directs distribution and production.

Power structure

Conglomerates

Competition

Globalisation

Less choice

Globalization and the need for financial muscle to meet competition leads to larger conglomerates which lead to less competition and therefore to less actual choice. The workings of the market contradict aspirations to healthy pluralism. The numbers of newspapers, the variety of content and the range of audience has closed down as the numbers of owners has decreased.

In Mass Media and Society (3rd edn) (2000), Goldinand Murdock refer to the power of the media moguls: In the emerginenvironment, power will lie with those who own the key buildinblocks of new communications systems, the rights to the key pieces of technology and, even more importantly, the rights to the cultural materials – the films, books, images, sounds, writings – that will be sued to put together the new services . . . the media moguls have a sizeable advantage since they already own a formidable range of the expressive assets that are central to public culture.

Institutions and globalization

global reach in terms of range of distribution, range of outlets, scope of the financial base, various audiences/consumers, range of products/texts, range of media owned, the spread of the ownership/management base.

For media institutions globalization means a global reach in terms of range of distribu- tion, range of outlets, scope of the financial base, various audiences/consumers, range of products/texts, range of media owned, and the spread of the ownership/management base. In one sense this global reach does mean more of the same, but on an inter- national rather than a national scale. It does mean similar operations are spread out on a larger stage, and that cash flow works on a larger scale. Bigger sharks swim in larger oceans. The larger base and larger profits can mean more security in the face of competition.

Consequences of globalisation

Cultural homogeneity or cultural diversity and pluralism Increased competition higher standards of professionalism development issues that have a worldwide impact, can be effectively communicated by the global media many stories hidden from local and national audiences due to politico-economic constraints, are revealed to a worldwide audience by independent global media.

The emergence of global media presents both challenges and opportunities. Some communication scholars have warned of threats of cultural homogeneity, but the same media tools offer opportunities for cultural diversity and pluralism (i.e. it is now easier to produce, share, and exchange local media content). The global media also have the capability and resources to set higher standards of professionalism. Consequently many local media outlets are forced to become more competitive by improving the quality of their programming. Moreover, development issues that have a worldwide impact, such as climate change, pandemics or threats to biodiversity, can be effectively communicated by the global media. It is also acknowledged that many stories hidden from local and national audiences due to politico-economic constraints, are revealed to a worldwide audience by independent global media.

Cultural imperialism Predominance of some products from some sources.

They carry certain ideologies and certain cultural perspectives.

American serials and Hollywood films

Japanese Anime

K pop and Korean serials

Predominance of few news agencies like Reuters, Associated Press etc.

But in another sense global reach means something different. One issue co-relates cultural imperialism (see also Chapter 12) and cultural impoverishment. In the first case one sees the predominance of some products from some sources. These products neces- sarily carry certain ideologies and certain cultural perspectives. Obvious examples are the Hollywood feature film across the world, the Brazilian telenovella/soap across South America, BBC and CNN 24-hour news across the satellite receptive world.

However, the evidence is that things are not that simple. Certainly the ‘developed’ world tends to dominate this cultural export business. But there is an increasing amount of exchange which means that it is no longer realistic to argue the US imperialism thesis. And it is evident that indigenous cultures do not ‘die on their feet’, even if they do change. The Japanese export variations on popular music back to the West, with their own slant on, say, punk rock. It does exemplify the fact that the Japanese young are not spending much time on reinforcing traditional and classic Japanese culture. But equally, forms such as Kabuki theatre have not simply disappeared, even if they have become a minority interest. And it may be said that new forms represent a kind of new cultural energy, which is no bad thing. Similarly, one sees hybrid forms of popular music in South Africa – township music drawing on traditional tribal forms and sounds, which then further develop through contact with jazz, blues and rock.

If there is an area of media in which one should be concerned about the predomin- ance of one view of the world over another, it is in respect of news. It is worrying that a few news agencies – Reuters, Associated Press, for example – have come to determine what news is gathered from where, how it is structured, how it is available and at what price. Their only competitors are the big broadcasting networks. Together they dominate the distribution of product, and therefore of particular ways of looking at events and issues. Smaller newspapers and broadcasters cannot afford to compete and are very dependent on such distributors. Military interventions, refugee aid, trading practices and so on, are all looked at from a first world perspective – put crudely, that what ‘we’ do and how ‘we’ do it is right. Ironically, technology makes it very possible to hear about how the world looks from the point of view of the streets of Nairobi, Karachi, Istanbul. But we don’t often hear that view.

The Big Picture

Communication is a battleground of power Historically, allied with state or business corporations ( & now entertainment corporations) Central to institutions of democracy and capitalism 130 outlines how media work, how they are shaped by and shaping the economic, political and social worlds around us Do the Media create critical citizens or consumers?

Trends in Communication1. Compression of space and time

• Larger and larger territories covered: networks of networks emerging (www)

• Mobile, wireless untethered access: ubiquity

• Communication across borders virtually instantaneously

2. Commodification

• Spread of private and not public enterprise, interpenetration of marketing, consumption and media

• Widespread ideology of consumption/consumer “sovereignty”

3. Deregulation and Concentration and Conglomeration • Withdrawal of public sector, less regulation, more role for market • Trend to mergers and acquisitions

• Multi media holdings

Trends Cont’d4. Globalization :

• Growth in international trade in cultural products, rise of 6 or 8 main companies dominating markets and merging industries

• AOL Time Warner;Disney;Vivendi, Viacom, Sony, News, Bertelesmann

5. Digitization and Convergence

⬧ Conversion of sound pictures and text into computer readable formats by representing them as strings of zeros and ones

⬧ Now, telecommunication providers involved in TV and cable

⬧ Digitization enables the production, circulation, manipulation and re-purposing or storage of information on unprecedented scale

6. Specialization ( part of “demassification”)

⬧ Narrowly “casting’ or “targeting” communication to particular interests… shrinking share of general interest TV

7. Personalization

⬧ The “daily me”: personal tailoring of media diet/media products

⬧ Ideal type: MP3 downloading of custom music

Transformation of ‘Mass’ Communication

Arrival of computers and switched two-way interactive technology …digitisation Internet From one to one, … from many to many--almost infinitely Rise of transactional media ( pay per bit) Resistance of media piracy: swapping and downloading

According to McChesney, media moguls have an interest in pushing the idea that the current concentration in the industry is the result of free market forces, instead of the consequence of “explicit privileges”, in the form of tax breaks and licences granted to commercial interests. “The fewer the outlets for information, the less intellectual range for political, ideological and other thinking,” he adds. “Multiple sources of information help us to better assess overall credibility”. (Chuck Lewis, executive director of the Centre for Public Integrity) The marriage of media content (news, films, TV shows) with media distribution (TV or radio networks, Internet services and the like) further increases the control of media barons over the audience, as they use their sales power to batter their way into living rooms. (Comcast would combine its distribution power and technology with Disney’s content businesses. Comcast’s failed 66-billion-dollar bid for Disney in February, 2004.) In January 2001, the 165-billion-dollar mega-merger between AOL and Time Warner became the largest in history. “If media moguls control media content and media distribution, then they have a lock on the extent and range of diverse views and information,” says Lewis. “That kind of grip on commercial and political power is potentially dangerous for any democracy.”

In his books, ‘Rich Media, Poor Democracy’ and ‘The Problem With the Media’, Robert W. McChesney, research professor at the U.S. University of Illinois, argues that the major beneficiaries of the so-called Information Age are a select group of wealthy owners and investors, advertisers and a handful of enormous media, computer and telecommunications corporations.

“With a large majority of ‘Reliable Sources’ guests (around 76 percent) depending on media corporations for their livelihoods, the show’s guest list makes it unlikely that many hard-hitting criticisms of the news industry itself will be heard.”

“Media corporations already enjoy a disproportionate amount of political power, for not only do they attempt to influence the public policy process like everyone else -¡ with campaign contributions, free trips, lobbying ¡- they actually control whether or not a politician’s face or voice is on the airwaves. Now, that is real power!”

BACK TO INDEX AND LECTURE NOTES ARE AT THE END OF NOTES

Concentration of ownership Political bias can also creep in too. Media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) did a study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in 2001 in which they found that “92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”

Vertical Integration Interlocking Directorates - where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company the oligopoly and concentrated control of media companies has meant that the competition has reduced itself to attracting viewers through sensationalism etc rather than quality, detailed reporting etc. The Quest for the Public Airwaves - For many years now, corporate lobbyists had been lobbying to have the public airwaves sold to private corporations. While in many countries, national ownership of the airwaves can lead to propaganda avenues, many democratic countries are able to, through their governments, apply some set of standards and regulations on how radio is used to ensure people have access to it while also allowing private corporations a lot of access to it. Large, private, often multinational corporations, however, do not have such accountability. Their only real accountability is to shareholders, whose concerns are returns on investments (profit). The Quest for the Internet? • Mergers and acquisitions turning “already powerful companies into even more powerful media behemoths”. • Major media companies have been able to invest heavily in “[i]mproved quality of presentation, intensity of marketing and integration with off-line programming” • Economies of scale, that also apply to online businesses as well as traditional businesses.

Concentration of ownership is where the problem largely lies There may be a large number of outlets giving the appearance of diversity, but a concern is that so many are owned by one of the few media giants:

A year-long study by FAIR, of CNN’s media show, Reliable Sources showed a large bias in sources used, and as their article is titled, CNN’s show had reliably narrow sources. They pointed out for example, “Covering one year of weekly programs [December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2002] with 203 guests, the FAIR study found Reliable Sources’ guest list strongly favored mainstream media insiders and right-leaning pundits. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.”

The threat does not lie in the commercial operation of the mass media. It is the best method there is and, with all its faults, it is not inherently bad. But narrow control, whether by government or corporations, is inherently bad. In the end, no small group, certainly no group with as much uniformity of outlook and as concentrated in power as the current media corporations, can be sufficiently open and flexible to reflect the full richness and variety of society’s values and needs. … The answer is not elimination of private enterprise in the media, but the opposite. It is the restoration of genuine competition and diversity. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. 223-224 (Emphasis is original)

Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and have vertical integration (i.e. own operations and businesses) across various industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing manufacture and/or retailing etc. That means that while this is good for their business, the diversity of opinions and issues we can see being discussed by them will be less well covered. (One cannot expect Disney, for example, to talk too much about sweatshop labor when it is accused of being involved in such things itself.)

Vertical Integration was once looked upon with alarm by government. It was understood that corporations which have control of a total process, from raw material to fabrication to sales, also have few motives for genuine innovation and the power to seize out anyone else who tries to compete. This situation distorts the economy with monopolistic control over prices. Today, government has become sympathetic to dominant vertical corporations that have merged into ever larger total systems. These corporations, including those in the media, have remained largely unrestrained. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p. xvii

[T]he pressure to become a conglomerate is also due to something perhaps even more profound than the need for vertical integration. It was and is stimulated by the desire to increase market power by cross-promoting and cross-selling media properties or “brands” across numerous, different sectors of the media that are not linked in the manner suggested by vertical integration. … “When you make a movie for an average cost of $10 millon and then cross promote and sell it off of magazines, books, products, television shows out of your own company,” Viacom’s Redstone said, “the profit potential is enormous.” Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media Poor Democracy; Communication Politics in Dubious Times, (University of Illinois Press, 1999), p.22

synergistic ways to acquire, slice, dice and merchandise content.” Its 1994 animated film The Lion King generated over $1 billion in profit. It led to a lucrative Broadway show, a TV series and all sorts of media spin-offs. It also led to 186 items of merchandising. Wall Street analysts gush at the profit potential of animated films in the hands of media conglomerates; they estimate that such films on average generate four times more profit than their domestic box-office take. Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media Poor Democracy; Communication Politics in Dubious Times, (University of Illinois Press, 1999), p.23 (Emphasis is original)

It is interesting to note how a film goes beyond box office take, but goes towards larger market share and profit through all the cross-selling. That is, a film may generate certain revenue, but the overall profit will be even more than the revenue. On such television channels or newspapers/magazines owned by such large corporations, you are understandably not going to read much criticism about those companies. Furthermore, you are not likely to see much deep criticism about economic, political or other policies that go against the interest of that parent company. So, while it is understandable why a company would aim for such cross selling and integration, the threat to diversity and meaningful competition is real. For smaller companies (who might still have multi million dollars backing) without such an arsenal of distribution and cross-selling possibilities, the competition is very difficult, and they face either going out of business, or being bought out, or try to emulate them.

Interlocking Directorates Interlocking directorates is also another issue. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. As pointed out by U.S. media watchdog, Fairness an Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) for example, Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. (See the previous link for details of top media companies and the companies they are interlocked with, etc.)