Media Ownership

The suggestion that a large amount of power fall into the hands of a small number of individuals is reference to the fact that over the last 30 years worldwide media has been successfully concentrated into a small amount of companies (Browne, 2016). This media consolidation is clear to see if we use America as an example, in 1983 the majority of media products where divided out between 50 companies, since then though acquisitions and mergers there are now only 5 companies that distribute a large share of media products. However, Curran and Seaton (2003) tell us that British newspapers have always been owned by a small number of powerful people so the change is not so drastic in the United Kingdom. The relationship between the public and the

Horizontal and vertical integration allows for global media companies to diversify the media platforms they control globally. For example NewsCorp owns newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television channels and film studios in several countries. Media companies ultimately aim to maximise profits by controling of all aspects of creation and distribution of media. For example Warner Bros create, distribute, market and globally exhibit a film that it creates. Companies would also spread the risk of investments by diversification allowing for funds to own shares in a large number of media outlets (Lewis, 1978).

It is argued that the concentration of media ownership is a negative social phenomenon however, pluralist will argue that the concentration of ownership has no influence on individual’s choice, nor is there a proven link between media concentration and the lack of diverse content they provide (Karppinen, 2013). Moreover, pluralist would argue that pluralism is the representation of multiple opinions or cultural expressions rather than the representation of multiple owners (Doyle, 2002). Media owners are considered

With this lack of measure it is easy to conclude that a small number of people have managed to gain a large amount of power via media control. Additionally, Woods (2007) studied the relationship to democracy and pluralism in a number of countries, and found that the level of debate with regards to the 9/11 attacks within the media of those countries deemed highly democratic, was less pluralistic than those within weaker democratic systems. Analysing the evidence in this essay it is easy to consider that the consolidation of media ownership has allowed a few people to dictate the direction of debates, aligning them with the interests they and their supporters