Media conglomerate: Difference between revisions
| [accepted revision] | [accepted revision] |
m →Country Examples: remove UTM parameters (Google analytics) from URLs - BRFA |
→Country Examples: Added links to the articles for the companies referenced in last paragraph. |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hope|first1=Wayne|last2=Myllylahti|first2=Merja|title=Financialisation of Media Ownership in New Zealand|journal=New Zealand Sociology, suppl. Special Issue on Inequality and Class in New Zealand|volume=28|issue=23}}</ref> also experience the concentration of multiple media enterprises in a few companies. This concentration issue is an ongoing concern for the [[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]], the [[Australian Communications and Media Authority]] and New Zealand's [[Broadcasting Standards Authority]]. |
Like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hope|first1=Wayne|last2=Myllylahti|first2=Merja|title=Financialisation of Media Ownership in New Zealand|journal=New Zealand Sociology, suppl. Special Issue on Inequality and Class in New Zealand|volume=28|issue=23}}</ref> also experience the concentration of multiple media enterprises in a few companies. This concentration issue is an ongoing concern for the [[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]], the [[Australian Communications and Media Authority]] and New Zealand's [[Broadcasting Standards Authority]]. |
||
Other countries that have large media conglomerates with impacts on the world include: Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, China, and Brazil. Media conglomerates outside of the United States include |
Other countries that have large media conglomerates with impacts on the world include: Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, China, and Brazil. Media conglomerates outside of the United States include [[Yomiuri Shimbun|Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings]], [[ProSiebenSat.1 Media|ProSiebanSat.1]], [[Hubert Burda Media|Hubert Burda Meda]], [[Fuji Television|Fuji Media Holdings]], [[ITV plc|ITV]], [[Mediaset]], [[Axel Springer SE|Axel Springer]], [[JCDecaux]], [[China Central Television]], [[Asahi Shimbun|Asahi Shimbun Company]], [[Grupo Globo]], [[Baidu]], and [[Bertelsmann]]<ref>{{cite web|last1=O'Reilly|first1=Lara|title=The 30 Biggest Media Companies in the World|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/the-30-biggest-media-owners-in-the-world-2016-5/#30-time-inc--287-billion-in-media-revenue-1|website=Business Insider}}</ref>. |
||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
Revision as of 06:56, 13 November 2017
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
A media conglomerate, media group, or media institution is a company that owns numerous companies involved in mass media enterprises, such as television, radio, publishing, motion pictures, theme parks, or the Internet. According to the magazine Nation, "Media conglomerates strive for policies that facilitate their control of the markets around the world."[1]
Terminology
A conglomerate is a large company composed of a number of smaller companies (subsidiaries) engaged in generally unrelated businesses.
Starting in 2007, it was questioned whether media companies actually are unrelated. Some media conglomerates use their access in multiple areas to share various kinds of content, such as news, video and music, between users. The media sector's tendency to consolidate has caused formerly diversified companies to appear less diverse because, compared with similar companies, it isn't diverse. Therefore, the term media group may also be applied, however, it has not yet replaced the more traditional term.[2]
Country Examples
In the 2016 Forbes Global 2000 list, Comcast was America's largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue, with The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, CBS Corporation & Viacom (both are controlled by National Amusements through supervoting shares), and 21st Century Fox comprising the top six.[3]
In 1984, 50 independent media companies owned the majority of media interests within the United States. Now, there are only six big companies. [4]
Between 1941 and 1975, several rules restricting channel ownership within radio and television were enacted in order to maintain unbiased and diverse media. However that all changed under the Reagan administration. Between the years 1981 and 1985, Congress and the Federal Communications Commision began deregulation led by FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler. The amount of television stations a single entity can own increased from seven to 12 stations.
The industry continued to shift towards deregulation with the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, it is considered by the FCC to be the "first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years."[5] Now that the 40-station ownership cap was lifted, the radio industry experienced an unprecedented amount of consolidation. Since this period, Clear Channel Communications grew from 40 stations to 1200 stations, in all 50 states, while Viacom grew to owning 180 stations across 41 markets.
As media consolidation grew, the nation began to worry how it might negatively impact society at large. In the case of Minot, North Dakota[6], the concerns regarding media consolidation is realized. On January 18, 2002, a train containing hazardous chemicals derailed in the middle of the night, exposing countless Minot residents to toxic waste. Upon trying to get out an emergency broadcast, the Minot police were unable to reach anyone. They were instead forwarded to the same automated message, as all the broadcast stations in Minot were single-handedly owned by Clear Channel Communications, where nobody was apparently at the phones.
Between the years 2002 and 2006, the conglomerates only got bigger. As the FCC reviews media ownership rules, broadcasters petition for the elimination of all rules, while those who are against the decision cite the incident in Minot as how consolidation could be harmful. In 2005, top companies Verizon and MCI Inc. received approval to combine, while SBC Inc. acquired AT&T, respectively, giving the nation's premier communication company a global reach unmatched by any other.
As of 2017, 90% of the US's media is controlled by six companies- General Electric, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS.[7]
Like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand[8] also experience the concentration of multiple media enterprises in a few companies. This concentration issue is an ongoing concern for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority. Other countries that have large media conglomerates with impacts on the world include: Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, China, and Brazil. Media conglomerates outside of the United States include Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings, ProSiebanSat.1, Hubert Burda Meda, Fuji Media Holdings, ITV, Mediaset, Axel Springer, JCDecaux, China Central Television, Asahi Shimbun Company, Grupo Globo, Baidu, and Bertelsmann[9].
Criticism
Critics have accused the large media conglomerates of dominating the media and using unfair practices. This can be seen in the news industry, where corporations refuse to publicize information that would be harmful to their interests. Because some corporations do not publish any material that criticizes them or their interests, media conglomerates have been criticized for limiting free speech or not protecting free speech[10]. These practices are also suspected of contributing to the merging of entertainment and news (sensationalism[11]) at the expense of the coverage of serious issues. They are also accused of being a leading force behind the standardization of culture (see globalization[10], Americanization) and are frequently criticized by groups that perceive news organizations as being biased toward special interests of the owners[10].
Because these conglomerates have so much power and influence, critics bring up the question of whether that amount of power is justifiable. It can and is easily abused. Some wonder if it's better to lessen the amount of conglomerates to reduce the likeliness of unfair practices[10].
There is also the concern that the concentration of media ownership reduces diversity in both ownership and programming of TV shows and radio programs. Because there are fewer independent media, there is less diversity and therefore less competition. This can result in the reduction of different points of view as well as vocalization about different issues[12]. There is also a lack of diversity as a majority of those in media are white, middle-class men. Their views are being shared disproportionately more than other groups, such as women and minorities. Women and minorities also have less ownership of media[13]. For example, women have less than 7 percent of TV and radio licenses, and minorities have around 7 percent of radio licenses and 3 percent of TV licenses[14].
Notable examples
See also
- Conglomerate (company)
- Concentration of media ownership
- Media imperialism
- Media proprietor
- Multinational corporation
- Lists of corporate assets
References
- ^ Moglen, Eben, Michael Pertschuck, and Scott Sherman, (1999). "Editorials" (Nation, 269: 18). p. 12. ISSN 0027-8378
- ^ "A distinction between Business Groups and Conglomerates:The Limited Liability Effect". SSRN Electronic Journal 01/2009; DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.134299. 2009-01-01. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ "The World's Biggest Public Companies". Retrieved 18 September 2016.
- ^ "Timeline". Moyers on America. PBS. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ "Telecommunications Act of 1986". Federal Communications Commission. FCC. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ Fisher, Marc. "Sounds Familiar for a Reason". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ Lutz, Ashley. "These 6 Corporations Control 90% of the Media in America". Business Insider. Business Insider. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ Hope, Wayne; Myllylahti, Merja. "Financialisation of Media Ownership in New Zealand". New Zealand Sociology, suppl. Special Issue on Inequality and Class in New Zealand. 28 (23).
- ^ O'Reilly, Lara. "The 30 Biggest Media Companies in the World". Business Insider.
- ^ a b c d Stoll, Mary Lyn (June 2006). "Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate". Journal of Business Ethics. 66 (2–3).
- ^ Kenix, Linda Jean. "Independent Websites Not So Different from Group-Owned". Newspaper Research Journal. 35 (2).
- ^ Shah, Anup. "Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership". Global Issues.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - ^ Gamson, Joshua; Latteier, Pearl. "Do media monsters devour diversity?". 3 (3).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "Diversity in Media Ownership". Free Press. Retrieved 11/6/17.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ Including sales of Comcast's cable communications and networks businesses. Sales of NBCUniversal: US$28.462 billion (2015)
- ^ Including sales of Sony's electronics, game and financial services businesses. Sales of the Pictures and Music segments: US$13.768 billion (2015)
- ^ Rolando P. Valdueza (3 April 2017). SEC Form 17-A (Report). Philippine Stock Exchange.