Monolithic Media Companies?

[CBL4]

One of Bagdikian’s implied arguments against large media companies is that they will only present one POV. Does anyone think this is true?

His description of Murdoch shows a counter-example. Murdoch publishes a magazine (unnamed) which is the “political primer for George Bush’s White House policy maker” (P42) and owns Vondervan which sells the largest number of commercial bibles in the US. But he owns the “sex-and-sensation News of the World.” (p43) You could also compare FOX News conservative reputation vs. the T-and-A reputation of Fox Network.

Other quotes: “One wonders if somewhere a publishing deity grants Murdoch absolution.” (p43)
“If Murdoch wants something sufficiently valuable, he can momentarily suspend his personal politics.” (P39)

Or could it be that Murdoch runs a business empire and his goal is to make money?

CBL

 

[skepticality]

I am normally quite pro-capitalist.

That said.

I've always had a belief that there should be some form of cap on the income of News Media. Basically, enough to make a great living off of it, but make it almost impossible to become a fat-cat at the game.

Why?

I believe, from the beginning of capitalism, news becomes less news and more commercially driven because of the money to be made. Yes, you can make the argument that there are 'several' other news sources that are fair, you can read all the options, etc. And, I agree.

What I am saying is that, you should be forced to call yourself anything but 'News' or have some tag that designates News sources that follow a severe low-income policy as 'news' where everything is clearly designated as satire, entertainment, or otherwise.

I think that John Stewart as proven that CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC and most newspapers are less 'news' that his comedy satire show. It has all come down to ratings, and corporate conglomerations, not news.

Then again, even limiting the income won't really solve the issue, extremists might be the only ones left willing to dedicate themselves to the cause of News.

The accurate reporting of news has been an issue throughout time. Maybe they should be forced to cross air shows and cross-publish stories on top of income caps. Like 50% of your content has to come from random other news sources, generated by lotto every night.

 

[CBL4]

I've always had a belief that there should be some form of cap on the income of News Media. Basically, enough to make a great living off of it, but make it almost impossible to become a fat-cat at the game.

I do not think that is feasible or fair.

In an ideal world, every media company should compete with each other to provide the best news which should provide the greatest profit. In real world, every media company competes with each other to make the greatest profit. This is not ideal but I cannot come up with a better plan. If I were inclined to regulate the media, I do not know how to judge it and I certainly do not trust anyone else to do so.

The other thing is there are certain news organization that are largely dedicated to being the best news sources in the world. These organization (NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist, etc.) may not be the most profitable but they do provide an influence far beyond their readership. I am fairly sure that Bagdikian made this point constrasting them with the "chain" newspapers.

CBL