Presentaion

Topic :Reflect on the ownership of media on global media corporation (Time Warner Inc.)
Presentation

Good Morning ,Everybody .Today. I would like to discuss the ownership of media .

Systems coincided with new satellite and digital technologies, resulting in the rise of transnational media giants. The global media system is now dominated by a first tier of nine giant firms. The five largest are Time Warner ,Disney , Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Firms like Time Warner have almost tripled in size this decade.Second, have interests in numerous media industries, such as film production, book publishing, music, TV channels and networks, retail stores, amusement parks, magazines, newspapers and the like. The profit whole for the global media giant can be greater than the sum of the media parts. A film, for example, should also generate a soundtrack, a book, and merchandise, and possibly spin-off TV shows, CD-ROMs, video games and amusement park rides. Firms that do not have conglomerated media holdings simply cannot compete in this market

Besides needing global scope to compete, the rules of thumb for global media giants are
the ownership of get bigger so you dominate markets and your competition can't buy you out. Arguments for ownership deregulation favour mergers and acquisitions because they consider these play an important role in the evolution of the media. Mergers are a defensive strategy that achieves economies of scale to meet the demands of modern media consumers and to respond to competition from new outlets and technologies(Thierer, op. cit.)
Eg:

AOL (owners of Time Warner), now control 75 per cent of all prime-time viewing in American homes.(‘Returning oligopoly of media content threatens cable’s power,” Bernstein Research, 7 February 2003.)


However, with so few organisations being allowed to control such a large and powerful medium, what benefits and drawbacks arise for audiences?There are many arguments put forwards by the proponents and those that oppose the ownership of global media corporation .

Supporters of global media corporation that critics falsely claim a loss of diversity in the industry. One makes the point that twenty five years ago there were few programming choices.
Eg:Globally, CNN airs through CNN International and has combined branded networks and services that are available to more than 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries and territories.(Cited Wikipedia.org)

It would deliver lower prices for consumers and better quality services and greater choices. At the same time it would ensure the benefits of ‘a diversity of voices and viewpoints in radio, television and print media’.




Another view, however, is that while the existence of hundreds of television channels can superficially be seen as an indication of diversity, in reality there is a paucity of programming choices. This is because the major corporations act as gatekeepers and decision makers for broadcast approvals and content inclusions.57

There is evidence to suggest that despite realisation of the promised increase in media
sources, ownership deregulation has at the same time reduced the range of media voices available. As such, some critics of ownership deregulation argue it has undermined free speech and homogenised opinion. Everything you read or see, every opinion, every image, and every jot of information would arrive through one corporate filter. For the general public, there are less diverse opinions and voices available in the media.
. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market, the question is not only that of whether they will present a diversity of opinions, but also of whether they are willing to present information that may be damaging to either their advertisers or to themselves.


Global conglomerates can at times have a progressive impact on culture, especially when they enter nations that had been tightly controlled by corrupt crony media systems (as in much of Latin America) or nations that had significant state censorship over media (as in parts of Asia). The global commercial-media system is radical in that it will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits

A argument put forward by McMcChesney that while media conglomerates press for policies to facilitate their domination of markets throughout the world, strong traditions of protection for domestic media and cultural industries persist. Nations ranging from Norway, Denmark and Spain to Mexico, South Africa and South Korea keep their small domestic film production industries alive with government subsidies. However ,the argument does not stop there .It goes further that the dominance of Western media –here is big global media corporation – has been restricted not so much by nation proctectionist policies but by audience perference .This argument is based on the idea that people when they have the choice .will naturally prefer that which seems closer to their own culture .or that which has greater meaning for them .

To conclusion ,I’m goting to summary a number of main argument abt the ownership of media on global media corporation .



References:
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406

A. Thierer, 2005. Media myths. Making sense of the debate over media ownership, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Washington,
N.Morris 2002 The myth of unadulterated culture meets the threat of imported media Publications(London,Thousand Oaks and New Delhi),Vol.24:278-289