Introduction to Communication as a Social Force in-class midterm #1
First Essay
In an attempt to understand the media, two major models have arisen, each withpublic interest as an important element. The market model and the public sphere model both try to protect the public interest but conceive and define it in different ways. The market model sees the public interest as what interests the public, therefore believing that simple free marknamics will fully fill the public interest and so want limited involvement by the state, where it only intervenes to protect property rights and the market's functioning. The public sphere model for the media looks at the public interest as what furthers democracy, stimulates discussion, and represents society. Such a view feels the state should intervene to ensure that the media are fulfilling these requirments.
The market model believes that the public will get its interest because corporate media will look to please the public for profits. Since they define public interest as what interests the public, to a certain extent that's true. As Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp has learned, people enjoy watching car wrecks, animal attacks, cop shows, and reading about gossip and scandal. In this way (and by using the market model's take on public interest) NewsCorp through its Fox network, The News of the world, The sun, and its other holdings, does give the they want (arguably at the expense of the social fabric). In the Texas Las review article (Texas Law Review 60, no. 2 (1982):207-257), the authors took a very market model view. They believed that through the diverse and numerous media channels, people's desires will be fulfilled, and thefore the public interest will be served. That's why they advocated that the state take a hands-off approach to media management, letting the market decide the price of the transmission spectrum, and other avenues, and the content to provide. They believe (in accordance with the market model) that the government should only intervene to ensure a functioning market through protecting property and broadcast rights, ensuring a stable economic system and dollar, and allowing corporations to seek their profits. The market model view of public interest is limited to what interests the public and what is popular.
The public sphere model looks at public interest as democratic freedom (where people are citizens and have "one person - one vote," not "one dollar - one vote"), information, diverse views, innovation, and open for public discussion. Under this model, the media are tools and a means to strengthen society, increase awareness, and further democratic involvement. The BBC seeks to "represent Britains to Britain." In this way, they are furthering awareness and discussion about various real world issues that the average British citizen faces. Television for the BBC goes beyond mere entertainment to breech the ground of real-life issues that must be critically looked at, not avoided. Similarly, the CBC looks to strengthen the social, political, and cultural fabric of Canada. In order to do this, they give representation to a wide array of marginalized groups and look at important political events (like Rememberence Day). By doing this they bond Canada together, and inform them of others who are different from them, and show them why different isn't bad. In this model, the state should ensure the media strengthen society by providing funding and/or ensuring diverse content.
Both the public sphere and the market models claim to serve the public interest, but each define it in different ways. It is up to us to decid which public interest we prefer and push to help make that model more of a reality.
Second Essay
In The Business of Media, Croteau and Hoynes look at the business strategies of media conglomerates and the wayategies affect media content. These effects should concern the public as the public sphere is being limited. The conglomerates ultimate goal is profits, and in order to make the money, they have various strategies which affect both content and the public.
Conglomerates look to sensationalization and fluff. They use sensationalism to capture the audience's attention and use fluff to not offend viewers or advertisers. This severely limits the quality of information the public recieves. In the McHallin article, the example story they look at on AIDs education amounted to nothing (and was intentionally misleading on top of that). Such stories interest the public (and often outrage) but do not amount to anything substantial.
Corporations also let the quest for profits censor their content. Reporters self-cnsor content they know might not go over will with owners or advertisers. Also with the destruction of the church-state wall, censorship comes from within the company. Stories that might offend the tobacco industry (for example) were/are either not aired or end up hurting profits as happened with one example newspaper. Also NewsCorp didn't print a book that represented the Chinese government unfavorably because they were trying to strike a deal as a satellite provider with China.
Another affect of the breakdown of the church0state wall can be seen with the addition of sections of newspapers which come down to advertisements (like for home improvement products, pharmeceuticals, or even travel resorts. Also stories will be pursued that will look good to advertisers. Like unbeknownst to the writers or the public, the Los Angeles Times struck a deal with the Staples Center to promote it. That seriously compromised Journalistic ethics, especially because the reporters were kept in the dark. Also, book reviewers (especially when content is offered online) have a conflict of interest since they get money based upon purchases made by certain booksellers. This biases the reviewers to write good reviews so they and the newspaper will profit.
Through conglomerates diverse holdings (integrated both horizontally and vertically) conflicts of interest arise if news breaks about another arm of the corporate squid. For example, ABC news didn't run a 20/20 episode on problems at Disneyworld because Disney owned ABC. Also GE's NBC covered a story on defective bolts but failed to mention that these bolts were used in GE's Nuclear reactors (until they were criticized for the ommission).
Through conglomerations gobbling up of other companies and their ultimate quest for profits, corperations have interest in many business strategies that translate into affects on media context. Sometimes it's more benign (like the George Lopez Show's trip to Disneyland after Disney bought ABC and the show) or more harmful (like not revealing information about the 1996 Telecommunications Act which would be detrimental to the public), but either way it's democracy and the public that ultimately suffer.
