Re:Media monopoly time ...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 2
What many people seem to be missing here is the role that the media giants can take in undermining democracy. I'm not denying that the media are very important in maintaining democracy, but when a media mogul such as Rupert Murdoch (owner of the aforementioned British Sun and Times) chooses to try to influence events for their own reasons, then you can start to worry. 2 examples: Firstly, the Sun during the Gulf war advocated the use of nuclear weapons (!) - the only British newspaper to do so. A study by Sussex university showed that 21% of questioned Sun readers advocated nukes as a possible strategy - the only newspaper to make it into double figures. So obviously nuts editorials affect public opinion. Secondly, there is Murdoch's attitude to Europe. He is personally against Britain's further integration into Europe, mostly because he is afraid of further regulation. Perhaps he's right that no further regulation is required, but he is using his large ownsership of the British press to influence the process of democracy here, for his own financial reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the press trying to sway political events - that's a cornerstone of democracy. But when one individual/corporation owns too large a proportion of the press, then democracy may be undermined by that individual. The only way to stop this happening is to prevent market share of a media organisation (more specifically a news gathering organisation) becoming too large. I know that it isn't as much of an issue in the USA, with greater competition, but that competition has lessened over the years of consolidation, and the interests of these new media giants tend to converge - woe betide the politician that tries to go against the common interests of several media giants.
Slashdot Mirror
What many people seem to be missing here is the role that the media giants can take in undermining democracy. I'm not denying that the media are very important in maintaining democracy, but when a media mogul such as Rupert Murdoch (owner of the aforementioned British Sun and Times) chooses to try to influence events for their own reasons, then you can start to worry. 2 examples: Firstly, the Sun during the Gulf war advocated the use of nuclear weapons (!) - the only British newspaper to do so. A study by Sussex university showed that 21% of questioned Sun readers advocated nukes as a possible strategy - the only newspaper to make it into double figures. So obviously nuts editorials affect public opinion. Secondly, there is Murdoch's attitude to Europe. He is personally against Britain's further integration into Europe, mostly because he is afraid of further regulation. Perhaps he's right that no further regulation is required, but he is using his large ownsership of the British press to influence the process of democracy here, for his own financial reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the press trying to sway political events - that's a cornerstone of democracy. But when one individual/corporation owns too large a proportion of the press, then democracy may be undermined by that individual. The only way to stop this happening is to prevent market share of a media organisation (more specifically a news gathering organisation) becoming too large. I know that it isn't as much of an issue in the USA, with greater competition, but that competition has lessened over the years of consolidation, and the interests of these new media giants tend to converge - woe betide the politician that tries to go against the common interests of several media giants.