can anyone explain to me about private ownership accumulation of mass media in USA political system?
i need that for my assignment..and also please gimme an example..thanks before
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Before the 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission had regulations for broadcast media. One company couldn't own more than 1 AM, 1 FM and 1 TV station in any given 'market'. There were only so many places on the dial, so keeping them separate was seen as the fairest way to do it.
Also there were rules for broadcast stations. The airwaves were considered public property, so in return for their use of the public airwaves, radio and TV stations were required to perform 'public service'. This mean x number of hours of 'public affairs' broadcasting. And there was a 'fairness doctrine', stating that if politics was discussed, a range of views must be presented. They were -not- required to give equal time to each candidate, only to present more than one view.
Under Ronald Reagan, these rules were ended. Suddenly, radio stations -owned- their spot on the dial. Basically Reagan gave away public property to the current occupants of the airwaves. He also did away with the rule against owning more than one station in an area, and the fairness doctrine, allowing the current practice of right-wing talk radio.
There were also anti-monopoly rules, which are still on the books but no longer enforced. In the 1950s there was a big scandal when it was found that record companies were bribing radio stations to play their records. This was called 'payola'. Today the same company owns the record company and the radio stations! One company, Clear Channel Broadcast, owns 1/3 of all the radio stations in the US, and if they don't play your record you don't have a chance of success.
In the meanwhile, newspapers have been failing all over the US. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers these days. While most newspapers used to be independent and locally owned, now most are owned by big chains. They are run to squeeze out maximum profit, not to give the best news.
But the greatest number of Americans get -all- their news from TV, which is really frightening since the quality of TV news is deteriorating badly. TV networks used to lose money on news, they did it for prestige. Today news is one of the biggest money-makers, and they compete for audience. This means that popular stories are over-covered and stories that wouldn't be popular are given short shrift or not covered at all. Lurid stories like murders and disasters are over-covered, and facts are even 'selected' to make the stories sound more exciting.
Americans have become terrified of crime in the last 25 years. Crime has been trending down, but TV coverage of crime is more and more all the time. For instance, the average American thinks there are many more murders today than 20 years ago, even though murders are down, because -coverage- of murder is up by about 20 times.
When it comes to politics, media makes a huge difference. The media like to cover elections like a horse race, reporting endlessly on who is ahead, who is behind, without really covering the actual issues deeply, because they don't think Americans are really that interested in the issues. They don't like to discuss issues in depth because Americans have a short attention span, so instead we hear 'sound bites' that are between 7 and 20 seconds long.
Some candidates have become masters at providing sound bites! The first President Bush, while on the campaign trail, said something every day that could be cut out to show on the TV news that evening, something short and sweet and strong-sounding--like 'Read my lips! No new taxes!'
Usually the media picks the 'winner' at the very beginning of the race. Both Bill Clinton and GW Bush were chosen this way, the media covered them as 'presumptive' winners from the time they entered the race because they were the ones who had the most money. No other candidate was even really taken seriously. It wasn't so clear cut this time, except that candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were never really covered. The media saw them as really minor candidates, and you heard them made fun of more than you heard their ideas.
The reason for this is pretty obvious. The more money a candidate has, the more he spends on TV ads! So the stations and networks are only looking out for themselves.
- jeudyLv 44 years ago
it is not something to do with capitalism, and the 'formula' you pronounced interior the question is spurious. act: people consume. it is not considerable no count number while you're a capitalist or not, you will consume, it relatively is noted as being alive. relatively i think of that under a communist/socialist state, pollutants and worldwide warming could advance, provided that returned and returned governments have proved they're crap at working agencies. production could be low, high quality could be undesirable, corruption could be rife, the funds could be an entire mess and there could be no money left for adequate filtration of emissions / waste relief rules. the only thank you to freshen up the worldwide is have: a) a heavily enforced international contract of pollutants which includes set limits of emissions b) much less people interior the worldwide. This planet won't be able to indefinitely help the kind of people it at the instant is doing. finally, the two a share of the worldwide's inhabitants will die quickly, and something of the worldwide will bypass on, or (and that's greater in all risk) billions will die via the tip of the century, and the worldwide will then be in this way of piss-undesirable state that it's going to not be waiting to help many residing creatures. here endeth the rant (sorry).