Media and Technology - Media Globalization

Media and Technology SOCI 1306 Media Globalization According to Lyons (2005), multinational companies are the main force behind media globalisation, and they are in charge of the content and distribution of mass media worldwide (Compaine 2005). It is true that as larger and larger corporations grow, there are less independent news sources when considering who owns which media sites. Approximately 1,500 newspapers, 2,800 book publishers, 6,000 magazines, and 10,000 radio stations were available in the US in the early 2000s (Bagdikian 2004). In 2019, some of those figures have shifted: there were over 7,000 periodicals and just 1,000 newspapers (notice that both publications count as such even if they are mostly published online) (BBC 2019). Surprisingly, the number of radio stations and book publishers has been rather constant. Diverse media channels may be found in abundance on the surface. However, the figures are not accurate. A phenomenon known as "media consolidation" occurs when the bulk of media outlets are owned by fewer and fewer people. As a result, there is an oligopoly and a small number of dominant companies in the media sector. In 1983, the majority of mass media channels were owned by just 50 firms. Just five corporations now possess 90% of media channels in the United States, a country without government-owned media (McChesney 1999). According to Time.com's 2014 ranking of corporate revenue, Comcast is the largest, followed by Disney Corporation, Time Warner, CBS, and Viacom. What effects does this consolidation have on the information that the general population in the United States is exposed to? Does the public's discourse become limited to the facts and ideas offered by a small number of sources as a result of media consolidation, depriving it of a variety of perspectives? Why is that relevant? Monopolies are important because less competition usually results in fewer satisfied customers because it is harder to find opposing ideas or other points of view. The following dysfunctions are brought about by media consolidation. First, the public is not owed as much by consolidated media as it is by its investors. The profitability of publicly listed Fortune 500 businesses and government regulators should take precedence over the public's right to know. Only a small minority's political and social interests are represented by the few corporations that hold the majority of the media since they are controlled by the ruling class. There are less incentives to innovate, enhance services, or lower prices in an oligopoly. According to Jan's 2009 research, the public sphere that gains access to the global village is likely to be composed of wealthy, Caucasian, and English-speaking individuals, contrary to the predictions made by certain social scientists (McLuhan, 1964). The Arab upheavals in the spring of 2011 demonstrated that technology did, in fact, provide a window into global news. For instance, we witnessed real-time online updates about events in Egypt while we were in the United States, with individuals blogging, publishing, and tweeting from Tahrir Square. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the transfer of technology from core to semi-peripheral and peripheral countries gives rise to a multitude of intricate problems. A conflict theorist could, for example, concentrate on the extent to which technical advancements lead to political ideology and cultural colonisation. Technological advancements are, at least in principle, independent of ideology; for example, a fibre optic cable has the same characteristics in a Muslim nation as it does in a secular, communist, or capitalist one. However, governments, corporations, or nongovernmental organisations who introduce technology to developing countries typically have a goal in mind. On the other hand, a functionalist may concentrate on how technology develops new channels for disseminating information about productive agricultural initiatives or on the financial gains associated with developing a new mobile phone market. In any case, those high-speed lines are being provided with cultural and social presumptions and expectations. Globalisation of media does not just carry concerns related to cultural and ideological prejudice. Advantages of a more linked world include the possibility of cultural imperialism as well as the loss of local culture and other issues. One danger is the possibility of censorship by national governments, who, as is the case in China, allow in only the media and material they believe best conveys their message. Furthermore, core countries like the United States run the risk of criminals using worldwide media to get around local laws prohibiting harmful and socially aberrant practices like child pornography, gambling, and the sex trade. U.S. citizens (and others) can access whatever unlawful or criminal material they like through offshore or foreign websites, which range from child pornography sellers to twenty-four-hour online gambling sites that don't require proof of age. These instances highlight the dangers that unrestricted information flow poses to society.