Andrews Post 1-

Andrews post #1


Some Possible ramifications of media control being limited to a few conglomerates are:

1) Money oriented vs Consumer oriented
Initially, one could argue that the heart or goal of any business is money. But when it comes to businesses, which have direct correlation, and interaction with consumers (customers) it becomes problematic to focus solely on the revenue. If the only goal is to make more money not matter what it becomes simpler to side step diversity, integration and fair representation. Looking at these phenomena in a broadcast television application we could compare it to the cutting of shows because ratings are too low to create a wide enough profit margin. Its not that they don’t make no money, it’s just not enough.

2) Limited scope of interests being represented.
For instance If I lived in an town where I owned ½ of all the land that means I get to control what happens with that lands. Be it subdivision, industrial park, office parks, parking lots etc. Appling that to the media aspect we see that if owned 1 of 2 media companies that mean at least of the media produced has a strong probability of being biased in my favors or represent only things which would be of benefit to me.

3) Limitation of information.
I differentiate this from the above in that this would be a subset or out come of it. This can be exemplified in a political scenario. There are two candidates running for an office. In the voting area there are 3 news stations, 2 owned by a company in favor of candidate A and the other neutral. In such a setting the news being shared about candidate A could likely could be more easily represented, or supported. Their platform shared or views explained. Leaving candidate B With one outlet of media. Thus setting the odds in favor of candidate A, where media is concerned. I recognize that this is a very polarized example.