Politics, News & Issues >
News Industry
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCan democracy flourish if media ownership is limited?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 72% | 31 votes | Total: 43 votes | |
| Yes | 28% | 12 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesNo. Democracy cannot flourish if media ownership is limited.
Democracy is government by people exercised either directly or through elected representatives'. It is a social condition of equality and respect for the individual within the community' (The Reader's Digest Dictionary).
To exercise the right to democracy an individual needs information and facts. Good decisions can only be made with all the information concerning the issue or issues available which can be weighed and considered with care. Without information and facts it is not possible to make a balanced judgment.
With limited ownership of the media, it is in the owners' interest to emphasize their beliefs and concerns and play down or ignore those of opponents. It is in the owners interest to maintain the status quo. Why change what works for you?
While it could be said that some members of the electorate are not sophisticated enough to recognize what is happening we are all fooled at times by how material presented to the public is manipulated. It is the function of the media to present their case and they are professionals. The spin put on information can change perceptions. There is power in the printed word, it seems to have value, and we tend to trust what well known journalists say. The media has us at its mercy because it is difficult to find all the information we need without searching for it and knowing where to search. We are also conditioned to trust it while we are wary of it. An interesting paradox.
Many people have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into the details of what they are being asked to vote for and frequently note headlines and lose the details. Immediately these people do not have access to what they need to know and what actually concerns them a great deal. They decide who to elect as their representatives without having enough information to make a choice. Clever word play and persuasive speakers can give emphasis which can distort facts.
The limiting of information then ignores the second definition of democracy that it is a social conditions of equality and respect for the individual in the community'. By representing the owners' viewpoint, the media are showing a complete lack of respect for the idea and spirit of democracy. The people are no longer in a condition of equality because they do not have all the information necessary to decide.
A third definition of democracy is that the people are considered as a source of political authority' (Readers' Digest Dictionary). Authority suggests power. The electorate only have as much power as they have knowledge. To know something informs. While some individuals feel passionate about certain political issues which will influence how they practice democracy, many others are turned off by the apparent dullness of politics. It used to be said that talking about sex, religion and politics were taboo in polite society. But everything is political.
Democracy is a belief, a philosophy, in the west. The power of limited media ownership should be curbed so that the electorate have full information and no bias.
Learn more about this author, Rosemary Redfern.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Can democracy flourish if media ownership is limited?
The simple answer to the question is yes, assuming the type of democracy being discussed is democracy in the American sense and that the media is owned by a limited number of private entities. Granted, both assumptions are significantly speculative, but they are innately important to the answer.
American democracy is based on the concept of a republic of law. The terms democracy and republic are often used interchangeably, but, despite the fact that the boundaries between the two have noticeably dimmed over the last several decades, they are not the same constructs.
The point being, the founders of this country were extremely concerned about establishing a true democracy because it was understood that majority rule, while sounding good in theory, is the most basic element of a mob. If 20 out of 30 people believe that everyone on the block should only have white cars-or worse yet, hang someone, then democracy wins while individual liberty loses. That's not the kind of democracy anyone wants to flourish, regardless of who owns the media.
More to the point, unless the government is the one owning the media, even a small number of voices can still generate competition for ideas, and that is what has been demonstrably apparent over the last decade or so. NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and their internet components currently dominate most of the news media. Their coverage is almost identical in word and thought on most national issues even though they are owned by different entities, and they never really faced any significant opposition until the advent of FOX News Channel. Incidentally (or maybe specifically), Fox's share of the market has grown exponentially over the years. Whether you agree with the message or not, they have been quite successful.
In reality, the true strength of American democracy is its ties to the philosophy and political structures of capitalism and individual liberty. As such, even if only a handful of individuals owned all the media outlets, their message could not be uniformly dishonest or manipulative without government collusion. If the cost of running a radio or TV station was uniformly easy (or difficult for that matter) and no one received special treatment or consideration from the government, then the number of owners would be irrelevant because the content would be subject to the free market.
At the risk of mentioning another "right wing" format, conservative talk radio is a perfect example of limited ownership not affecting American democracy. On the large scale, the ownership of most conservative media outlets (Cox, Clear Channel, etc.) are owned by a relatively small number of groups, however, the content itself is highly competitive. Liberals, Moderates, Libertarians, and Conservatives all fight for the same finite number of hours during any broadcast week. The ones that rise to the top are not the ones chose by the owners of the particular broadcasting licenses because they share their philosophy. They are chose by the owners of the broadcasting outlets because they get the most market share and thus, create the highest potential for profit by selling spots to advertisers.
In reality, the crux of this question is actually aimed the particular argument for "diversity of ownership" as currently bandied about by different entities trying to get a feel for public opinion. It's an interesting slant, but it is a red herring. If 1000 different people are all given licenses to broadcast the exact same message regardless of the basic interests of the marketplace, then the first person to show up and speak a different message will win ridiculous amounts of market share almost overnight.
Limited ownership is not the problem. A limited message is. Democracy can flourish as long as the government doesn't take over control of the content of the media. Once that happens, Big Brother is in control, regardless of how diverse the ownership of the media sources might be. A uniform message controlled by the state is the true threat to democracy.
Learn more about this author, Jason Downs.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News Industry
- Recent reports predict the end of print newspapers by 2014: Should newspapers go fully digital to secure their longevity?
- Can media exposes on government abuse lead to reform?
- The media and the personal lives of politicians: Open or closed door?
- Should the media be giving Paris Hilton so much attention?
- Are there differences between print and online codes of journalism?
