Media Convergence and the Marketplace - Essay Example

?Media Convergence and the Marketplace Introduction Convergence essentially means that different types of media are converging with one another – which means that they are integrating. For example, the Internet and television may integrate. Or print and broadcast may integrate and deliver its content through the Internet (Lawson-Borders, 2006). Content may be driven through different platforms, such as computers and the Internet. The content may be text, audio and video combined (Lawson-Borders, 2006). Killebrew (2005) states that media convergence is information, and how the information is prepared, posted and transferred from one user to another. Or as Jenkins (2006) states, there is a cooperation between all multiple media industries, and media audiences will look for information where they can find it. This essay will look at convergence and what is meant by it, and will look, briefly, at the dangers of convergence, then will examine the Astral-Bell merger and analyze the merger from the voices of the people and the voices of the individuals who are behind the merger. Media Convergence According to Jenkins (2004) there is an inherent danger in media convergence, in that the multinational media conglomerates have the potential, and live up to this potential, to dominate every sector of the entertainment industry. Thus, the power elite had the potential to rule the airwaves, putting out its message to the masses, and the message is the message that benefits the corporations and the powerful (Brenkman, 1979). The media may be associated with large structural forces (Havens, et al., 2009). And the message may become more like propaganda, which makes the mass media more of a propaganda machine than a marketplace for free ideas (Murray, 2005). Giroux (2004) states that one of the dangers of media convergence, when certain corporations become too powerful, is that the message that goes out to the people is the message that benefits the corporations that own these multi-media conglomerates, which is the message of the neo-liberal – low taxes, deregulation and private enterprise is good, the opposite is bad, and an unequal distribution of wealth in society is a good thing. This is because the corporations that own these conglomerates are the very corporations that would benefit the most in this kind of society of profit above all else. Media convergence has the power to do the bidding of powerful people (Rossman, 2004), such as when Clear Channel, which is a multimedia conglomerate based in the United States, organized a boycott against the country group The Dixie Chicks, after the lead singer, Natalie Maines, told a crowd that she was embarrassed to be from the same state as George W. Bush, and Clear Channel, wanting to get favorable legislation for its plans to expand, organized the boycott to please the Bush Administration. In short, media convergence has the potential for great harm. Too much power in any one hands would cause the marketplace of ideas to falter, and the message that is disseminated will be the message that is crafted by this particular entity. It is in this context that the merger between Bell and Astral will be examined. The Bell-Astral Merger The View of the People According to Winseck (2012), the Bell-Astral merger refer to the fact that Bell is attempting to buy Astral media, and this would represent a major deal between the largest Telecom-Media-Internet conglomerate in the country, and they would have revenues of over $22 billion. Winseck (2012) states that the merger would mean that the country would have lost an independent station, which is what Astral is, having revenues of just over $888 million in 2010. Winseck (2012) looks at this in the context of the Ronald Coase, economist, idea that the two ways of dealing with business environment uncertainties are the market and the hierarchies, and that the Bell-Astral merger would be essentially elevating the hierarchies over the markets. If the merger goes through, according to Winseck (2012), then the conglomerate that will be formed will have 40% of the pay and specialty television market; 34.3% of the entire Canadian television universe; 25% of all radio revenues; and 16 % of all revenues across the network/media industries. According to website OpenMedia.ca, the issue with the merger, the reason why the merger is not necessarily a good thing, is that it creates a profit incentive for Bell to promote content that it owns, while restricting access to content that it does not own or control. What this essentially means is that Bell would have control over the media content that all Canadians consume and deliver. This would limit the free choice of the people, in that the people will have to see a preselected menu of Bell content, as opposed to seeing content that they choose. The website also indicates that free speech would be threatened, and that consumers would be faced with higher prices. The View of Bell According to Winseck (2012), the view of Bell regarding to this merger is that it is a good thing, because it moves the pendulum away from regulation – in other words, if this merger goes through, it means that there is less regulation in Canada. He also states that the concept of monopoly is antiquated. In other words, the company believes that the merger, if it were allowed to take place, would be an affirmation of neoliberal ideals – that it would weaken regulation and regulatory agencies, by showing that these agencies have little power. Why they believe that the concept of monopoly is antiquated, however, was not explained. The View of the CRTC The CRTC opposed the merger of the two telecommunications giants as well. According to Proussalidis (2012), the CRTC denied the application for the two to merge because it was not in the interest of the public. The fear was that the merger would squelch competition, and that the Canadian marketplace would have a consolidation of media, which would mean that the BCE would use the market power in an unfair manner and would engage in anti-competitive behavior. Furthermore, the fear was that the merger would reduce consumer choices because the merger would mean that its own distribution networks would be favoured over others, which would mean that programmes would be charged above-market rates if they belonged to the competitors. Moreover, they were persuaded by Pierre Peladeau, who is the CEO of Quebecor, that the cost of television programming would rise and the service would deteriorate. Historical Analysis One example that can be used to put the merger between Bell and Astral into perspective is the media empire that has been created by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns, among other outlets, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and The Weekly Standard. All of these outlets have a conservative bent. He also owns 20th Century Fox, the UK Times, The Sun Herald and The Sun, along with other, smaller publications. And he is currently seeking to buy even more newspapers in communities where his News Corp already owns televisions stations. The result of this is that one man has the power to shape discussions and agendas (Nichols, 2012). Murdoch’s content now reaches some 40% of the US domestic audience, and some 37% of the UK audience, and Murdoch is attempting to gather even more power in the media marketplace. As the website Craw (2010) notes, Murdoch’s personal political views are reflected in his Fox News coverage of the Iraq War and the Obama Administration, and has also led to the touting of the conservative Tory Party in the UK. However, one could argue that, especially in the United States, that perhaps the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns so many stations and so many news outlets has really not had the intended effect. After all, Barack Obama is still President, and, by most accounts, the country is moving steadily leftward. So, in using this particular example as a historical example for the merger between Bell and Astral, one could argue that the marketplace of ideas would still win out, even if there is a conservative, or liberal, individual who is trying to put the proverbial thumb on the scale. That said, there is another example that would refute the above example. This example is that of Silvio Berlusconi. According to Hartmann & Sacks (2012), Berlusconi is the ultimate example of what can happen when one individual gets too much media power. He started out a cruise boat lounge singer and small time hustler, until he got into the media business, and started buying radio networks, television stations and newspapers. He ended up owning 95% of the media seen, heard and read in Italy, and he ended up winning the Prime Ministry for the country. He still owned the media in Italy while he was Prime Minister, and was accused of various crimes, including tax fraud, false accounting, corruption, bribery, perjury, mafia collusion, aiding terrorist organisations and having sex with minors. Despite all of this, he served three terms of office, and was only forced out by European technocrats in 2011 (Hartmann & Sacks, 2012). Conclusion The merger of Bell with Astral is problematic. The media should be a marketplace of diverse ideas, and, if any one entity gains too much power, then the media ceases to serve this function. Rather, the agenda may be shaped by the agenda of the companies or the individuals. Moreover, there is also the possibility that neo-liberal ideals will be what is disseminated, as these ideals are good for the corporations who own the marketplace. At any rate, it would also be bad for competition, therefore would be bad for consumers, as it might result in higher prices to them. However, the historical analysis of other media conglomerates, and consolidation of power in few hands, shows mixed results. On the one hand, Rupert Murdoch owns a huge conglomerate in the United States, and his personal views, which is disseminates in this papers and on Fox News, is conservative. Yet a African-American Democratic President has been twice elected. This shows that, despite Murdoch’s best efforts, the marketplace of ideas is still thriving. On the other hand, Silvio Berlusconi, who had a virtual monopoly on the Italian media market, was able to be elected prime minister and serve three terms, despite being an out and out crook. What this might show is that an absolute monopoly is naturally a bad thing. But media convergence, where a media conglomerate owns a large portion of the media marketplace, but not the entire marketplace, is not as bad, because alternative voices may still break through. References Jenkins, H. “The Cultural Logic Of Media Convergence.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 7. 1 (2004): pp. 33-43. Online. Jenkins, H. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print. Brenkman, J. “Mass Media: From Collective Experience To The Culture Of Privatization,” Social Text 1 (1979): pp. 94-109. Online. Bresnahan, R. “The Media And The Neoliberal Transition In Chile: Democratic Promise Unfulfilled,” Latin American Perspective 30.6 (2003): pp. 39-68. Online. Chandler, D. “Marxist media theory,” Available at: http://cym.ie/documents/chandler.pdf Giroux, H. “Public Pedagogy And The Politics Of Neo-Liberalism: Making The Political More Pedagogical,” Policy Futures in Education 2.3 (2004): pp. 494-503. Craw, V. “Rupert Murdoch and media ownership,” The Casual Truth. 21 October 2010. Online. Hartmann, T. & Sacks, S. “Obama’s FCC Set To Give Rupert Murdoch A Media Monopoly,” Truthout. 29 November 2012. Online. Haven, T., Lotz, A. & Tinic, S. “Critical media industry studies: A research approach,” Communication, Culture and Critique 2 (2009): pp. 234-253. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. “Manufacturing consent,” In Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. Print. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. Online. Killebrew, K. Managing Media Convergence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2005. Print. Lawson, G. Media Organizations and Convergence. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Print. Murray, S. “Brand loyalties: Rethinking Content Within Global Corporate Media,” Media Culture vol. 27 (2005): pp. 415-435. Online. Nichols, J. “The FCC Must Not Give Rupert Murdoch More Control Over US Media,” The Nation. 6 December 2012. Online. Opennmedia.ca. “Stop Bell’s takeover.” Available at: openmedia.ca/takeover Rivlin, A. (1987) “Economics and the Political Process,” The American Economic Review 77.1 (1987): 1-10. Online. Rossman, G. (2004) “Elites, Masses and Media Blacklists: The Dixie Chicks Controversy,” Social Forces 83.1 (2004): pp. 61-79. Online. Winseck, D. “Bell-Astral Deal Should Be Stopped In Its Tracks,” The Globe and Mail. 10 September 2012. Online. Read More