Introduction
Media has penetrated the modern world and has become an integral part of everybody’s life. There is hardly a person in our society, who never reads newspapers or magazines, listens to the radio, watches TV, or uses the Internet. Media has provided people with all the means of getting information, processing, and storing it. Unfortunately, most people do not know how much the media industry involves and what the owners of the media go through to supply them with services of high quality. Media ownership has recently become a point of a renewed discussion with people arguing whether monopolies in the media industry can be beneficial. To ensure proper development of the media industry, the number of media ownership should not be limited as well as the number of media outlets should not be restricted.
Main body
To begin with, monopolization of industries has seldom been beneficial for the development of the industries as such. Monopolization consists in prevailing of one manufacturer over the others; at this, the monopolist determines the conditions under which the products and services are sold to the consumer. “As profit-making corporations, mainstream media companies are interested in maximizing profit while minimizing staff and other costs. One cost-reducing strategy is monopolization” (Ryan 118). Resorting to monopolization is fraught with consequences since, when applied to the media industry, monopolization results in the narrowing of the control of information. The primary aim of the media industry is supplying the public with information this is why to reach this aim, the number of media ownership should not be limited.
Moreover, monopolization of the media industry is likely to affect consumers negatively. It is common knowledge that monopolization results in lower competition. Competition is crucial for the media industry since media ownerships are driven by competition strive to supply the consumers with information of high quality. Monopolization of the media industry may lead to misinforming the public and providing them with obsolete data. In addition, monopolies have absolute rights for setting the prices convenient for them. This may result in increasing the costs of media products, which is not beneficial for the consumers.
And finally, the number of media outlets should not be restricted on the very same ground. It is well-known that certain competition exists between different media outlets. They are also responsible for the diversification of information and, consequently, of ideas. Therefore, it can be stated that “the more outlets available to the market, the greater the diversity of informed choices in the market” (Albarran, Chan-Olmsted, and Wirth 372). If a definite group of media outlets is controlled by a separate media ownership, they will not be characterized by diversity anymore, which will lead to a narrow idea of the public regarding the events taking place around the globe.
Taking into consideration everything mentioned above, it can be concluded that a limited number of media ownership is likely to be more beneficial for both the media industry itself and the consumers. Monopolization of the media industry will lead to an increase in prices for media products and reducing the number of media outlets, which is unfavorable for the consumers since the former will proportionally increase their expenses and the latter will limit the information accessible to the public. Thus, the number of both media ownerships and media outlets should not be limited.
Works Cited
Albarran, Allan B., Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M., and Wirth, Michael O. Handbook of media management and economics. Routledge, 2006.
Ryan, Charlotte. Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing. South End Press, 1991.