Operating In the Public Interest Or In Pursuit of Private Profits by Dell Champlin and Janet Knoedler

Just by reading the title, it was clear that the essay would be about the pursuit of private profits.

Living in America and having the high hopes that I will one day take part in the business world. Although I completely agree that the, "synergies," as they are described in the article don't serve to help the public as much as it does aim for a higher margin of profit, I believe this still serves the public interest to a greater extent than most believe.

I am definitely not as well educated in this subject as the authors of this article are, but what I do believe is that even though this industry and its conglomerates may be profit driven, it is still a known fact that demand affects supply. Regardless of whether or not these media conglomerates are better suiting the life of the company, they will not be able to get away with fake news.

As for the rest of the essay, it was seemingly uninteresting because of my strong beliefs in the fact that being profit driven doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a downfall of society in a moral sense or what not.

I do not question any of the facts that have been listed throughout the bulk of the essay because this article was prepared for the Journal of Economic Issues. Someone would have to have a lot of gall to make up facts for something that would be posted to such a renowned academic journal.

I would really like to hear more about the facts behind the decline of society due to the assimilation of medias by the conglomerates.

Thoughts on Corporate Takeover of the Media By Ronnie Dugger

I knew that corporations owned most of the media, but I never realized how much of it and even how much of a problem that is.

When Dugger said that the largest radio group only owned 39 stations as opposed today's 1100, it really hit me as to how much that actually was. What I really don't understand is that law states no entity should be allowed to broadcast to more than 35% of the American population, yet CBS Viacom is broadcasting to 41%.

It really comes as no surprise to me that the FCC's newly appointed chair (as appointed by Bush.. that's always good news) believes that the public interest standard is, "about as empty a vessel as you can accord a regulatory agency."

Dugger made a good point when he gave the example of a channel not broadcasting anti-war stories because the boss is a weapons merchant.

It seems obvious that this logic makes sense, but at the same time it's very hurtful to society as a whole.

The only thing that I didn't like about this reading was this:

Even though the author had many good points and in turn was very convincing, he could have gone on to explain a few ways that we could help the public service sector be more dominant within the highly corporatized industry.

Hi Ms. Botelho,

I'm really not sure what I was thinking. I guess I kind of got so wrapped up in preparing for all my classes that I mis-understood what was required in these blog assignments as well as the reading schedule.

I posted 4 blogs on 2 of the readings that weren't required of me to and haven't posted one on the readings for Monday, January 22 (I thought I was supposed to blog on those readings today, but caught myself).

Anyway, the last 2 blogs are on schedule finally and if you need me to re-do the first blogging assignment, I'll be glad to.

Thanks,

Chris Chang

Oh that's sort of weird. I posted that last title before reading Does Big Mean Bad? that mentioned some other article called Media Monopoly;

Anyway does big necessarily mean bad?

Just by reading the article, it reminded me a lot about commercial farming beacuse we recently covered that topic in economics. I suppose it's not very much of a stretch to see why this might be a universal topic, especially because we live in a free market society. Either way, I almost always have to agree that big generally does mean bad (ahem, wal-mart).

This is the way I think about most things. I'm quick to come to conclusions. I suppose this is exactly what Tom Goldstein is trying to warn us all about.

Especially after reading the last article, I have and will still have strong sentiments against the concentration of media. However, Goldstein does make a very valid point. He successfully hooked me in through his little anecdote at the start of his article.

After the first paragraph, before his anecdote, it was clear that Goldstein did not oppose the concentration of media but then he mentioned Bagdikian.

I had never heard of that name before and kept reading on to find out more about this person who seemed to have a strange name (that is all I knew up to this point). The few excerpts in the article about Bagdikian made the media sound like a possible key to downfall of our society. This Bagdikian seemed a bit too harsh for my own tastes, but at least now I know a name.

Goldstein made a great point when he brought up the Big Four accounting firms. Being a business major, possibly accounting, this fact really struck me. If I was okay with the Big Four, why am I not okay with the media?

Even though I'm quick to come to conclusions and stick by them, I still believe in respecting the opinions of others. By the end of this reading, Goldstein definitely had me second guessing myself as whether or not big really means bad.

Media Monopolies

It's kind of a funny thing that people never question (or maybe they just don't seem to care) much about what goes on with the media.

It seems that everyone is content so long as they get to watch their weekly episodes of whatever tv show they might watch.

I actually lightly breezed over this topic in high school for an assignment in my synthesis class. The bulk of the research I did all stemmed out from a single website that's actually quite interesting to look at even though you may not be doing an assignment.

Anyway, after reading Big Media: Who Owns the News?, I felt a bit stunned. I mean, I knew that the media wasn't all that it was supposed to be--with bias, corrupt owners, etc. The first thing that really caught my attention was when McChesney and Alterman made a point that, "our media system is the result of a wide range of explicit government policies, regulations, and subsidies." I never would have thought that the media needed any support from the government, but then it got me thinking that maybe that support was for other reasons.

The reading named that, "the 20 or so giant media firms that dominate the entirety of our media system is the recipient of massive government largesse...corporate welfare." I immediately began to make the connection between this reading and the previous article Dictatorship.com by Joshua Kurlantzick.

As I read on, the authors brought a few well known myths to light. I found that the third myth about how the population controls the media to be the most interesting. I thought it was strange that it would be brought up as being a myth, so I definitely wanted to read on. I was always under the slight impression that, especially nowdays, the media is just putting out what seems to be entertaining to the public; it seems that news is becoming less and less focused on "important" issues than they are with pleasing audiences and creating profits. The authors took neither a conservative nor liberal stance when they ended that myth by stating that, "supply creates demand as much as demand creates supply." If things weren't complex in this manner, we would have figured out our entire economic system by now.

The big step in 2003 was necessary in finally changing the face of media. With access to unhindered radio, tv, internet, and any other form of media, democracy will definitely thrive. Not trying to be harsh, but with the way Bush has been enroaching on our constitutional rights in the name of democracy, it seems like we really need to decentralize the media a bit and allow for more public interaction to help balance this out.

Alternative Media: What Does It Mean To Be Literate?

My Thoughts on Effects of Electronic Media on Democratic Attitudes by Diane Owen

Owen touched very lightly on many of the criticisms of the electronic or "New" media.

The first, and what I believe to the the most important as well as interesting aspect of new media, is the fact that this new age of the internet opens up a whole new realm of dialogue between citizens and media personnel.

Owen got it right when she explained how, prior to the internet media was simply given to us and there was very little response when we agreed or disagreed. With the internet, e-mails, respones, and what have you can all be expressed freely in response to something on the news or something that was presented to the public.

One would think that because the internet allows this new potential to be more engaged, it would draw in many more people who were not likely to be interested in politics. However, this is not the case. I sure thought this at first.

Even though it may seem like almost everyone has access to the internet, Owen explains that it is still only readily available for daily use within a small percentage of our society. In some ways it may actually deter certain individuals from politics.

Owen concludes by explaining that the, "new media environment does little to reach those whos political voice is muffled." Also, in certain studies the internet actually undermines citizens' faith in government and politics.

Unlike the previously read articles, it seems that Owen praises the internet for it's basic uses but at the same time is concerning because of its potential to warp the views of those who use it.

Sure, he makes a great point but I still believe that the internet is far more useful than it is harmful.


My Thoughts on Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millenium by Andy Carvin

First I would like to post a few facts that Carvin included within his article to gain a proper point of reference.

-Only 15.5% of people without a high school education have internet access.
-While more than 65% of white households have internet access, only 45.6% of African American households and 37% of Latino households are online.
-People with college degrees are twice more likely to have Internet access at home than people with only a high school diploma.

This is what is known as the, "digital divide." This digital divide depends on many factors on which Carvin brings up within the reading.

Before reading this article, I thought that almost everyone had access to the internet. Soon after reading what Carvin wrote, I immediately realized that I was very much wrong.

Carvin was very concerned over the literacy.

The internet allows access to many learning tools, but how would they be helpful if people could not even use them? Many people are illiterate within society today, and have a hard time reading menus or filling out certain forms. As Carvin explained, one out of four Americans are functionally illiterate.

If these people struggle in day to day life, how would they make any real use of the internet?

There is no doubt that the internet has great potential to be a learning tool, but it would be useless if not everyone could access it.

I believe that it is impossible for everyone to become literate and engage themselves with productive learning through the internet, but as Carvin said, we as individuals need to help this process.

Alternative Media: A New Free Press?

My Thoughts on Blogworld and its Gravity by Matt Welch

The article starts with what is seemingly another mundane piece of writing. Welch describes his experience of attending his first Association of Alternative Newsweeklies conference. The article starts getting more interesting when he points out the fact that, "All the newspapers looked the same--same format, same fonts, same columns complaining about the local daily," and so on and so forth.

At this point in the readin, my interest level started to rise.

If there is one thing that disinterests me the most, it would have to be writing ABOUT writing. However, Welch's statement was something that I have not heard before. I read on.

Further along in the reading, Welch introduces the start of blogging and analyzes it as legitimate media.

He makes a point that, "with personality and an online audience, meanwhile...[there] comes a kind of reader interaction far more intense and personal than anything ocmparable in print."

I would definitely have to agree that weblogs seem to cross the barrier of formal media into a new zone that is unidentifiable to readers of print media. This, though, at the same time raises many questions as to whether or not blogs should be considered a real type of writing.

Although blogs can become an open forum, through real time response that can occur within minutes, how legitimate is the blog itself?

Anyone can actually start a blog these days, and who is to decide the level of integrity of each of the writers who own these blogs?

These are just a couple of the questions that arise when trying to analyze whether or not blogging is a step forward in the world of media or perhaps it may become the downfall of it.

I could probably spend days just thinking of hundreds of different reasons for each side, while branching out into the more vague areas of the internet. But, Welch really sums up what I would have spent so much time thinking about by the end of his article.

"damn, he sure looks like he's having fun"

These words were written by Welch to simply illustrate the point that in the 1960s, traditional journalists were thinking the same thing when trying to comprehend the thoughts of, "their long-haired brethren."


My Thoughts on The Web Rewires by Andrew Boyd

As far as I'm concerened, the internet was the next big step in advancing society.

Just by reading what Boyd had to say should be proof enough.

Whether people support or detest the MoveOn organization's start, it is still undeniable that the internet is very useful.

The internet definitely serves as a relatively inexpensive way to have access to the entire world and is much quicker than the methods that preceeded it. Pre-Internet would have called for millions of dollars being spent on advertisements for the MoveOn campagin (billboards, telephone calls, newspaper ads, magazine ads, television, etc.) but with some webspace and forums it was able to get a great start.

It's lack of centralized leadership is constantly criticized, but this is actually its defining attribute. In this way it cannot be affiliated with being an activist movement, but it is simply the thoughts of many citizens that are being relayed.

The internet makes it possible for people from all over the US to converse on forums, send e-mails, and even take advantage of, "the meeting tool."

Once again, the internet is the only thing that allowed so many people to come together and protest. Without internet, it isn't likely that there would have been such a large turnout for protesting against the war.

Boyd picked a great topic to write about in terms of proving the internet's usefulness.