Here it is.. Please do not copy the whole thing.
My ideas are not very organized. Also, I am an outsider of
media world. You know much more than I do.
so please rewrite it before you copy it..
There are some of my personal ideas in it. You
probably don't like some stuffs (hence, don't use them! )..
I think the best example of recent media monopolism is
Mardox (spelling?) of the FOX Network. I can't remember
how he got the whole incoorpration together (probably he bought them),
hence, Mardox controlled FOX News, Fox Entertainment (TV, moveis,
games..etc). I think you are more interested in the NEWS part.
okay.. those are not really relevent, are they?
I don't really know the definition of monopolism.
All I can tell is Mono-Po-lism (emm.. Latin! One-For-All, and not
All-For-one.. hehehe).
I think the better example will be.. many local news stations
in US and Canada belong to a larger media network, such as
CBS, NBC, CTV and Global (in Canada). One of the Canadian networks,
(Global or Shaw???) also controls a major newspaper. (for example..
if TVBS bought ChinaTimes..what will happen?)
Speaking about resources. It is always good when a company/media
network holds a great deal of human resources, such as
journalists, editors, and other crew. It is also easier for a large
cooperation to survive the competitive media market since it can
quickly summon (are they demons? hehee) resources they need and they
usually have a larger finacial expence/back-up for projects. Hence,
small local stations cannot survive without joining large networks.
For audience, large networks provide better quality of programming
AND the resources AUDIENCE need (live coverage of Afghanistan, live
sports coverage, internet...like WB and AOL) than local independent
stations. Monopolism, somehow, provides a progressive and evolutionary
trend for better quality of mass communication (this is where i use
the word!) --- quicker, faster, and "cooler". On the other hand,
because of the monopolism, indepandent stations that have new ideas
may not be able to survive the market. Once they join a major network,
they may lose the "edge" they once have to meet the "Network's Standard",
or simply the "flavor of the president". Also, major
networks can sometimes work together to eliminate their potential
future competitor. I am not sayting this is happening in recent
media market, but this had happened in 1950's between major car
manufactures. All I am trying to say is that, despite of providing
fresh and diverse points of views in an event, monopolism MAY be a
pusher to anti- "freedom of speech", because they cut off the things
that people should know away from people due to network policy( = government!)..
--
B.A = lim B.Sc.
I.Q -> 0
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw)
◆ From: 216.209.101.103