How much does a competitive media market place influence the content of news media and what does

this tell us about the relationship between media institutions and their audiences?

Competition in the media market has been changing. The news, one of the direct products of the media, has not been left unaffected. Starting from the current conditions of media competition, I will attempt to analyse some of its effects in the case of news production. Additionally, it is customary for competition to be seen as a precondition for high quality and diversity does this apply for the media industry! Also, the media and the news in particular have often been invested with higher societal functions than the simple production of content. I will also take on this teleological investment and see if today"s media can be said to be #on the right track".

The conditions of media competition

$hile media companies operate in a free market, there are specific peculiarities in the industry which can aid the analysis of the conditions within which the goals of media companies are sought to be achieved. %irstly, it is relevant that the media industry effectively outputs two products& media content 'C(s, books, newspapers) and audiences" attention, which they sell to advertisers. The latter is usually more valuable '(oyle, *++*, p. ,*). Secondly, the media usually operate in an imperfect marketplace 'economically speaking), called an oligopoly, where a few large companies compete for the sale of their products. -oth (oyle '*++*, p. .) and /rossberg et. al. '*++0, p. ,+*) agree that this type of marketplace is often dominated by economies of scale and scope, where profitability increases with the number and diversity of products outputted. A larger output is desirable due to the high production cost of the first item and the sharply decreasing marginal cost of replication. The incentive for product diversification stems from the 1shared overheads or efficiency gains 2 for two or more related products to be produced and sold 3ointly4 '(oyle, *++*, p. ,5). Thirdly, it is more economically feasible in the media industry that companies

control as large a part as possible of the production process 'vertical integration), due to the interrelation of the steps meant to 1connect producers with consumers4 '(oyle, *++*, p. ,6). Competition in the media industry is thus characteri7ed by high entry barriers for new companies 'erected in part by the nature of the economies of scope and scale, but at times also by the e8isting contenders) '(oyle, *++*, p. .) and '-ogart, ,..0, pp. 55, 59). Also, rather parado8ically, the industry witnesses considerable collaboration between producers at different stages in the vertical supply chain. %or instance, due to financial gains, mergers in the media industry are frequent: the biggest are ;iacom<C-S ',..., valued at =>9 billion), and A?@<Time $arner '*+++, valued at =,A5 billion) '-agdikian, *+++, p. 8vii). -agdikian '*+++, p. 88) outlines this trend by noting that if in ,.6> the BS media industry was dominated by fifty corporations, their number had shrunk in ,..9 to ten. /oodman '*++5, p. ,0>) adds the final picture& she estimates that in *++5 only si8 media corporations controlled the industry. -y citing (emers"s #parado8 of capitalism", (oyle '*++*, p. *>) evaluates the trend and concludes& 1increased global competition results in less competition in the long run4. In addition, as recounted by (oyle '*++*, p. *+), the blurring of media markets" borders 'as part of the overriding process of globalisation), alongside the creation and growth of such transnational bodies as the Corth American %ree Trade Agreement and the Duropean Bnion, have served to increase both the scope and competition for the media sector.

What competition does to news

$hile earlier it was the case that new entrants into the unsaturated media industry did not necessarily need to #steal" audience from e8isting contenders, it is inescapable now that an increase in the audience of one television station will automatically mean a decrease in another"s '-ogart, ,..0, p. 5+). Eoreover, competition in the media industry also runs cross< medium, as for instance the case of television and radio 'the advent of television saw a sharp decrease in radio listening) '-ogart, ,..0, p. 5+), or, more recently, of the similar relationship between the Internet and television, where the latter has been losing ground. In this conte8t, the transformations on news have been far<reaching. Ferman and Chomsky '*++,, p. 8vi) argue that the Internet has been compromising quality 3ournalism, largely due to its novelty and associated financial insecurity, which have prompted companies to focus on

selling products rather than produce news. They also argue '*++,, p. 8vii) that new technologies have allowed companies to cut e8penses and staff while earning higher profits. Anderson, a veteran CCC and C-C reporter, agrees with Ferman and Chomsky on the compromise of quality 3ournalism. She argues much throughout her book that CCC e8ecutives have, in their incessant hunt for viewers" attention, passed policy and altered programming in a process which she calls #the Follywoodi7ation of CCC" 'Anderson, *++5, p. ,00). She summarises, To produce profits, corporate executives are demanding cutbacks in newsgathering and news-programming costs. At the same time, theyre insisting that news divisions and networks do whatever they can to attract a larger audience, even if that means using entertainment values and lower standards to hook viewers. The aim is to make news or infotainment cheaper to produce while targeting the largest chunk of potential viewers. !Anderson, "##$, p. $"% The rise of #infotainment" and news<as<scandal are paramount in the transformation of news. She offers the e8ample of the ?. G. Simpson trial, where CCC covered the 'in her opinion) irrelevant event non<stop, to have their ratings soar by 5++ percent. She notes, 1The news is no longer the star. The #stars" are the stars. And even worse& the #stars" are the news.4 'Anderson, *++5, p. ,A*) Eoreover, news reports are being replaced by cooking and fishing shows to provide a more entertaining backdrop for the dissemination and discussion of news with the result of diminished quality and quantity. She notes that CCC is not a singular phenomenon, but rather an e8ponent of the overall market trend. She adds an e8ample about Feadline Cews, one of CCC"s competitors, which perhaps marks the tragic<comic peak of the efforts to appeal to as many viewers as possible. The news writers at this station were urged by the e8ecutives to consult a slang dictionary when writing news& 1Bse this guide to help all you homeys and honeys add a new flava to your tickers and dekos4 'Anderson, *++5, p. ,9*). Dssentially, she argues that the primary cause behind these changes is the capitalist drive for profits, the recent drops in audience of virtually all news programmes 'Anderson, *++5, p. 5*) and the personal interests of the e8ecutives 'who usually do not come from a news production background) to stay in business and further e8pand their profit 'Anderson, *++5, p. ,0*). -ecause of the high 'financial) risk associated with new programmes 'Croteau H Foynes '*++>, p. 0.), for instance, illustrate how 1failure is the norm in network television4) and the decreasing

willingness and ability of the industry to support innovative ventures, there is a high propensity on the part of television networks or newspapers to emulate their competitors 'Anderson, *++5, p. ,AA), 'Croteau H Foynes, *++>, p. A+). (iversity and innovation, therefore, are decreasing. Chomsky adds to the dilution of news quality the reporters" increasing reliance on material supplied by companies" public relations representatives 'Ferman H Chomsky, *++,, p. 8vii).

What competition does not do to news

Competition, as it is playing out in the media industry, does not, as some would e8pect, free the media from e8ternal interests and pressures quite the contrary 'Curran, *++*), 'Ferman H Chomsky, *++,), 'Anderson, *++5), '-agdikian, *+++). And, inasmuch as the media is still e8pected to function as an enabling agent for citi7ens to take part in the drafting and discussion of decisions which affect them 'Ferman H Chomsky, *++,), or to be a #check on the state" 'Curran, *++*, p. *,9), it can be argued that it is underperforming. The embedding of media in such diverse corporations 'as, for instance, /eneral Dlectric, who own C-C and are also involved in the production of nuclear weaponry 'Anderson, *++5), 'Cray), 'Schwart7, *++*)) and the turning of media organi7ations themselves into big businesses 'Curran, *++*, p. **+) has arguably added not one but two layers of constraint on its activity& corporate and political. %irstly, there undoubtedly is a concern about e8ecutive pressure on 3ournalists to be silent, approving, or, at most, not to interfere with the corporation"s business 'whether ob3ectionable or not). Anderson recalls a personal e8perience when immediately after a colleague won the lawsuit intended against her for allegedly infringing on the copyright of a book, CCC"s company lawyer, Dve -urton, was fired for helping Turner -roadcasting, who owned CCC, owned the movie rights and sequel rights of the respective book. Also, the media companies 'due to their considerable si7e and heterogeneity of collaborations) will more easily create internal conflicts of interest. Anderson provides this e8ample as well& while reporting the overtaking of the Gapanese embassy by the Tupac Amaru leftist guerrillas in Ieru in ,..9, she was denied access to a CCC satellite in a critical moment, impeding the live coverage of the event. CCC had decided to give primacy to Gapanese T; Ashay, one of the corporation"s clients, worth to them =,, million per year. The primacy of money over quality

reporting is not the surprise here, but rather the business orientation endemic of media corporations. Secondly, Curran '*++*, pp. **+<**,) and Ferman H Chomsky '*++,, p. 8v) point out that due to the increasing power of media corporations, their links with the polity have multiplied, and the potential for corruption has increased. Ferman H Chomsky '*++,, pp. *+<*,) offer a simple but telling e8ample of how the media has become reluctant to challenge state policy& the use of the word #genocide" in the media is actually indicative of international political alliances for Serbs in Josovo versus only ,5 uses for 'ally) Turkey atrocities were comparable. Eoreover, both sources offer e8amples **+ uses despite the fact, they argue, that the such as $atergate

where media reporting of state affairs previously hailed as brave and defiant actually appears to have been encouraged by politicians themselves. As a rather grim conclusion, -agdikian '*+++, p. 8vi) states that 1political variety among the mainstream media has disappeared4.

Where do audiences fit in?

Gudging an audience"s response to a show, programme or network mainly by the achieved ratings can be misleading as to the actual tastes and desires of that audience. As Ferman H Chomsky put it, The public is not sovereign over the media & the owners and managers, seeking ads, decide what is to be offered, and the public must choose among these. ' (olls regularly show that the public would like more news, documentaries, and other information, and less sex, violence, and other entertainment, even as they do listen to and watch the latter. ' )f they are not getting much information on these topics, the propaganda model can explain why* the sovereigns who control the media choose not to offer such material. !+erman , -homsky, "##., p. xix% The idea of the #sovereign audience" has undoubtedly declined, with the advent of such new pressing considerations in news making as political tameness or corporate interest primacy. Keporters may still be keen on such values as serving the audience, but their interests are secondary to e8ecutives" drive for profit 'Anderson, *++5).

As we have seen, the media industry has been evolving toward more concentration and influence in the market, with economic and political links increasing. Cews, as one of the direct products of these institutions, has undergone marked changes. $ith competition for audiences mounting, e8ecutive grip tightening, and economic factors triumphing over 3ournalistic values, the environment of news gathering has been charged with new, unspoken, limitations to the scope of the reporter. In turn, this has rendered the audience a mere numerical e8ponent in the battle for profits. Eedia, as we know it, appears to be changing irreversibly.

$ords& ,..0

Bibliography

Anderson, -. E. '*++5). /ews 0lash* 1ournalism, )nfotainment, and the 2ottom-3ine 2usiness of 2roadcast /ews. San %rancisco& Gossey<-ass. -agdikian, -. F. '*+++). The 4edia 4onopoly. -oston& -eacon Iress. -ogart, @. ',..0). -ommercial -ulture* the 4edia 5ystem and the (ublic )nterest. Cew Lork& ?8ford Bniversity Iress. Cray, C. 'n.d.). -orp6atch* 7eneral 8lectric. Ketrieved April 9, *++., from Corp$atch < Folding Corporations Accountable& http&MMwww.corpwatch.orgMsection.php!idN,A Croteau, (., H Foynes, $. '*++>). 4edia society* )ndustries, )mages, and Audiences. Iine %orge Iress. Curran, G. '*++*). 4edia and (ower. @ondon& Koutledge. (oebbler, C. %. '*++5). )nternational +uman 9ights 3aw. C( Iublishing. (oyle, /. '*++*). :nderstanding 4edia 8conomics. @ondon& SA/D. /oodman, A., H /oodman, (. '*++5). The 8xception to the 9ulers. Fyperion. /rossberg, @., $artella, D., H $hitney, C. (. '*++0). 4ediamaking* 4ass 4edia in a (opular -ulture. SA/D. Ferman, D. S., H Chomsky, C. '*++,). 4anufacturing -onsent* The (olitical 8conomy of the 4ass 4edia. Cew Lork& Iantheon -ooks. Schwart7, S. I. '*++*). :.5. /uclear 6eapons -ost 5tudy (ro;ect. Ketrieved April 9, *++., from -rookings& http&MMwww.brookings.eduMpro3ectsMarchiveMnucweaponsMsites.asp8