In its truest form, cross media ownership is defined as a larger parent company owning many smaller companies beneath it; Time Warner exemplifies this. The issue that arises with this massive cross media ownership is the large bias that it puts on the outlets that are meant to reach out to the public. Every small company has a responsibility to be in agreement with its parent company, which means that anything that comes out of these outlets is biased towards the views of that parent company. What is the most major flaw in this system? Who actually bothers to look up who owns the outlet they are looking at? It’s such a misconception that when a company is a company they only use their name, or have their name stated someway in that denomination of that company.
Robert W. McChesney states that, “Consumerism, class inequality and individualism tend to be taken as natural and benevolent, whereas political activity, civic values and anti-market activities are marginalized.” (McChesney, 3). I agree with this. Companies like Time Warner start targeting the most impressionable of viewers at a young age, and because they own so many sub-companies it’s impossible to escape their grasp. The little autonomy that the public had from the media is being removed as this happens.
I ran across another quote that I felt solidified these points. Time Warner states that its intiatives “maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained, and connected” (“Our Company”, p.2). Of course it’s unrivaled; it’s hard to be rivaled when you own almost every single company that would rival against you. People are losing that ability to choose which company they prefer, because they are all being headed by the same one company from the start.
Works Cited
“Our Company.” Time Warner. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
McChesney, Robert W. “The New Global Media: It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates.” 11 Nov. 1999. The Nation. 20 Nov. 2009.
*Note- This is blog #7 Media Hegemonies
No comments:
Post a Comment