Media and the public interest
Mohammad Delwar Hossain finds a lot to think over in a critical work
THE business and economics of media are extensively discussed. Scholars and professionals are concerned about increasing corporatization of the media. In spite of this fact, the topic lags in well-researched books. Sociologist David Croteau and William Hoynes's work provides an introductory discussion on concerns about business and economics of media with socio-economic perspectives. The authors were awarded the prestigious `Robert Picard Award', named after world renowned media economics scholar Robert Picard, by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (EJMC) in 2002 for their outstanding contribution in the field of media management and economics. Croteau and Hoynes examine the recent changes in media and their effects on society. In conclusion, they explain their trepidation regarding the future of the media and propose several policy guidelines for the media to serve the public interest. Readers who have studied their other book, Media/Society: industries, images and audiences, can recount their arguments about `structural constraints and human agency'. For example, like any other business, media organizations have to be profitable to stakeholders /shareholders; on the other hand, media organizations have a social responsibility that does not permit profit at the cost of the public interest. There is an unending tension between profitability and public interest of the media. The central thesis of Croteau and Hoynes's book is to underscore this tension and, after careful and critical analysis, to offer policy recommendations. The writers appraise the issues with two models: 'market model' and 'public sphere model.' They argue in favor of a media industry that serve the public and also earn profit. With this notion, they talk about partial governmental regulations in media business to guarantee responsibility of media. In other words, they advocate for a equilibrium between profitability and public interest of media. Croteau and Hoynes set their discussion with three parts. In the first part of the book, they underline the theoretical and historical dimension of the media business. In chapter one, they discuss the reasons for changes in the media industry. In this way, they provide an assessment of present business patterns in the industry. They point out two models of business and economics of the media. According to the market model, media organizations are like any other business and should be run for revenue. Croteau and Hoynes say, "This model treats the media like all other goods and services. It argues that as long as competitive conditions exist, businesses pursuing profits will meet people's need (p. 17)." They reveal that promoters of this model think that the inclination for profitability is essential for competition and creativity. According to this model, audiences are customers of the media as with any other product. Again, according to the `public sphere model', profitability should not be the main contemplation of the media. In fact, this model is generated from German philosopher Jorgen Habermas's view of the `public sphere.' Croteau and Hoynes state, "profitability cannot be the sole indicator of a healthy media industry. Instead, other public interest criteria, such as diversity and substance, are used in the public sphere model to assess the performance of media. (p. 22)." According to this model, audiences should be considered as citizens rather than as consumers. Chapter 2 deals with the historical background of the expansion of the media as corporate organizations. Croteau and Hoynes point out the relationship between media business and different government regulations. The authors mention a remarkable and exclusive meeting of media owners, which has been held since the 1980s in Idaho's Sun Valley. Media owners, including Bill Gates and Ted Turner, attend the meeting to plan strategies. Newsweek magazine termed it a "Mogulfest." Croteau and Hoynes depict the case study of conglomerates Disney and Cap Cities/ABC. For the authors, concentration of ownership is not new. The trend started with an expansion of the commercial press in the 19th century. They cite regulations and de-regulations that facilitate media mergers. As an example, they indicate an easy-ownership rule and sympathetic treatment throughout the Reagan administration. In chapters 3 and 4, Croteau and Hoynes look at mergers and other changes such as growth and globalization. Like other businesses, media companies spend $ 40 million to lobby for the 1996 Telecommunication Act. Croteau and Hoynes say, "The restructuring of the media industry has allowed media conglomerates to pursue a series of strategies aimed at maximizing profits, reducing cost and minimizing risk (p.151)." Chapters 5 and 6 explain how media business influences media contents and how the media have become socially and politically powerful. The authors identify characteristics such homogenization, imitation and loss of localism. One of most fretful topics to them is ever-increasing control by advertisers and how audiences have become confined to those advertisers. Croteau and Hoynes refer to the example of Channel One television that was particularly designed for children's education. The authors note that in terms of political influence the media have also been playing an important role not only with content but also with financial contributions. They recall that in 2004, Time Warner gave nearly $ 25 million to the two presidential election campaigns. Croteau and Hoynes have criticized Rupert Murdoch for his conservative campaign through his media companies. Chapter 7 deals with apprehension concerning the future of the media. The writers review different perspectives on the shifting picture of the media. They worry about a broader issue: the missing public interest in the corporate media. In the public interest, they advocate some sort of regulation. They say history shows some sort of regulations were useful to defend the public interest. They point to the First Amendment to the US constitution and the Communication Act of 1934. Recognizing the difficulties in defining the concept of "public interest," they also recommend regulation to clearly explain the term "public interest" and its principles. In this book, the readers will get wide-ranging reflections on the business of the media. But Croteau and Hoynes talk about the entire subject from an American media context. One of the major limitations of their book is that their argument is not based on theoretical foundations of management and economics. However, as one of the pioneering books about media business, it surely recommends itself to readers.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments