Analyzing the Media Economy

Does the government need to play a stronger role in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured?


Yes, the government needs to play a stronger role in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured because it will reduce the amount of control that one company or producer has on a source of media creating less room for creativity in media.

No, the goverment does not need to play a stronger role in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured because it is all a part of a certain freedom and diversity that really defines American media.

Cultural Imperialism

Does the rapid spread of American culture worldwide smother or encourage the growth of democracy and local cultures?

Cultural imperialism does, in fact, smother other cultures because it puts a damper on these cultures. According to Campbell, "American culture in the international arena a kind of cultural imperialism that both hampers and the development of native cultures an d negatively influences teenagers, who abndon their own rituals to adopt the tastes of their American counterparts."

"Defenders of American popular culture can argue that because some of our culture challenges authority, national boundaries, and outmoded traditions, this creates an arena in which citizens can raise questions." You can also argue that it brings about similar worldviews or as Campbell calls it a "global village."

The Lesser of Two Evils

Question: Should the government step back and let market forces dictate what happens to mass media industries?

Yes: Media corporations become successful only when a lot of time and hard work are put into them. Therefor, when a company becomes successful they have truly earned it. So, if the government dictates what happens to the industry, there will become a sort of ‘limit’ put onto the amount of success a corporation can have. Ultimately this is punishing the company by not letting them reach their full potential. Smaller companies still have the opportunity to compete in the market and become successful as well. They just have to work harder to earn it.

No: If the government does not step in and dictate what happens, it is possible for one corporation to completely take over the industry. This would make it virtually impossible for any smaller company to survive, and competition could possibly no longer exist. In the end, without the necessary competition, we start to lose variety, creativity, and choices.

Analyzing Media Economy

Does the government need to play a stronger role in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured?
No. If the government controls the media and what it produces, it is no longer regulated by culture; it would no longer be what the majority desires.
Yes. If the government took control, monopolies or oligopolies would no longer exist, and the system would give each company an equal opportunity to succed which is what America stands for.

Should citizen groups play a larger part in demanding that media organizations help maintain the quality of social and cultural life?

Yes, citizens need to play a larger role in developing the medias contributions to society to make American culture more diverse and less superficial.
No, citizen groups to not need to play a larger role in media development over society because there will be too much controversy over what is right or wrong in todays American culture.

OU JMC 1013: MR GREEN

ANALYZING THE MEDIA ECONOMY

Does the government need to play a stronger role in determining who owns what the mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured? No, the government should not play a stronger role in determining who owns mass media....The media is for the people, freedom of speech. Uncovering truths about the government and other scandals that go on that the american people have the right to be informed about. If the government would have had a stronger hand in the mass media nad the product that they manfacture do you think we would have ever know about the water gate scandal. We need good reporters and basically good people who are not being influenced by the government. We need people who feel they have an obligation to the America people thats what the media is for..

Does the government need to play a weaker role in determing who owns what the mass media and what kinds of media products shoud be manufactured? Yes the government should play a weaker role...instead of trying to contol the products that the media puts out, they should use the media as a tool for information on the things they should be trying to do as a government...Instead of trying to control what image we see as the mass media consumer...They should be trying to change there image and when they change there image there would be no need to try to control.

Should citizen groups play a larger part in demanding that media organizations help maintain the quality of social and cultural life?

Yes: It is through the media that our social and cultural lives are formed and in order to maintain a respectable quality citizen groups must express their opinions towards the media or or social and cultural lives will be destroyed by filth and rubbish displayed simply for higher ratings.

No: Our media organizations are built for the entertainment of its citizens not for their cultural beliefs and values, leaving the citizens to look for their interests in the multiple organizations of the media.

Analyzing the Media Economy

Does the rapid spread of American culture worldwide smother or encourage the growth of democracy and local cultures?

1. I believe the American culture worldwide smothers the growth of democracy and local cultures. It tries to force its beliefs and values on other cultures, so the American culture is seen as a threat by these cultures because it tries to govern the world. The American culture is viewed as dominant by these countries and cultures and this makes them turn and run the other way, rejecting America’s beliefs and values.

2. On the other hand, the American culture can also be seen as an encouragement of the growth of democracy and local cultures. Other countries need the guidance and resources of such a powerful culture. They have accepted the American culture and have taken advantage of its ways of life. Their economies have expanded with America’s help.

Survival of the fittest or Equal Opportunity?

Question: Should the government step back and let competition and market forces dictate what happens to mass media industries?

Yes: People are in their field because of a choice, it should be up to them to work their way to the top, and it is their fault if they get dominated by another company.

No: The governent should step in and make sure everyone has the same opportunities, including those companies at a disadvantage, kind of like an NFL or NBA salary cap in sports.

Monopoly isn't just a board game anymore

Question: Does the government need to play a stronger role in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured?

Yes: The government should regulate who owns mass media (radio stations, newspapers, conglomerates, etc.) so that they ensure a monopoly isn't created in the industry and a variety of mass media can flourish equally on the market. By restricting and monitoring who owns big business, the government can control what products the media maufactures so that they don't create monopoly as well (apple ipods take note!).

No: It's a free country, and the mass media industries have a right to be owned by whoever has the power to successfully run them. Who is the government to say that specific people can own them or not, and for what reasons? A monopoly is a reflection of a prosperous and smart mass media (as Bill Gates can attest to), and if the government controls what is being manufactured, it takes away initiative of the businessmen who work in the mass media.

American Idol or American Scoundrel?

Does the rapid spread of American culture worldwide smother or encourage the growth of democracy and local cultures?

Yes - Through the diverse localization of American culture in numerous nations, many cultures see such widespread influences as a way of competition with America, increasing and encouraging the growth of democracy and local cultures.

No - Due to factors such as widespread labor factories' in other countries supplying Americans with "necessities" and foreign workers' being highly underpaid and overworked in those countries, American culture worldwide smothers the growth of democracy and local cultures because workers and/or members of the country see Americans as arrogant pigs who position the corporate jobs in America and globalize the cheap labor force behind the corporations.

consenting to control

Does the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of several international corporations too severely restrict the number of players and voices in media markets?

Yes: The oligopolistic corporations that dominate the media industry limit healthy competition through their impact on prices and their subsequent control of the consumer.

No: The limited number of media corporations in power does not limit the voices represented in the media; public opinion is equally represented through a focus on diversity of opinions.

Analyzing the Media Economy

Does the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of several restrict the number of players and voices in media markets?

Yes - The more control given to a few media companies, the less room for creativity and outside-the-box thinking, leading to formulaic, unvaried output from all involved.

No - Although seemingly bad for diversity, increased concentration can spur interesting combinations of styles, strategies and ideologies, resulting in an increase in voices in media.

.Analyzing the Media Economy.

In response to the question " does the media the rapid spread of American culture worldwide smother of encourage the growth of democracy?" one could answer it does both. American culture could smother growth throughout the world with what many people call "cultural imperialism." According to Campbell (page 473) "U.S. dominance in producing and distributing mass media puts a severe burden on countries attempting to produce their own cultural products." Think of it in terms like this: whenever you go out to Hastings, the amount of foreign films, CDs, or books is pretty limited. Whenver you go to another country (I've traveled to Korea, so let's say Korea...) you see nearly all the American movies as you would at Blockbuster. One may also argue that this spread of American culture can help and encourage the growth of democracy because our culture is constantly challenging authority, outdated traditions, and oushes boundaries, which can lead to other cultures and countries questioning their own culture. It also creates a "global village and fosters communications across national coundaries" (p 474).

OU JMC 1013: MR GREEN

Does the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of several restrict the number of players and voices in media markets?
Yes-- with the massive conglomerations that characterize our media today, the power of what is seen and passed on to the consumer lies in the hands of a very disproportionate group that has gained way too much control and can easily limit individual voices and competition.
No—the conglomerations bring together knowledgeable and diverse companies that can ensure multiple voices and a varied media economy.

Analyzing the Media Economy

The government seems to play a role in everything in society. The control it has over the media is a different situation. The government should not have a "stronger role" in determining who owns what mass media and what kinds of media products should be manufactured. The Telecommunications Act regulated the mass media interference enough. It is now up to the Media to control its output. On the other hand the government should not completely stand back and put it in the media hands. Who knows what would own what when the situation would be said and done, which is why the Telecommunications Act came around. Although it took long enough to develop I think as far as how media is regulated things are pretty much under control. Children have access to media that is not regulated mainly because their parents aren't around to control this from happening. Also if people are upset with what is on in the media and what culture is portrayed as then "people" should be able to do something about it. In cases like parental advisory "people" do have a voice but they don't know where to start, so is this where the government steps in? Or would that be considering crossing its' boundaries? The spread of culture through media does influence other cultures. This is a positive reflection on our culture, there are McDonald's everywhere, but each McDonald's is different cultural. This is where media has a great influence globally. Even though media seems to threaten religions in some areas, it still can promote positive aspects on culture too, even if it's food.