Much of today’s modern society and communication methods are based off of mass media and other technological resources. For centuries, media has served as an essential contribution toward the development of human interaction, whether it is for informative purposes or for entertainment purposes. Mass media applies to a variety of forms that transmit information, including newspapers, magazines, film, radio, television, photography, and books. In this time period, it is difficult to imagine daily life without seeing the weather forecast for your local town, or reading a news update about your favorite celebrity’s personal life. As much as we appreciate these services offered to us in our community, nowadays it is questionable as to how beneficial the media actually is. Do mass media organizations really hold as much power as they are believed to contain? Generally, it is known that the media organizations do not have complete freedom to research and investigate whatever material they want to cover. However, it is important that the media’s power over our world is limited by restrictions. This is because of the following reasons: the responsibilities of the media have been adjusted; economic influences negatively affect the media; and competition amongst media organizations is dangerous for the quality of the media.
Section One
One reason why the media’s power should be restricted is that media organizations have taken their responsibilities and abused them in such a way that these responsibilities have been transformed into new purposes. When media devices were first introduced into the world, their functions included building communications among multicultural people to form connections, and raising awareness and knowledge of events to inform the public. They were developed with good intentions in mind. Advocates of the media might argue that these functions are still valid today, because the television and the radio incorporate news channels and stations that report daily on the latest stories and current events. Unfortunately, it is apparent that this is not completely accurate when looking at present-day media resources. For example, as indicated by an article written about a professor, Markus Prior, and his studies of politics and public affairs, “the explosion of media choices created by technology has had a profound effect on participation in the political process.” To be more specific, Prior’s research demonstrated that advances in media and technology have “reduced people’s inadvertent encounters with the news”, leading to divisions and polarization of political elections in the country. According to an interview where Prior discusses the results of his studies, television broadcasting was at its peak only a few decades ago: “Almost half of all Americans watched one of the three network newscasts at 6:30 p.m. on a regular weekday evening” – this means that many people were politically informed. But after other channels were created, such as sports, soap operas, and comedy shows, people were now given the choice to devote their time to things other than the news. Now, the amount of the population that watches one of the three major broadcasts is “down to less than 10 percent.” As a result, political participation is lessened, and so is the chance of citizens becoming actively involved in their nation’s elections, thus damaging our democratic society.
Not only have media organizations abused their responsibilities through politics, but through the social pyramid as well. The media had primarily been expected to “provide a platform for debate across a diverse range of views”. When examining the news these days though, the majority of it is scattered with gossip, scandals, violence, frauds and scams. In fact, media organizations have become so extreme that they act as “watchdogs”, and our society completely relies on it to uncover errors and wrongdoings by those who have greater power, as far as social ranking goes. Rather than being essentially informative, these “news” provided by the media merely serve as entertainment. As stated in an analysis done by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Democratic-leaning newspapers (those leaning toward the Democratic side) give relatively more coverage to scandals involving Republican politicians than scandals involving Democratic politicians, while Republican-leaning newspapers tend to do the opposite.” Based on their study of data on 35 scandals from 200 newspapers, perhaps we can conclude that media reporters and journalists are willing to take advantage of their resources and even damage the reputations of others, in order to influence their audience. This adds to the reason that the media has altered its functions and responsibilities toward our democratic society.
Section Two
The second reason why the media’s power should be restricted is that economic factors can influence the media and its material. In one observation done by media critics, it was discovered that most newspapers, radio and television stations get “most or all of their income from advertisements and sponsoring companies.” If this statement is true, then perhaps it is also accurate to say that the media will seek to satisfy the interests of their advertisers, which are not necessarily similar to the interests of the readers, listeners and viewers of the media. Obviously, this could steer the audience toward the wrong direction, as far as relevant information goes. Readers, listeners, and viewers should not be controlled by the material of the media, especially if it was placed there by advertisement companies who only used economic methods. But since society depends so greatly on the media, it is only human nature for people to be manipulated by stories and words that may not even have anything to do with their interests and preferences.
Despite the fact that one of the most well-known amendments of the Constitution – the first amendment – states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, it is very important that the media does not use this law to lie or cheat the public. Records justify that there have been several cases like this in the past. For instance, there has been the claim that certain mass media, especially women’s magazines, are promoting worthless alternative health products, thereby conspiring with the industry to defraud consumers of billions of dollars every year. This reveals that the media, when selecting stories to publish as their material, focus more on profitability of their work rather than the relevance and communication they will send out to their viewers and readers, which can become harmful for both media and audience. With rights come responsibilities, and the media should follow this rule in order to avoid any major disputes. It may be that the excessive amount of freedom given to the media is causing these problems to occur.
Section Three
The third reason why the media’s power should be restricted is that the inevitable increase in competition resulting from multiple media types leads to a decrease in the quality of the material produced. Some people might think that competition is considered “healthy”, because of the concept that more competition would motivate one to do better-quality work than everyone else. Also, people assume that competition could allow a sufficient amount of diversity to occur among the members of the organization, since no one would want to complete the exact same material as someone else if they wanted to excel and appear superior to the others in the competition. However, this is definitely not the case when it comes to media. In fact, it has been proven that there is a negative relationship between competition and news quality. A study of the American radio broadcasting market proves that “free competition (market in which prices are determined by supply and demand) may favor products with high variable costs rather than products with high fixed costs”. This is because as the number of suppliers gets higher, each supplier has less money for covering the fixed costs. When applied to mass media, this theory means that more competition may lead to lower quality if we assume that there is a positive correspondence between production costs and quality. Based on the judgment that media products of higher quality can attract a larger audience, it is safe to say that a considerably high competition benefits neither consumers nor advertisers.
High competition has also caused a desperate need for attention-catching devices that will “grab the reader’s attention”. What media organizations have resorted to are stories that contain headlines of fear, risk, or danger. The problem is that there are so many different media companies working on the same subject that it almost seems like a waste of time and money to be doing so. The unnecessary duplication of the most popular genres leaves few economic resources for spending on improving the quality of each program the media offers. The recent matter of Hurricane Irene is a good example to represent this issue. Without a doubt, the first warning of this tropical storm alarmed many of the citizens in the East Coast. But the media was responsible for stimulating the public’s fear even more. As an article wrote, “Cable news was utterly swept away by the notion that Irene would turn out to be Armageddon. National news organizations morphed into local eyewitness-news operations, going wall to wall for days with dire warnings about what would turn out to be a Category 1 hurricane, the lowest possible ranking… Every producer knew that to abandon the coverage even briefly—say, to cover the continued fighting in Libya—was to risk driving viewers elsewhere. Websites, too, were running dramatic headlines even as it became apparent that the storm wasn’t as powerful as advertised.” This quotation justifies why media companies choose to work on the material that they do. In a way, they are falsely luring the public toward themselves by “appealing to their emotions” and emphasizing stories that everyone else is talking about, in order to captivate their audience. This is just another example of how competition in the media industry can lead to problems for both the giver and receiver of this system.
To sum up, the media we have come to acknowledge and be grateful for does have its detrimental sides – its responsibilities have often been abused, commercialization and money have gotten in the way of its production, and competition has brought it down to a lower level. By having too much power in our world, the media can end up controlling us even more than it already does now. Nowadays, reporters won’t stop at anything to get the information they want. News can be obtained from politicians, opinion leaders, experts, professionals, police, organizations, and even ordinary people who just happen to be involved in a newsworthy situation – this shows the wide range of possible methods in which the media can use to succeed. Therefore, it is imperative that we do not let the media exploit others and promote corruption in our democratic community, no matter how much their influence pushes the development of our society and the people in it.
Ha Young Ahn
Age 13, Grade 8
Junior High School 67 Louis Pasteur
Silver Key