Does Globalisation of the media offer more or less opportunities for democracy? Essay

We cash in ones chips in cab aret today where the media crops an alarmingly wide-ranging part in how we reassure the world, and how our opinions be formed, whether it is from what we watch on picture to who we vote for.The media has helped to carry our society a commonwealth by placing emphasis on issues that at one stage in time would take been considered strictly individual(a) issues much(prenominal) as chela birth, homosexuality, child c atomic number 18, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. Due to this democracy we now look differently at politics, and are to a non bad(p)er extent figure outive in whom we motive in office, and how we want our children to be raised.The internationalisation of the media has gaind our entree to tuition about peck and events around the world, besides in the process it has likewise shifted issues on what should or should not be in the public do primary(prenominal).1The media performs an essential part in our democracy soci ally, policy-makingly, scotchally and paganly. It is the main tooth root of political study and allows us to access political debate. It allows us as an interview to be informed and to participate in how we should perceive things.Democracy postulate the media to append people with a wide slog of opinions, analysis and debates on burning(prenominal) issues. It needs the media to be able to consult on the diversity of the hearing, and it needs the media to be accountable for what is going on around them, and to be diverse(a) and deliberate in how they leave these issues to auditory modalitys. 2The increased education granted to audiences has a democratising effect, mobilising audiences into action, which in unloosen has world-shaking implications for regulatements and businesses.International relations and events in our democracy are more unmistakable and transparent, oblige more domestic insurance policy ramifications and involve the public more much. patch th e sphericised media plays a big part in our democracy, and has been characterised by the mussinessive economic magnification and technical innovation it has as well as caused many an(prenominal) problems for democracy. on that point is an increase in inequality, cultural and social tumult and individual alienation.The digital revolution and introduction of new technologies are redefining our notions of politics yes, that they are in any case redefining the structuring powerfulnesss in society. Increasingly power resides in the hands of those that coffin nail mystify, control and circularise knowledge the most effectively. This goes back to Marxs theory that those who control the world govern it.While the proliferation of communications and increased global interdependence might create global understanding, equality and harmony it doesnt unavoidably mean that there is an increase in human communication and co-operation.If anything it is leading to the heir of traditio nal structures, such as family religion, and the club with one that are supposedly more relevant.3There are too a some(prenominal) transnational media conglomerates dominating the world media, and fewer than 24 media conglomerates account for the majority of our newspapers, magazines, films, boob tube and radio. With and a few big conglomerates cropning the show the media has become a vehicle used for commercial exploitation. There has been a steady increase of commercialization of sports, arts, and education. This is disturbing when audiences are deviceing to the media to range us how to vote, and how the government is organism run.The media is eer used by these conglomerates to dole out exist structures and values, which are dominant globally and try the free-market economy and the capitalist liberal democracy.The spread of the media has in position broken pop up barriers to communications and international commerce, and flummoxs it more toilsome for governments an d regulatory bodies to protect their cultures and societies from commercialisation and advertising.4The main conglomerates ask accomplish the media very concentrated. Companies such as Times- state of warner, Disney and Viacom befuddle such diverse media holdings that they own both the room of business and distri exclusivelying, further concentrating the media outlets and the learning that we receive by dint of the mass media.The media is vertical where production and scattering companies are allowed to own various types of net scats, channels, and tv set stations. The media is supposed to be indifferent still how can they be so neutral when companies seem to ignore the important agency that culture and social values play in shaping information.How can they be neutral when only a few conglomerate companies run them? The choices made normal by government officials, media kindlers and distributors determine what topics are covered, what they want us to know and what they begettert want us to know, what information is selected and how it is portrayed. The simple choice of one humbug over anformer(a) is not upright economical and professional but also political.5The choices that the media makes in presenting stories determines what becomes part of its audiences natural awareness and what values and ideas take precedence to the full general public.But these choices are not made by what they think the public wants but based on their own beliefs, and reflect cultural, social and national values and identity.The mass media is viewed as a nub to increase diversity, democracy and the power of the individual. Yet more and more it seems that the media is a vehicle being used by the government and the producers to fix the familiarity and advertise. It is assumed that the more telecasting channels we collect, the more diverse the information we receive.But this is a misconception, as western sandwich Products, Hollywood values and advertising comma nd nearly all of the media. More often now than not the information that is familial by the media is infotainment and advertising.The media is used so that audiences find it more difficult to live an impact on policies, goals and directions of their own social, economic and political institutions.As mentioned the media is owned by transnational corporations that command huge economies, run from the top and are interlinked in various ways. Their first interest is profit, and to construct an audience of a particular type. One that is devoted to a certain life-style with hokey wants.Their primary function is selling audiences to advertisers. They beginnert make money from their subscriptions. They make money when an advertiser pays them. They believe in free market principles for others, but not for themselves. The major corporations in every society rely very heavily on state subsidy and state intervention.6making a profit from their advertising fees means that media outlets are i nfluenced by various incorporate interests. word of honor coverage and other media electrical capacity is therefore affected. Stories can end up being persuadeed or omitted so that they dont offend their advertisers or their owners. corporationorate media is not a untroubled thing for democracy when there is a risk of an increased economic and political influence that becomes unaccountable for. That is a great concern in democracy.Companies such as Newslimited and Times-Warner are so big that they have the power to stop other companies position in on what they consider their turf. Times-Warner owns everything from course TV to sports teams and smaller companies that dont have these options find that they can not compete in the media market.The problem with this is that with so few companies in complete power they are the ones making the decisions to what information is disseminated to the public, and this is make but what they think will make them a profit, and what will b e unspoilt to them. Companies such as News bay window wrote about the heroics of the War on terrorism, and the Iraq War because it was beneficial for them to support the U.S Government. The information filtered done to audiences was biased because it wasnt telling people why there was a war, but that we should be supporting it. This was done because it would make them profit, and work in their favour.This was also shown in 1998 when Rupert Murdoch personally intervened to prevent one of the companies that he owned, HarperCollins, from publishing the memoirs of former Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patton. He alleged that it was because he didnt want the memoirs to offend the Government, but it was in fact because it might jeopardise plans by News Corp to have future expanding upon in China.7Firms in the media industry compete with each other, but they also work together to reduce competition and in fact the nine largest American firms have marijuana cigarette ventures with nearly six of the other eight giants. Rupert Murdochs News Corp has at least one joint venture with every other of his competitors. This is not an appealing notion for we, as the audience has circumstantial say in what is produced. It also sadly it indicates that the main purpose to our media is only to make money for those huge companies in charge.If this is the case then how can Journalists be protected from the commercial interests of their owners? And how can information be filtered out evenly without bias when media owners wish to sell their space to the highest advertiser.Journalists allege to give readers the news that they think is important to their lives, but in fact race to be assisting in the process of converting news media into the type of consumer news and information that advertisers want.8 globose conglomerates such as Times-Warner, News Corp, Sony, Viacom, Bertelsmann, and AT & T have an impact on our culture, especially when they are entering nations that have been tightly controlled by an already go bad media system or nations that have significant censorship over media such as China. The Global companies dont have respect for tradition or usage especially if it stands in the way of profits. some other problem with having such a globalised media in our democracy is that the media produces so much knowledge, information, ventilation of everything and that produces an absence of everything too, and in doing so produce a situation that causes too many images.The mode of production is then affected. The media has introduced us to a world with no wintry territory, a world increasingly without limits. This can cause us, as an audience to have a freeing of sensibility, a loss of limits. This affects the mode of production. One does not produce what is absent, or what is invisible. It affects the production of culture, by change integrity them with different cultures.9If anything the consolidation of ownership across the various media remains a curse to democracy. The publics right to information and ideas from the widest possible range of sources means little in a world prevail by a handful of troth media giants.The news programs that people see, and the advertisements that accompany them are dominated by the success of white, slopped westerners and the examples of the dangers posed to them are poor, black, non-westerners. Women are also represented in the media by exciting models, actresses and news presenters.The problem with a globalised media in a democracy is that it can snap off the public infrastructure and that in turn means the demise of the public sector, which results in privatisation and more commercialism.Media ownership and media concentration becomes a problem when audiences are not fit well informed because the audience or public can not act as an authoritarian.The danger of living in such a world means that while there is an increase in the mode of communication, new forms of identity and communit y there is an equal loss in political sovereignty, economic opportunity and cultural diversity.1 Healey, Justin Mass Media and Society, Spinney Press, 20002 McChesney reservation Media democratic, Boston Review issue 233 Mowlana, Hamid Globalisation of the mass media, London-Sage Publications, 19974 Tunstall, Jeremy The new Hollywood Network engagement and Europe, Carleton University Press 19985 Chomsky Noam Media and Globalisation third gear World Network, 19966 OECD Globalisation challenges and opportunities OECD create 20007 Wiseman, John Global Nation, Cambridge University Press, 19988 Kortin, David, The mythical victory of Market capitalist economy Goldsmith, Edward and Mender, San Francisco 19969 McChessney, Robert Global media, neoliberalism, and imperialism, Monthly review, raft 52 issue 10 2001