Private ownership of most media outlets is a bad thing. The private ownership is a bad thing because if a company is privately owned then the Federal Communications Commission cannot regulate what they do. The FCC, as said on page 225 of the Edwards textbook, regulates communications "via radio, television, telephone, cable, and satellite.". Since some of these media outlets are privately owned, they are not regulated by the FCC which allows them to broadcast whatever that company feels like. This is a bad thing because it could allow people to see things they do not want to see or be offended and hurt by what they see. The outlets defense to these statements though is that the victim is paying for the service and does not have to view or hear the material.
I agree that private ownership of media outlets is most definitely a bad thing. Media consolidation results in a lack of variety in viewpoints. Large media groups might choose to filter out alternate views leading to a biased media. If just a few companies own most of the media, we would have a load of channels expressing the same viewpoints over and over again. With lack of major competition, media companies would also begin to focus on making a profit rather than serving the interests of the public. Companies would begin to be more loyal to their advertisers and not spend as much time making viewers happy. With big company figureheads leading the media industry, local news and local broadcasting would most likely take a back seat to national programs and decrease dramatically.
I disagree and would have to say private ownership of most media outlets is good thing. The government should not have a strong regulation and own most media companies. The first amendment gives the US citizens a right to free press and speech, and private company use this right to express their views and opinions. If all companies were owned and regulated strictly by the government, the news could not present the news on the government in a non biased manner. There would be too much government censorship on what media is on the air and would take away from our freedom of press and speech. Having a media that us separate from government will actually give us more of a freedom of speech, because the government cannot strictly regulate what goes on, which allows opinions to be expressed freely. I disagree and would say that private ownership of media would result in much more diversity, because of the range in public opinion and interests. Look how cable TV is done and satellite radio. Both of these are private and so the FCC has little control over them. You can see how XM radio and cable have helped to broaden our choices for what to listen to or watch.
Private ownership of most media outlets is a bad thing. The private ownership is a bad thing because if a company is privately owned then the Federal Communications Commission cannot regulate what they do. The FCC, as said on page 225 of the Edwards textbook, regulates communications "via radio, television, telephone, cable, and satellite.". Since some of these media outlets are privately owned, they are not regulated by the FCC which allows them to broadcast whatever that company feels like. This is a bad thing because it could allow people to see things they do not want to see or be offended and hurt by what they see. The outlets defense to these statements though is that the victim is paying for the service and does not have to view or hear the material.
ReplyDeleteI agree that private ownership of media outlets is most definitely a bad thing. Media consolidation results in a lack of variety in viewpoints. Large media groups might choose to filter out alternate views leading to a biased media. If just a few companies own most of the media, we would have a load of channels expressing the same viewpoints over and over again. With lack of major competition, media companies would also begin to focus on making a profit rather than serving the interests of the public. Companies would begin to be more loyal to their advertisers and not spend as much time making viewers happy. With big company figureheads leading the media industry, local news and local broadcasting would most likely take a back seat to national programs and decrease dramatically.
DeleteI disagree and would have to say private ownership of most media outlets is good thing. The government should not have a strong regulation and own most media companies. The first amendment gives the US citizens a right to free press and speech, and private company use this right to express their views and opinions. If all companies were owned and regulated strictly by the government, the news could not present the news on the government in a non biased manner. There would be too much government censorship on what media is on the air and would take away from our freedom of press and speech. Having a media that us separate from government will actually give us more of a freedom of speech, because the government cannot strictly regulate what goes on, which allows opinions to be expressed freely. I disagree and would say that private ownership of media would result in much more diversity, because of the range in public opinion and interests. Look how cable TV is done and satellite radio. Both of these are private and so the FCC has little control over them. You can see how XM radio and cable have helped to broaden our choices for what to listen to or watch.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete