4. Conflicts of Interest
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF NEWS:
Conflicts of interests among top executives arise because directors of major corporations, including investment, health care, oil, and technology companies, sit on the board of major media corporations. With profit maximization as a primary goal, top executives promote news stories that will be lucrative to the personal investments of each director or executive. For example, ABC, a subset of the Disney Corporation, suppressed a report on the labor and safety abuses at Disney World (Champlin & Knoedler, 2002). This example demonstrates the influence top executives and parent companies have on the content delivered by news corporations. Due to the conflicts of interests involved in the decision-making of board members and top executives, the quality of the content delivered is mediocre and disserves the public interest.
As noted in the 2002 paper written by Champlin & Knoedler, news divisions have moved from being “a loss-leader and a mark of network prestige to being a major producer of network profit (Champlin & Knoedler, 2002).” Due to the increased drive from shareholders for achieving large profit margins, news resources have been cut. Champlin & Knoedler also acknowledge that the pressure to keep costs down has led to an over-reliance on pre-packaged “news;” for example, press conferences or press releases, pooling of news gathering resources, and an overall de-emphasis on investigative reporting. Additionally, this increasingly centralized group of corporations that control the hundreds of cable channels viewers’ watch on a daily basis, continue to be influenced by stories of sensationalism, rather than responsible news broadcasting. Thus, while it may seem that the public is living in an age of “information over-load,” the reality of the situation is that these few conglomerates essentially control the many avenues of how information is delivered.
mediagirlz4 said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:15 am
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS DO NOT EXIST AMONGST THESE CORPORATIONS AND THUS, HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF NEWS:
Looking at the past decade, the argument can be made that there are legitimate synergies created by means of the major media mergers in the United States. There are not conflicts of interest amongst these conglomerates. The ability of these corporations to combine massive libraries of content coupled with adding multiple distribution channels, clearly shows that the consumer is benefiting from these few conglomerates (Champlin & Knoedler, 2002). These mergers have been vital in greatly increasing the volume of available information and greatly decreasing the cost of delivering the news to the average citizen. Consumers now can browse through the twenty-four-hour news channels or instead demand that personalized news be delivered to them daily via email. No longer can news companies demand that viewers tune in at specific times; no longer can advertising and marketing firms depend on commercials for financial gain; and no longer do viewers need to wait for information… with the internet, it is right at their fingertips.
In the Media Business blog of author Robert G. Picard, this argument is further supported. Picard argues that in post-industrial society, the rise of new social and economic arrangements are the proliferation of types of media and media content, business models of news companies are shifting towards a consumer model. http://themediabusiness.blogspot.com/search/label/business%20models
This means that companies spend a good deal of effort ensuring they are creating value for customers. The tendency to focus on the needs of the consumer is especially evident in social media outlets like the internet. For example, if one were to visit CNN.com or MSNBC.com, that person would be offered a wide range of news options: the latest breaking news stories, a look at the latest regarding sports, or even news about travel. This scope and variety was not available to viewers of the conventional means of news telecast. As such, the quality of news is not significantly affected by the independent agendas of board members and executives.
The advanced technological component of this medium, the internet, has caused online journalism to be functionally differentiated from other kinds of journalism. This transition towards a more accessible and customizable news option can be directly attributed to the centralized control of news in today’s society. It is because of the vast amount of resources available to these large companies, like Disney and Time Warner, that make it possible to create such a high quality and easy to navigate information resource.
mediagirlz4 said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:15 am
OUR CONCLUSION:
Ownership of these corporate powerhouses of news does indeed matter; but it matters because the most successful ones are going to have the most experience and more importantly, the bigger bank account. It is encouraging to think that any company, small or large, can establish themselves as a reliable news source with the onset of the internet; however, the dominant players are going to be the ones that market well and have the finances to back it up. It is simple – the more resources that you have, the more channels you have available for distribution, and the larger your network, the more successful you will be.
Large businesses will always be scrutinized and criticized for their ownership, the connections they have and the decisions that they make. However, it is important to recognize that in most cases these conglomerates have the consumers’ best interest in mind. After all, they are people too, utilizing the same means as the average person in order to gain information about our world. The fact of the matter is that big business is good for our economy, grants us the ability to access information faster than ever before, and with the onset of the internet, puts control back into the hands of the consumer.