the influence of mainstream media

Today, the media industry in the United States is dominated by a few individuals who have steadily developed conglomerates with enormous clout in the country's political and economic environment. According to Corcoran (2016), five companies dominate the largest advertising sector in the United States. Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Comcast dominate a significant majority of the news media market. The pattern departs from the two public interest and public preference hypotheses suggested by Djankov et al (2003). In essence, the modern advertising market in the United States suggests a modern theory oriented toward private interest and preference rather than collective interest and choice.
Contemporary Media Ownership
The article by Djankov et al (2003), that is public interest and public choice theories. In essence, the contemporary media industry in the united states tend to suggest a new theory inclined to “private interest and choice” as opposed to public.
Contemporary Media Ownership
The article by Djankov et al (2003) argues that media across the world is owned by families and government agencies. The authors focus on government owned media and examines how the different perspectives of media ownership impact the society. The study established that in most developing countries, most media houses are government owned, especially the broadcasting section. However, in the developed countries private companies have majority shares in the media conglomerates that control both the print and broadcast media. The extend of control varies in different countries depending on the legislation and prevailing socio-economic environment.
In the United States, majority of the media industry is owned by a few corporate companies controlled by wealthy individuals or families. Corcoran (2016) asserts that the amendments that were done to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by the Bill Clinton regime opened the door for extreme privatization of the industry. The amendment curtailed the powers of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and allowed companies to initiate mergers and acquisitions across the industry without any restrictions. The open playing field was an advantage to the big companies with deep pockets because they eventually bought out the smaller media companies across the entire entertainment industry. Corcoran (2016) points today only six companies control over 90% of the U.S. media industry.
Consolidation of News Media
Besides the biased ownership in the U.S. media industry, there has also been a technological induced shift that has resulted in a convergence effect of the industry. Shah (2009) explains that in the past, the news media was distinct from the other entertainment and telecommunication companies. Firms that were inclined in the gathering and dissemination of news did not indulge in other activities such as telecommunication and distribution of entertainment content. However, thanks to the internet technology the entire media industry is today consolidated under one roof. It has now become easier for the telecommunication industries to engage in vertical mergers that spread across different subsectors of the industry. For example, companies such as Sony and Walt Disney were previously focused on producing and distributing entertainment content that includes music and movies. However, the rules of engagement have changed and such companies are today buying out news outlets creating huge conglomerates with all manner of media products.
Online social platforms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are also joining the big league of media companies. As people are inclined to consume online media content, the social media platforms are gaining ground as the “people’s” media companies. Individuals and private firms, including media companies, have the opportunity to reach out to the online community using the gates of social media firms. Corcoran (2016) argues that the internet is the new battle ground for media ownership and control. While the public and civil rights activists are routing for the neutrality of the internet, some private companies are fighting for its control. For example, internet distribution companies such as Verizon and Comcast are competing to have control of the entertainment content such as cable television and streaming platforms. With time, the public will have no control over the content available online as the big companies commercialize everything.
Implications
The direct consequence of unregulated private media ownership is the creation of cartel-like structure that makes it almost impossible for objectivity to prevail. The truth will always go to the highest bidder as politicians and commercial companies try to get the attention of the public. Corcoran (2016) gives the example of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections where some companies openly favored the candidature of Hillary Clinton. The wealthy media owners contributed to her campaign and ensured that she got positive coverage. That is the reason many people were shocked to see Donald Trump emerge as the winner because most of the media companies were twisting the truth as regards to Trump’s popularity.
The fact that media ownership is concentrated with a few individuals in the society implies that the economically disadvantaged communities will never receive a fair platform to air their views. Shah (2009) points out that a study of a section of major news outlets in the United States revealed that 92% of sources were whites only, 85% were male, and 75% were Republicans. The statistics point to a deliberate attempt to silence the voices of some people in the society because of the social or political inclinations of the owners. Therefore, the public will always receive what the owners of the media want them to know and not the truth.
With the trend of convergence and consolidation of media outlets, the direct effect is the dying out of the traditional media. Broadcast television and the print media are the first causalities of the technological shift that has placed the internet on the media control seat. Corcoran (2016) says that thousands of people have lost their jobs in the magazine, newspaper, and radio sections of the media. The new media owners have great interest in the internet business where they are sure to get maximum returns for their investments. Hence, they are not concerned when the credible sources of news information collapse and more entertainment outlets flourish.
Conclusion
The trend observed in the United States is quite different from what is happening in other countries where the government still has control over the media. For example, the government owned BBC in England still has a wide audience across the world. In the US, the private companies have full control of the media industry. Few companies and individuals have amassed several media outlets in different fields such as broadcast, print, online, cable, and entertainment content production. The effects of the trend are a biased outlook of the industry as only a few characters control the sources of information. Politicians and corporates have to “cooperate” with the media owners to receive favorable coverage in their numerous outlets. Hence, there is need to review the laws of media ownership to protect the audience.



References
Corcoran, M. (2016). Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act. Truthout. Retrieved 7 March 2017, from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34789-democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act
Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., Nenova, T., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Who owns the media?. The Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2), 341-382.
Shah, A. (2009). Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership — Global Issues. Globalissues.org. Retrieved 7 March 2017, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership