The author of the article, Ben Bagdikian, states that the television broadcasting is dominated by a handful of giant media conglomerates that are heavily tilted to the political right. Bagdikian also states that because the media conglomerates broadcast programs solely for the purpose of making money, a lot of television programs involve sex and violence.Bagdikian argues that the aforementioned statements can be explained by the fact that the media companies care more about making money than anything else and by the fact that the Federal Communications Commission has forgotten its mandated task of making sure that the broadcasters serve the public interest.
He points out that the media company’s performance is measured by the stock market; if the programs shown do not raise the stock market, the president and CEO might be out of the job.As a result, Bagdikian argues that the media companies do not care about producing more diverse programming; they only put on programs that they believe will make them the most money. Bagdikian also believes that the Federal Communications Commission has not been doing its job for the last thirty years because most of the members on the Federal Communications Commission are conservatives that believe that it is in public’s interest for the media companies to maximize profits, even if that comes at the cost of quality programming.Bagdikian’s main argument is a definition argument. Bagdikian wants the media companies to provide more choices in their programming so that there would be something on TV for everyone.
Bagdikian points out that the Communications law established that the American people are the owners of the radio and television frequencies, not the commercial broadcasters. Therefore, he believes that the media companies should be put under more control from the Federal Communications Commission.Also, he believes that the Federal Communications Commission’s mandated task of making certain that the broadcasters serve the public interest includes the task of making sure that the programs aired on television are of quality and satisfy everyone’s taste, not just that of the right wingers. To prove his point, Bagdikian points out that when the Federal Communications Commission held public hearing about what is being broadcast on the television, those hearing were packed with people who testified with seriously documented complaints that they are not getting what they want.
Bagdikian believes that the giant media conglomerates are not serving the public interest. Bagdikian believes that the only way for media broadcasting companies to serve the public interest is by broadcasting quality programming that satisfies everyone’s taste. I believe that the media companies are, in fact, serving the public interest. Just like any other company, the media company’s main goal is to make money. As a result, it chooses to broadcast programs that it believes will make them the most money.
The more people watch a certain program, the more money the company broadcasting it makes. It follows then that the media companies try to come up with the most popular and interesting programs they possibly can. I believe that the media companies are serving the public interest when they try to come up with programs that people would enjoy and watch. If the media companies did not broadcast programs that were interesting to the people, people would stop watching them and the networks would lose money and eventually go out of business.
No media company wants to go out of business, so they always try to come up with the most entertaining and interesting programs. Also, since all the major media companies are publicly traded, the people are, in fact, the once that own the media companies. Therefore, it is in the public’s interest for the media companies to make as much money as possible. Over the last few years, all the major media companies showed an increase in price of their stock and an increase in dividends. This leads me to believe that Bagdikian is wrong in his assumption that the media companies are not serving the public interest.Some people might argue that just because people choose to watch what the media companies broadcast does not mean that what is shown is of any quality.
Since those people believe that what is shown on the television is not of any quality, they believe that the media companies are not serving the public interest. However, who gets to decide what makes something a quality program? In the United States, there are millions of people glued to the television screen every single second. Would a quality program mean the same to all those people? No.Everyone has his own definition of what a quality program is.
Most people turn on the television to relax and want to enjoy their viewing experience. As a result, most people would consider a program of quality if it is entertaining rather than informative. For that reason, most media companies choose to broadcast programs that have more of an entertaining value. Media companies listen to what people want and they broadcast what they feel will satisfy the most people. Of course, there is always going to be someone that is not satisfied with what is being shown on a certain channel.However, that is exactly why there are so many different channels available.
Most of the channels have a loyal viewer base, which means that different people find different types of programs interesting and of quality. Since many different types of channels, ranging from Fox News that only has news broadcasting to AMC which only plays movies, are very popular, it is only logical to conclude that people have different tastes. A single channel cannot cater to everyone’s tastes; therefore, there are many different channels available where everyone can find something that they would enjoy.The media company’s freedom to broadcast shows of any genre encapsulates what is great about our country; America is a democratic nation where a company has the freedom of choosing what product it wants to deliver to its costumers. Bagdikian wants that freedom to be taken away from the media companies because he believes that the media companies do not know what is in the best interest of the public.
However, I have shown that the media companies are working for the public interest. Furthermore, taking away essential freedoms would only move us back in age and would not serve any public interest.
