|
|
|
 论文编号：
lw200707250855363549 |
| 论文属性：
Notes |
| 论文语言：English |
| 论文国家：China |
| 登出日期： 2007-07-25 |
| 字数： 5000 |
| 源程序：
无 |
| 价格：
免费论文 |
|
|
| 论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索：Government Public Policy Political Communication Media Economics |
content requires significant capital. The major media
corporations have developed virtual franchises of their analog and paper empires, though
the reinvention of our cultural industries for a digital age is an uneven thing. Many are
offering their sites free of charge, while others are experimenting with enriched sites that
offer premium information for a fee. Some have embraced the Internet; others, like the
music industry, have fought the Internet and prosecuted those who share audio files. Some
media have proven to work online, such as newspapers and magazine sites like
www.salon.com or booksellers like Amazon; others, like downloadable e-books, have fared
less well. The unanswered question for McChesney is whether the Internet will develop as a space independent of the advertising-dependent and highly gate-keepered print and
broadcast media, or will be folded into these existing business and editorial models.
(ii) laws and regulations for media ownership in commercial markets
Media concentration is not a problem limited to North America. In the U.S. as of 2005, six
corporations dominate cultural production of books, TV, radio, film, and music. A current list,
th
edition (2004) of the book The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian, offers
taken from the 6
this list of the six: Time Warner Disney News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch) Bertelsman (headquartered in Germany) Viacom (which purchased Stephen Spielberg’s Dreamworks Studio i英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】n late 2005) General Electric
An excellent website published by the Media Reform Information Center that offers
extensive coverage and links relating to the issue of ownership in the U.S and worldwide is
posted in the Rogue’s Gallery.
McChesney uses this section of the article to demythologize the idea of the primarily
commercial and private U.S. media system. Turning media over to private interests is no
guarantee of media freedom. Private ownership is certainly not content-neutral, and
influence trickles from the boardroom to the newsroom regularly. Advertisers represent a
constant pressure to keep coverage market-friendly and unchallenging to the consumer
capitalist way of life. And oligopolistic ownership patterns—oligopolies are market structures
wherein a handful of corporations control vast market categories—represent a dire problem
for democracy. Here is but a single example from a large media company not even among
the big six, but that represents the largest single owner of radio stations and concert
promotion companies in the U.S.: Clear Channel. This data comes from the anti-Clear
www.clearchannelsucks.org/
Channel website,
owns over 1,200 radio stations and 37 television stations, with investments in
Clear Channel
240 radio stations globally, and Clear Channel Entertainment (aka SFX, one of their more
well-known subsidiaries) owns and operates over 200 venues nationwide. They are in 248
of the top 250 radio mark
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
| 第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 第5页 第6页 第7页 第8页 第9页 第10页 第11页 第12页 第13页 第14页 第15页 第16页 第17页 第18页 第19页 第20页 第21页 第22页 第23页 第24页 |
|
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
