Is Deregulation Killing Journalism?

The FCC’s move to deregulate media outlets may be a costly mistake to journalism and the public it serves. The current trend of media consolidation is a double edged sword. It is necessary from a business stand point, but may cause media outlets to become too moderate. Will the big news conglomerates pull back the reins on controversial topics? Corporations are concerned with the bottom line.

“When Big Media gets too big, local, independent and minority owners are pushed out of the market and off the airwaves.” (http://www.freepress.net/media_issues/consolidation) The local papers were recently merged only to be purchased by an out of state online news outlet. Now there is only one source of local print news, instead of three varying opinions of the news. In my community if you want local news channels on satellite television you have to pay extra per month. The programming package is for the northeast. Local news to the satellite company is New York City or Boston.

At the national level this could be very devastating. Just look back at the injustice of the 1950’s and 1960’s. If only a few news outlets where around it might have taken even longer to reach the American public. Look at China, few state controlled news agencies are in operation and the government can and does control information. All news in China is controlled by one power. Is there much of a difference if power rests in only three or four media conglomerates?

In the past, governmental deregulation has not benefitted the general public. Deregulation only helps big businesses become huge monopolies. Just look at the cable, banking, and power industries for the disasters that lay ahead for the media.

For more information on Media deregulation and other deregulation mention in the article are listed below.

Media Ownership Matters

http://www.freepress.net/media_issues/consolidation

Media Ownership and Deregulation

http://www.journalism.org/node/1751

Deregulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

1996 cable deregulation a failure for consumers

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_cable_deregulation_failure/

Jumping wolf photographer loses wildlife prize

Jumping wolf photographer loses wildlife prize

By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm

The article was about a photographer who was accused of using a tame wolf to pose for a photo. The photographer then entered the photo into a competition for photographs of wild animals in their natural habitats. The photographer denied the initial accusation, but was unavailable for comment since the disqualification. The photographer was banned for life from the competition and the photograph was pulled from the exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London, England.

The reporter did a fair job writing the article, but was lacking detail information on exactly how the committee made their decision. "They also considered the responses to specific questions put to the photographer.”. The reporter should have elaborated on the details of the questions and the photographer’s response. Another missed opportunity for the reporter was to strengthen the article. “The experts compared the winning picture to pictures of Ossian, a tame wolf that lives at a zoological park near Madrid called Canada Real.” …"You can see several very distinctive markings and the experts all agreed that, yes, it's the same wolf," …The reporter should have placed a photo of the wolf, Canada Real next to the photograph in question. That would have allowed the reader to see the similarities between the animals. I believe the reporter could have been a little more diligent in reporting more of the specific details that led the judging panel to its conclusion.

The reporter also failed to mention the name of the competition. The reporter seems to leave out many important details that would have strengthened the article instead of leaving me with more questions. The article was incomplete and I’ll have to continue my search for answer on other news sites.

Should reporters bring more supplies into disaster areas

Last night (January 14, 2010) as I watched NBC nightly news with Brian Williams, I watched as Mr. Williams delivered his story about the devastation in Haiti; I noticed a large water bottle in his hand as many Haitians walked past him. As the Haitians walked by I noticed several of them staring not at the news crew, but Mr. Williams’ bottle of water. These people have been displaced for several days with very little food or water and Mr. Williams is waving a bottle of water around in front of them. Reporters who fly into a region that has suffered a catastrophic event should take extra care not to insult the local population. Just imagine if you had been without food or water and a news crew from overseas landed with just enough provisions for the news crew.

To Mr. Williams’ credit, he did realize what he was doing and slid the water bottle into his pocket. Unfortunately not once did he offer any one water or assistance. He looked as if he was uncomfortable interviewing the victims. Mr. Williams’ report lacked compassion for the injured or the dead. If this had been a news paper article, I would have thought it was written for the sole purpose of selling news papers. Maybe that is why NBC extend the Nightly News, to sell more television ads.

If a major network is going to send reporters into a disaster area, they should send them with extra provisions since they seem to arrive days ahead of the first wave of global aide. This natural reminds me of the 2004 tsunami disaster in the south pacific, the region will receive global support for a short period of time and then fade to the background.

http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-NN-NETCAST-M4V.xml