# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is a complex conflict spanning decades, with no end in sight - yet the world's news stations often have just a few minutes a day to tell a succinct story about Gaza.

It is inevitable, perhaps, that accusations of bias flare up with each renewed surge of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, as media outlets try - and sometimes fail - to tell it right.

The latest chapter in this conflict is no different, with claims and counterclaims of one-sided reporting against several TV channels and newspapers over the last three weeks.

One of the loudest protests has been in the UK, where numerous activists and academics have accused the BBC of harbouring a deep pro-Israeli bias. A large demonstration was held outside its London headquarters on July 15, with similar protests in Glasgow and Bristol.

Campaigners from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said the BBC's reports on Gaza are unbalanced and "entirely devoid of context or background", and presented an open letter signed by 45,000 people - including John Pilger, Noam Chomsky and Ken Loach - urging the broadcaster to improve its coverage.

But rival Channel 4 News has also come under fire for alleged bias - in favor of the Palestinians. Douglas Murray, Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society, wrote in The Spectator that the news show portrays a "biased, inaccurate and one-sided" view of the Middle East.

Rival broadcasts

Both the BBC and Channel 4 defend their news coverage. Yet when comparing their output, there are marked differences - adding weight to allegations of bias.

Israel's shelling of a U.N. school in Jabalya, Gaza on Wednesday resulted in notably different reports by the two UK broadcasters.

The BBC's news bulletin at 6pm even stopped short of explicitly blaming Israel for the shelling of the school, which was said to have killed at least 15 Palestinians. The BBC's correspondent in Jabalya merely said that "the debate will begin immediately about who is responsible for this."

In contrast, Channel 4's 7pm broadcast began boldly with "Israel attacks a U.N. girls' school", and also raised the possibility - not mentioned in the BBC's report - that the incident could constitute a "war crime".

Tellingly, the BBC put forward Israel's view on the attack a mere 15 seconds into its main report, and chose Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, Israel Defense Forces Spokesman, as its main interviewee.

Lerner stated that there was "mortar fire fired by Palestinian terrorists from right next to the school", a use of language that went unquestioned by the BBC. A Palestinian representative of Jabalya Elementary Girls School, did however refer to "the Israeli occupation, the terrorism" later in the report - giving some balance.

Channel 4's report added some weight to claims it highlights the Palestinian viewpoint in its coverage. Compared with the BBC, Channel 4 employed more emotive language throughout its report, with correspondent Paul Mason saying of Jabalya: "This is a place where ceasefires can be as deadly as battles".

In reporting on the Jabalya school tragedy, Channel 4 News did not voice Israel's viewpoint until 72 seconds into the main report, and chose Osama Hamdan, Hamas spokesman, as its main interviewee. Hamdan was, however, given a particularly tough grilling by Jon Snow, the anchor.

'The sky will fall in'

There is no dispute that the BBC has run some harrowing footage from Gaza over recent weeks. It has showed the bloody aftermath of Israeli attacks on the territory, with a heavy focus on the human tragedy.

Yet according to one expert on media coverage of the Middle Eastern conflict, it is typical for the BBC to show images of Palestinian suffering and then explain it in the context of an Israeli narrative - as was seen in the report from Jabalya.

Greg Philo, professor of Communications and Social Change at Glasgow University, said the BBC is reluctant to highlight the view that Palestinians are living under an aggressive occupation.

Philo - the co-author of More Bad News from Israel, a study of BBC and ITV coverage of the conflict - said "many" BBC journalists have told him that they cannot express such views.

"I think journalists in the BBC - a lot of them - want to do the best job they can. And they do feel under pressure," he said. "Everyone is aware that the sky will fall in on you if you criticize Israel."

Philo claims a BBC editor once told him that they "wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis" after running reports on the conflict. "But it doesn't matter so much what you say about the Palestinians," Philo added.

Israel - known for its heavy spending on lobby groups - has a "slicker and better organized" public-relations operation than the Palestinians, Philo pointed out. But this is no reason for the media not to put across the other side's viewpoint, he asserted.

"There is no comparable message that the Palestinians have organized for themselves... The message is there, it's just not organized coherently," he said. "It's really incumbent on the journalists to put the Palestinian view. But they just don't do it."

Philo did not hold back in his criticism of the BBC's coverage: "At some point, the BBC needs to explain," he said. "For me, the answer is obvious. It is state-owned by a government that is very very close to Israel.

'Colonial times'

Amena Saleem of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said BBC News is failing in its coverage of Gaza, because it portrays the Palestinians as aggressors while not "telling its audience that Israel is an occupying force."

BBC coverage also gives the impression that Israel's assault on Gaza is purely a response to Hamas rocket fire and tunnels, rather than an enforcement of its "occupation", the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign has argued.

"There is a shift in reporting, but the BBC has been left behind. It's a complete anachronism," Saleem said. "It's like an organization that's still stuck in colonial times... 'How should Israel tame the savage?' - that's the BBC's line in its reporting."

Saleem acknowledged that the petition and protests in London, supported by her group, had "forced the BBC to look at itself and its news coverage". The BBC held two radio debates to discuss its alleged bias, she pointed out.

Yet the broadcaster continues to strike the wrong tone, she added. "What the BBC does is present Israel and the Palestinians as equal opposing sides. [But Gaza's rockets] are nothing to Israel's huge military firepower," she said.

"While Israel is targeting Palestinian civilians, the Palestinians aren't targeting civilians, they're targeting soldiers. In Gaza, entire families have been wiped out.

'Honesty, objectivity'

A BBC spokesperson defended the corporation's output: "Our role is to explain what is happening and why and we endeavor to reflect a range of voices, amid deeply held views. We are committed to continuing to report and analyze sometimes fast moving events in an accurate, fair and balanced way."

Several others disputed claims that the BBC is pro-Israeli in its news coverage.

David Holmes, lecturer in journalism at the University of Sheffield, said that it was a great challenge to report on Gaza, but said the BBC was doing its utmost to be objective.

"I don't have the slightest doubt that the people working for the BBC are doing their very best - in very dangerous circumstances sometimes - to report honestly and objectively," he said. "If the BBC stands for one thing, it is honesty, objectivity and impartiality in its reporting."

One of the UK's most prominent pro-Israeli lobbying organizations also disagreed with claims that the BBC is biased in favour of Israel.

"I don't recognize that characterization of the BBC as being very much one-sided," said Dermot Kehoe, chief executive of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, known as Bicom.

"In the past, the BBC has been accused of being pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel," added Kehoe, who worked at the broadcaster for nine years. "The reality is that the BBC is not 'pro' anybody. It's trying to do the job right, under difficult circumstances."

Kehoe said it was impractical for any media outlet to explain the full history of the conflict in reports on Gaza. "Any time any broadcaster covers a story, they can't give a full history lesson," he said.

Channel 4

But the tables turn when it comes to Channel 4's coverage of the Gaza violence.

The station's news reports, which are produced by ITN, are headed by veteran anchor Jon Snow, who this week made a video appeal in support of the children of Gaza, after spending five days there. It featured some harrowing scenes of injured children in Gaza, with Snow imploring that "we cannot let it go on".

While Snow won some praise for the emotional video, Kehoe criticized it, saying that the anchor has misunderstood the nature of Hamas, and that his appeal is part of a "campaigning narrative" of Channel 4 News.

"I think Jon Snow has done some brave and powerful journalism about the humanitarian issues in Gaza," Kehoe told Al Arabiya News. "However, I do feel his reporting has increasingly crossed the line between journalist and campaigner.

"He has failed to understand the true nature of Hamas as an organization... Hamas has not arisen as a response to the blockade, it is a cause of the blockade."

Kehoe acknowledged that the images of children in Gaza were "harrowing to watch" and their broadcast was justified. Yet he added that there must be a balance to such news reports. "What other broadcasters have done - the BBC and Sky - is shown the impact of the conflict in Israel, of Hamas's rocket fire, as well," he said.

David Holmes of Sheffield University acknowledged that Snow's video appeal brought the presenter close to the point where "a journalist becomes a participant" in a debate.

"Some people might argue that that is not the role of the journalist... Perhaps they lose the trust they need as an impartial, objective observer," Holmes said. "Personally, I didn't find that video particularly contentious. I think it was an honest attempt to report a human catastrophe."

A Channel 4 News spokeswoman said the feedback to the video had been "overwhelmingly positive".

"Jon Snow... made this video blog for the Channel 4 News website after being deeply affected by what he saw first-hand," the spokeswoman said. "We are extremely proud of the work our reporting teams have done and continue to do in very challenging conditions to cover this conflict."

Saleem - a strong critic of the BBC - was much more supportive of Jon Snow and Channel 4. "They're reporting the carnage as it is," she said. "They're showing who the underdog is, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that."

Philo - another BBC critic - said Channel 4 had "simply covered the Palestinian point-of-view" in a way that the BBC had not. "I don't think there is any impartiality in relation to the killing of children," he added.

Amid the ongoing violence in Gaza, the clamor of accusations over misleading reporting shows no sign of abating.

Yet there is little debate over that bloodiest of facts: The mounting death toll, which now stands at more than 1,350.

Last Update: Friday, 1 August 2014 KSA 20:54 - GMT 17:54

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a complex conflict spanning decades, with no end in sight - yet the world's news stations often have just a few minutes a day to tell a succinct story about Gaza. It is inevitable, perhaps, that accusations of bias flare up with each renewed surge of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, as media outlets try - and sometimes fail - to tell it right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Truth Of Biggest Scandal Of Phone Hacking : Full Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unbelievable secrets of phone hacking. Hope you will enjoy the show. Please Dont Forget to Subscribe for more updates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rupert Murdoch - Battle With Britain (2013/04/28)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, Rupert Murdoch has been accused of corrupting British media and contaminating politics. Yet the caricature image of him as the 'Dirty Digger', the sinister head of a global media empire, in fact obscures deeper, more significant truths - not least about Britain itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News and analysis of Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into phone hacking and the ethics and culture of the UK media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rupert Murdoch joined in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to force Tony Blair to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war a week before a crucial House of Commons vote in 2003, according to the final volumes of Alastair Campbell's government diaries.

In another blow to the media mogul, who told the Leveson inquiry that he had never tried to influence any prime minister, Campbell's diary says Murdoch warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers of a delay in Iraq. The disclosure by Campbell, whose diaries are serialised in the Guardian, will pile the pressure on Murdoch in light of his evidence to the Leveson inquiry.

The Cabinet Office released information on Friday that raised doubts about Murdoch's claim that Gordon Brown pledged to "declare war" on News Corporation after the Sun abandoned its support for Labour in September 2009. It supported Brown's claim that he never made such a threat by saying that the only phone call between the two men during the period took place on 10 November 2009 and focused on Afghanistan.

Murdoch tweeted in response: "I stand by every word is aid [sic] at Leveson." But there will be fresh questions about one of Murdoch's most memorable declarations from his appearance before the inquiry in April. The founder of News Corporation said: "I've never asked a prime minister for anything."

Campbell wrote that on 11 March 2003, a week before the Commons vote in which MPs voted to deploy British troops to Iraq, Murdoch intervened to try to persuade Blair to move more quickly towards war. "[Tony Blair] took a call from Murdoch who was pressing on timings, saying how News International would support us, etc," Campbell wrote. "Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got." The following day, 12 March, he wrote: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."

Campbell's description of Murdoch's intervention is one of a series of disclosures in his diaries, The Burden of Power, Countdown to Iraq, which are serialised in the Guardian on Saturday and Monday. The diaries show:

* Blair believed that the Prince of Wales had been "captured by a few very rightwing people", according to Campbell, after the Daily Mail published leaked letters from the prince about a US-style compensation culture in 2002. Blair "liked, rated and respected" the Queen but thought her heir tried to have a "dig" at the Labour government in a speech during her golden jubilee in 2002.

* Gordon Brown agitated so aggressively against Tony Blair - demanding a departure date soon after the 9/11 attacks - that Downing Street concluded in 2002 that the then chancellor was "hell-bent on TB's destruction".

The diaries will raise questions about Brown's claim at Leveson that he and his staff never briefed against Blair. Campbell provides specific examples of when Brown and his chief aide, Ed Balls, were suspected of doing just that. In one example, the former health secretary Alan Milburn told Blair that Brown encouraged MPs to defy a government three-line whip to vote against foundation hospitals in 2003.

* Blair was "thwarted" from joining the euro by Brown and Balls in 2003. On 11 June 2003, two days after Brown concluded that Britain had not yet met his five tests on euro membership, Campbell wrote: "Things just hadn't worked on the euro and TB was pretty fed up...The judgment was settling that GB had basically thwarted him. TB feared we were making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons."

Campbell said he had mixed views about Brown. He told the Guardian: "I do have very conflicted views about Gordon. On the one hand he could be extraordinarily difficult to deal with. But on the other hand he could be absolutely brilliant. Often we were sitting there longing for the brilliant to be in charge and for the impossible to fade away and it never quite happened. During this period it is the first time that Tony does at least articulate the possibility of actually sacking him. And at various points [he] says I am going to do it. Of course he never did. I completely understand why he decided to stick with Gordon because, as Tony keeps saying throughout the diaries: 'Look, when it comes to ability, he and I are head and shoulders above the rest.' That may sound a bit arrogant but most people will accept that."

Campbell's disclosure of Murdoch's intervention on the eve of the Iraq war is the second substantive example to raise questions over the News Corp chairman's claim that he never tried to influence any prime minister. John Major told Leveson on Tuesday that Murdoch told him in February 1997, three months before the general election, that he would withdraw support for the Tories unless the then prime minister changed his policies on Europe.

Major told the inquiry: "If we couldn't change our European policies, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government."

Campbell told the Guardian that Murdoch's intervention on Iraq was a "very rightwing voice" that came "out of the blue" adding: "On one level [Murdoch] was trying to be supportive, saying I know this is a very difficult place, my papers are going to support you on this. Fine.

"But I think Tony did feel that there was something a bit crude about it. It was another very rightwing voice saying to him: look isn't it about time you got on with this? I think, as I recall Tony saying, he didn't think it was terribly clever."

Campbell also mentioned the Murdoch phone calls in a second witness statement to the Leveson inquiry last month. News Corp believes there was nothing improper about the phone call, one of three, because the support of the Sun and News of the World for the war was well known.

Lord Justice Leveson, whose lead counsel, Robert Jay, asked Murdoch about the calls, also indicated that it was "reasonable" for him to have views on such international matters.

Leveson told Murdoch: "You've mentioned that you talked about Afghanistan, and it would be perfectly reasonable for you to have a view on that. Lots of people will. And your view may be informed by your worldwide contacts through the businesses that you operate. That's merely your view."

Murdoch addressed the phone calls in his witness statement to the Leveson inquiry. He said: "As for the three telephone calls with the then prime minister, Tony Blair, in 2003, I cannot recall what I discussed with him now, nine years later, or indeed even if I spoke with him at all. I understand that published reports indicate that calls were placed by him to me. What I am sure about is that I would not in any telephone call have conveyed a secret message of support for the war; the NI titles' position on Iraq was a matter of public record before 11 March 2003."

He then cited four articles from the Sun and the News of the World which illustrated their "pro-war stance" before 11 March 2003 when the main phone call took place.

In his testimony to the inquiry said he did not remember the calls but added that the Sun's support for the Iraq war was well known. "I don't remember the calls. The [call on] 11th might even have been calling me for my birthday, but no, our position on the war had been declared very strongly in all our newspapers and the Sun well before that date."

The company said tonight: "It is complete rubbish to suggest that Rupert Murdoch lobbied Mr Blair over the Iraq war on behalf of the US Republicans. Furthermore, there isn't even any evidence in Alastair Campbell's diaries to support such a ridiculous claim."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rupert Murdoch pressured Tony Blair over Iraq, says Alastair Campbell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rupert Murdoch joined in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to force Tony Blair to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war a week before a crucial House of Commons vote in 2003, according to the final volumes of Alastair Campbell's government diaries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When media mogul Rupert Murdoch closed Britain's biggest newspaper, the News of the World, in July 2011 - after it became mired in allegations of phone hacking - he had hoped the move would draw a line under the scandal.

The chairman and CEO of News Corporation feared the scandal was threatening to taint other titles published under his UK operation, News International.

However, the company has since been beset by further allegations of hacking and corruption, and has led to - among other things - the withdrawal of a bid to take full control of satellite broadcaster BSkyB, the arrest of numerous Sun journalists, and the resignation of Mr Murdoch's son James from several positions in the family business.

A lawyer at the centre of phone-hacking litigation has warned that claims could also be brought against News Corporation in the US.

Yet despite his company's involvement in several inquiries and police operations, Mr Murdoch - now 81 years old - has taken an increasingly hands-on approach to its problems.

His profile as a key player in News International's fate became particularly prominent after he was questioned by British MPs in July 2011 - a meeting which was disrupted when an onlooker attacked the media mogul with a foam pie, leaving Mr Murdoch's young wife leaping to his rescue.

He later went on to launch the Sun on Sunday, which sold 3.26 million copies in its first week - a figure not bettered by any UK newspaper for four years.

The octogenarian even took to Twitter - reaching out to supporters and attacking further allegations against the company.

He also agreed to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

In July 2012, Mr Murdoch announced that he had resigned from a string of directorships controlling News Corp's UK newspapers - at NI Group Ltd, NewsCorp Investments and Times Newspaper Holdings.

News Corp plans to split into two companies, separating its publishing interests from the more lucrative TV and film side.

Mr Murdoch is expected to chair both businesses but to be chief executive only of the TV and film enterprise.

Political manipulation

Mr Murdoch, who inherited a taste for the press from his father, is no stranger to controversy.

He began his career aged 22 when his father Sir Keith, one of Australia's most distinguished newspapermen, died and left his son a half share in two Adelaide papers.

Born in Australia in 1931, Oxford-educated Murdoch had a natural flair for popular journalism and a tendency to fall out with his editors.

Although he spent much of his career denying he interfered too much.

"I think that I give my editors tremendous freedom and the only people who claim that I don't give them enough freedom now are the people who wouldn't know how to use it," he once said.

There was steel beneath the boyish exterior, as the British discovered when he arrived in 1968 to buy the News of the World.

Within a year he had added the ailing Sun newspaper, relaunching it as an irreverent tabloid.

Circulation soared thanks to its sex-and-sensation formula and it went on to became Britain's biggest-selling daily paper.

But his papers were frequently accused of political manipulation, distorting the news to ensure his political allies won elections.

His critics, of which there are many, have called him a vulgarian and a cynic who had degraded standards of journalism by pandering to a sensation-seeking public.

His loyal admirers have always heaped praise onto him, applauding the businessman for his ruthlessness, energy, and astonishing willingness to take risks.

In 1986, by now owner of the Times and Sunday Times as well, Mr Murdoch moved all four newspaper titles into a heavily fortified printing plant, and sacked 5,000 workers.

The ensuing battles with pickets outside Fortress Wapping heralded a revolution in Fleet Street, and an end to over-manning and restrictive practices.

A television revolution followed. Already the owner of the Sun, he went on to introduce Sky, the satellite TV service to Britain.

Setbacks

Despite critics calling it downmarket rubbish, satellite dishes soon became commonplace and Sky gobbled up its rival, BSB, to become hugely profitable.

Before long, Sky could afford to bid more than hundreds of millions of pounds for the television rights to Premier League football.

In June 2010, News Corp had been bidding to take over the 61% of BSkyB it did not already own.

But the company abandoned the bid in July 2011 after the phone-hacking scandal emerged.

In the US, where Mr Murdoch had bought 20th Century Fox, he won a bigger prize, establishing America's fourth television network.

Along the way, he became a US citizen to circumvent rules banning foreigners from owning television stations.

Fox shows like the Simpsons cartoon series sold around the world, but Mr Murdoch continued to suffer setbacks.

In the 1980s his empire nearly crashed when its debts mounted to a staggering eight billion dollars.

He survived to buy Star TV in Hong Kong, broadcasting by satellite to the whole of Asia.

When the digital revolution swept television, promising many more channels, pay-per-view programmes, home shopping and home banking, Mr Murdoch's TV stations were at the forefront.

But in Britain his monopoly of digital broadcasting technology led to fruitless calls for new rules to limit power. He dismissed any suggestion that he was too powerful.

Global media mogul

"People say we're anti-competitive, when we do something which is open for anybody in the world to do," he once said.

He closed down one newspaper, the loss-making Today in 1995, partly out of pique when the British government passed laws limiting how much of the media one company can control.

During the Conservative's reign in the 80s and early 90s, Mr Murdoch's publications were generally supportive of the government, but that all changed when John Major eventually left Number 10.

Prior to his election, Mr Murdoch invited Tony Blair to Australia. He also told his papers to tone down their attacks on Labour.

The Sun went further, to the surprise of many, endorsing Blair at the 1997 election.

But Mr Murdoch backed winners and made it clear that once the Labour Party's fortunes declined, it would switch allegiance.

Mr Murdoch's involvement with politicians does not stop at the British government.

He has had dealings with Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, US President Barack Obama and the former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over the years.

Married three times, he divorced his second wife, Anna, after 32 years together and tied the knot with TV executive Wendi Deng in June 1999.

Mr Murdoch has always put his business interests first.

He has taken huge gambles and created whole new industries.

In the process, his opponents claimed, he manipulated governments, lowered standards and sidestepped regulations, to become the world's first truly global media mogul.

He was stridently anti-monarchist in his views, rejecting the hereditary principle.

Yet his sons Lachlan and James are primed to take up the reins of power in the Murdoch dynasty.

In 2010, he was ranked the 13th most powerful person in the world in a list compiled by business magazine Forbes.

Thought to be worth around $6.3 billion, he was ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world in 2011.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When media mogul Rupert Murdoch closed Britain's biggest newspaper, the News of the World, in July 2011 - after it became mired in allegations of phone hacking - he had hoped the move would draw a line under the scandal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Level and IB > > Media ownership and control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sociology of the mass media: Media forms, ownership and control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A presentation on the sociology of mass media; media forms, ownership and control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After studying this section, you should be able to understand:

trends and patterns in ownership and control of a range of mass media

the theoretical perspectives on the relationship between ownership and control of the media

Trends in ownership and control KEY POINT - Recent trends in media ownership and control suggest that the number of companies controlling global mass media has significantly shrunk in recent years. Bagdikian (2004) notes that in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the USA, but by 2004 media ownership was concentrated in seven corporations.
Curran (2003) notes that ownership of British newspapers has always been concentrated in the hands of a few powerful 'press barons', e.g. in 1937 four men owned nearly one in every two national and local daily newspapers sold in Britain. Today, seven powerful individuals dominate the ownership of British national daily and Sunday newspapers.

The content of commercial terrestrial television is mainly controlled by one company, ITV plc, whilst access to satellite, cable and digital television in Britain is generally controlled by two companies - News Corp, (owned by Rupert Murdoch) which owns BSkyB, and Virgin Media (owned by Richard Branson).
Global conglomeration KEY POINT - The major difference in media ownership and control compared with forty years ago is the movement of media corporations into the global marketplace. The major media companies are now global conglomerations - transnational corporations (TNCs) with a presence in many countries.
Horizontal and vertical integration
Ownership and control of the mass media is a complex business as the following examples illustrate. Some media companies are characterised by horizontal integration or cross media ownership - this refers to the fact that global media corporations often cross media boundaries and invest in a wide range of media products. NewsCorp, for example, owns newspapers, magazines, book publishers, terrestrial and satellite television channels and film studios in several countries.

Some media companies have focused on increasing economic control over all aspects of the production process in order to maximise profits, e.g. film corporations not only make movies, but distribute them to their own cinema chains. This is referred to as vertical integration.

Diversification, synergy and technological convergence
Some media corporations are not content to focus on media products, but have diversified into other fields. The best example of this is Virgin which began as a music label and record shop chain, but has expanded into a wide range of products and services including cola, vodka, banking, insurance, transport, digital television, cinema and wedding dresses.

Media companies often use their very diverse interests to package or synergise their products in several different ways, e.g. a film is often accompanied by a soundtrack album, computer game, ring tone or toy action figures. A company may use its global interests to market one of its own films through its television channels, magazines and newspapers in dozens of countries at the same time.

Technological convergence is a recent trend which involves putting several technologies into one media product. Companies that normally work in quite separate media technology fields are joining up or converging in order to give customers access to a greater range of media services across technologies such as interactive television, lap-tops, MP3 players and mobile phones.
Theories of media ownership and control KEY POINT - Doyle (2002) suggests that examination of ownership and control patterns is important for two reasons.

All points of view need to be heard if society is to be truly democratic.

Abuses of power and influence by elites need to be monitored by a free media.

Doyle argues that too much concentration of media ownership is dangerous and unhealthy because the media have the power to make or break political careers and have a considerable influence over public opinion.

The pluralist theory of media ownership
Pluralists argue that media owners are generally responsible in the way that they manage information because media content is mainly shaped by consumer demand in the marketplace. They therefore only give the buying public what they want. Moreover, editors, journalists and broadcasters have a strong sense of professional ethics which act as a system of checks and controls on potential owner abuse of the media.

Pluralists suggest that the mass media are an essential part of the democratic process because the electorate today glean most of their knowledge of the political process from newspapers and television. Pluralists argue that owners, editors and journalists are trustworthy managers and protectors of this process.

Furthermore, pluralists argue that media audiences are the real power holders because they can exercise the right to buy or not to buy. If they did not like the choices that media owners are making available to them, or if they suspected that the media product was biased, such audiences would respond by not buying the product. The media, therefore, supply what the audience wants rather than what the owner decides. If some viewpoints have a greater range of media representing them, this is not necessarily biased. It merely reflects what the audience wants or views as important.

Pluralists also argue that concentration of ownership is a product of economic rationality rather than political or sinister motives. It is driven by the need to keep costs low and to maximise profits. Globalisation too results from the need to find new audiences rather than from cultural imperialism.

Pluralists argue that it is practically impossible for owners to interfere with the content of newspapers and television programmes because their businesses are economically far too complex for them to regularly interfere in the day-to-day running or the content.

Public service broadcasting
Pluralists point out that a significant share of the media market in Britain is taken up by public service broadcasters (PSB), i.e. media outlets controlled by the state such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC has a legal obligation to inform, to educate and to ensure that all programming is pluralistic and diverse, i.e. that all sections of society are catered for. Pluralists argue that PSB is impartial and objective, and balances out any potential bias in the private sector.

Pluralists note that the power of media owners is also restricted by state, or government, controls, e.g. in some societies, owners are not allowed to own too much media or different types of media. Many countries also have crossownership rules preventing people from owning more than one type of media. Furthermore, newspapers, television and radio in Britain are subject to legal controls and rules imposed on them by The Press Council and the Office for Communications (Ofcom).

Media professionalism
Pluralists stress that the professionalism of journalists and editors also constrains the power of owners. They argue that journalists are fierce in their pursuit of the truth and consequently they have too much integrity to be biased regularly in favour of one particular perspective. Investigative journalism also has a good reputation in uncovering abuses of power and corruption among the ruling elite.

The Marxist critique of media ownership and control
Marxists argue that the economic system of Britain, i.e. capitalism, is characterised by great inequalities in wealth and income which have been brought about by the exploitation of the labour power of the working classes. Marxists believe that in order to legitimate and reproduce this system of inequality, the capitalist class uses its cultural power to dominate institutions like education and the mass media and transmit ruling class ideology. The function of these agencies is to socialise the working class into accepting the legitimacy of the capitalist system and capitalist ideas. Consequently, Marxists argue working class people experience false class-consciousness - they come to accept that capitalism is a just system that benefits all social groups equally. They fail to see the reality of their situation that they are being exploited by a system that only benefits a powerful minority.

The media and ideology
Marxists believe that media owners (who are members of the capitalist elite) use their media outlets to transmit ruling class ideology. Miliband (1973) argued that the role of the media is to shape how we think about the world we live in and suggested that audiences are rarely informed about important issues such as inequalities in wealth or why poverty persists. The capitalist system is rarely criticised or challenged. Instead, Marxists suggest that owners shape media content so that only 'approved' and conformist views are heard.

Tunstall and Palmer (1991) suggest that governments are no longer interested in controlling the activities of media owners because they need their support to either gain power or hang onto it.

Evidence for the ideological nature of ownership and control
Marxists are suggesting that media owners, wealth holders and the political elite are united in some sort of ideological conspiracy to brainwash the general population. However, it is almost impossible to scientifically gather empirical evidence that supports this hypothesis. Sociologists generally only have anecdotal evidence to confirm their suspicions that concentration of media ownership is damaging democracy.

However, Curran's (2003) detailed systematic examination of the social history of the British press does suggest that the evidence for owner interference in and manipulation of British newspaper content is strong. Curran notes that in the period 1920-50 press barons openly boasted that they ran their newspapers for the express purpose of propaganda that reflected their political views. Curran points out that even when engaged in investigative reporting, the majority of newspapers in Britain have supported the Conservative Party.

Curran also notes that the period 1974-92 saw the emergence of Rupert Murdoch. However, Curran rejects the idea that Murdoch is part of a unified capitalist elite but acknowledges that Murdoch's newspapers are conservative in content and strongly supportive of capitalist interests. He argues Murdoch's motives are economic rather than ideological in that Murdoch believes that right wing economic policies are the key to vast profits.

Curran's analysis of British newspapers suggests that both pluralist and Marxist theories may be mistaken in the way they look at media ownership. He argues the pluralist view that media owners do not intervene in media content is evidentially false. Curran argues that since 2000 there has been even greater intervention by owners such as Murdoch. However, Curran disagrees with Marxists about the motive for this. He notes that the actions of media owners are not collectivised, rather they pursue their economic goals in a ruthlessly individualised way in an attempt to obtain a bigger share of the market than their capitalist competitors.
The Glasgow University Media Group KEY POINT - The Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG) suggests that media content does support the interests of those who run the capitalist system. However, this is an unintended by-product of the social backgrounds of journalists and broadcasters rather than a conscious capitalist conspiracy. The GUMG points out that most journalists working for national newspapers, television and radio tend to be overwhelmingly male, White, and middle class, e.g. 54% are privately educated.
The GUMG claims that these journalists and broadcasters tend to believe in middle-of-the-road (consensus) views and ideas because these are generally unthreatening. Journalists believe that these appeal to the majority of their viewers, listeners and readers. Ideas outside this consensus are viewed by journalists as 'extremist'. People who hold these opinions are rarely invited to contribute their views in newspapers or on television, or if they are, they are ridiculed by journalists.

The GUMG argues that these journalists are not motivated by a desire to defend capitalist interests. Media companies are profit-making businesses. Those who commission and plan programmes, or decide newspaper or magazine content, usually play safe by excluding anything that might offend or upset readers or viewers. Losing several thousand readers, or viewers, because they were offended by 'extreme' views and potentially losing millions of pounds in revenue and profit is too much of a risk.

Barnett and Weymour argue that such decisions have had a negative cultural effect in the sense that education, information and news have been increasingly sidelined. They compared television schedules in 1978, 1988 and 1998 and argued that the evidence suggests that television in Britain has been significantly dumbed down, e.g. the number of one-off dramas and documentaries has halved, while soap operas and cheap reality shows have increased fivefold. There are also now more repeats and cheap American imports. Time allocated to news programming has fallen dramatically, and more time on serious news programmes is devoted to celebrity news and human interest stories. Barnett and Weymour note that even the BBC is succumbing to these commercial pressures. Furthermore, they conclude that despite having hundreds of television channels, we do not have more choice, just more of the same thing.

Agenda setting
The result of this journalistic consensus, argues the GUMG, is that the media set the agenda and decide what issues are discussed by society and which ones are not. This is known as agenda setting. The GUMG argues that the media consequently present society with a fairly narrow agenda for discussion. Agenda setting therefore results in cultural hegemony. The basic principles of capitalism - private enterprise, profit, the free market and the rights of property ownership - dominate media content and are presented as 'normal' and 'natural'. There is actually little choice for audiences in that there is no radical alternative to the mainstream newspapers and dissenting views on subjects like the monarchy are rarely presented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ownership and control of the media | a2-level-level-revision, sociology, mass-media-0, ownership-and-control-media | Revision World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After studying this section, you should be able to understand: trends and patterns in ownership and control of a range of mass media the theoretical perspectives on the relationship between ownership and control of the media Trends in ownership and control

# data[].attributes.headline
Section 2: Trends in ownership and control of the mass media

# data[].attributes.subject
Section 2: Trends in ownership and control of the mass media

# data[].attributes.headline
Section 1: Introduction to the mass media 

# data[].attributes.subject
Section 1: Introduction to the mass media 