The media company has played a significant role in the spread of information to the public. It has had an immense influence on the people in regard to the information that it spread to the general public. Many people began to believe the information that the media were spreading or providing them. As a result of this, people who owned the media companies started to influence the transmission of information. Additionally, the media started to get political interference due to power it had over the people. It is because of this they put in place the federal communications commission to regulate the media companies. In order to solve the problem of information biases by the media company, the FCC had to put in place a law to regulate the ownership of the media companies.
The regulation on the ownership of the media companies started as early in the 1920s when they began to note its potential influence on people (Katz and Lazarsfeld 16). At that time, the laws were not that strict against the ownership of the media companies. The FCC has powers as the regulating body, but its jurisdiction was not specified. These biases did not stop, and in 2003 the FCC introduced a new law that would regulate the ownership of the media companies. However, this law has been taken into court by several media owners since they have sited it as politically motivated (Croteau, and Hoynes 124). This has made the law be suspended until they implement it further. Additionally, the courts have also argued that the FCC does not have certain powers to dictate the ownership of the media owners.
There are six different laws that have been created for the purposes regulating the ownership of the media companies. One of the laws was created by the congress and is not subject to change or implementation. The other remaining five laws were created by the FCC, and they are subjected to change and implementation. The law that the congress created does not limit the media owners from owning as many media company companies as they want. The only limitation is that the no station should transmit to more than thirty nine percent of the media. The other laws created by the FCC are, one, media owners can own more than one television station, but they can never form a coalition or merger of any kind (Pritchard 5).
Two, in the local market no owner can own more than two stations in one local area. However, this law has two conditions attached to it. The first condition is that the signals of the two stations do not overlap one another. The second provision is that at least one of the stations has to be among the top four-rated station in the market. The third law is, a media owner can own a large number of radio stations in a large market and vice versa is true. The fourth is, a media owner could only own one or two television station depending on the market and a number of radio stations as stipulated by the law. The last law and the most controversial law of them all are no media owner can own a broadcasting station and a newspaper in the same common market (Pritchard 6).
In everything done in this world, there are always two sides of a coin. One of the sides is usually supporting the motion whereas the other opposing the motion. In this case, the motion is the different laws that have been created by the FCC. Therefore, the media owners are the ones who are opposing the laws while the FCC are the supporters of these laws. In each situation, the two sides are always expected to support their claims with concrete reasons. These reasons can revert the law if it is taken to court.
There are various reasons that led the FCC, supporters of these laws, in making them. One of the main reasons was bias. The news were no longer written or transmitted in the public interest. They were only transmitted in the interest of the media owners. This meant that the owners could dictate transmission to the public. Therefore, the owners had controlled the information the public was receiving thus corrupting their minds. Additionally, most of these media owners were politically motivated. They used the media as a form of campaign so that they could get votes in the seats that they were campaigning for. Moreover, the owners led the mass media in transmitting whatever they wanted to hear not what the public needed to hear. It is because of this reason the FCC decided to regulate the media in relation to their ownership, and supporting them.
Economically, the ownership of this media company is extremely vital. The FCC thought that ownership of these media associations will be economically vital because the owners might control information leading to destruction of the economic in their own interests. For instance, the owners of the media might change the economy by owning certain shares of a company. They may decide to spread a rumor of how the company is doing well so that the value of the shares can increase in value. This will increase the value of the shares that the owners own thus making them richer and yet the company might not be performing well. Therefore, the FCC thought that the owners might tend to destroy the economy through information. It is because of this reason they created the laws so that they can regulate the ownership of this information. Additionally, the FCC has continued to support the laws they have created using this reason.
In this case, the laws were created by the FCC for the purposes of diversity. If the media were to transmit information to the people, the information being transmitted is expected to be diverse. The problem is that when the media is being owned by one person, the information being transmitted will never be diverse. In this case, the FCC thought that when the media is being owned by many people there will be diversity in the information that is being transmitted. This is because different people have different wants; therefore, the different wants will lead to the diversity of information being transmitted to the general public. This means that information will be transmitted in accordance to the public interest.
On the other hand, the media owners who oppose these laws have their own reasons of opposing the laws. They state that the laws that were enacted by the FCC are prohibiting their businesses. To be in particular the law that states that there is no owner can own a broadcasting station one market. This is because most of the station already had ownership of the long before the law was enacted. Therefore, it will lead to lose. They have also stated that the political leaders control the FCC who would like their own stations to flourish. Lastly, they state that these laws have created unhealthy competition among the different media companies where some will benefit as the others make loses.
Therefore, the laws could be said that they have prohibited the media owners in the amount of station in which one owner can own. Additionally, they have prohibited the owners from trying to control the public interest of the people by transmitting biased information. On the other hand, this regulation laws have encouraged diversity in the information that is being transmitted to the public. This means that the information that is going to be transmitted is not subjected to biases thus it is under the public interest.
Recently, there has been a story about the hacking of the phone where a journalist was killed. The media giant Rupert Murdoch has been linked to several allegations. He is accused of controlling the information that is reaching the people. This means that he is using his media company to control the information that is being transmitted for his own interests instead of the public interests. For instance, in this situation, Murdoch has information about who hacked the phone system and yet he has kept the information from the public and the police, as well (Artinfo 2011). Additionally, Murdock is also using the media companies that he owns to against the laws that he feels will affect his interest. By this, it means that he is going against the public interests.
According to the above analysis, it is clear that there are no privately owned media that will at one time be able to transmit information that is not biased. The owners only transmit the information that will support their own personal interest. Additionally, the media owners are also affecting the economy with the information they are transmitting to the public. Moreover, they are also using the media as a political forum with the information they are transmitting to the public. It is because of these reasons the FCC has come up with laws to try and regulate the information that is being transmitted to the public. This is to make diversity in the information thus resulting in information that supports the public interests.