Mass Communications: History and Review of the Profit vs. Duty Conflict

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Description
Analysis
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In accordance with the Radio Act 1927, the mass media attained the right of free speech, and was aimed to serve the public interest. Originally, this freedom of speech was used as the tool of entertainment, information about the latest events, sometimes as the tool of struggle of national minorities (direct serve of public interest), but soon, it also became the advertising tool. Since the first advertisement appeared in the mass media, the profit vs. duty conflict started escalating.

The responsibility to serve the public interest is essential to the “trusteeship” broadcasting paradigm. The trusteeship model is used to rationalize government control of the broadcasting sphere.

Description

First of all it is necessary to mention, that independent mass media is impossible, because of numerous reasons. These are the personal factor of the journalists, the sponsorship, the character of the events and others. The most essential for the current paper is the requirement of profit for paying salaries for the employees, maintaining and expanding the equipment base, for developing new projects (in order to attract the audience). Actually, the profit is required for the sake of audience, and as the commercial advertisement is included into the broadcasts in order to gain profit, this profit is finally spent to satisfy consumers’ (audience’s) requirements. Currently, nobody can doubtlessly state, that one can watch any TV show uninterrupted. This happens because of the advertisement, which is included into the broadcasting net in every 30-60 minutes (depending on the time and TV Company’s policy) (Cassata, 2007).

According to the reports by National Broadcasting Agency, TV companies got $ 8 to 10 billion of profit in 2007. Moreover, it is forecasted, that the income is going to increase up to 15% in 2008. The TV networks spend at least 20-25% of the income from advertisement for the development of new projects, and expansion of the equipment base. Simple calculation shows, that at least $2 billion are spent for the sake of the audience, and that means, that TV advertisement is inevitable, for the companies (Zeff, 2008).

Analysis

It should be emphasized, that in order to succeed in the TV sphere, the company management needs to keep the balance of satisfying the stakeholders and the audience. Stakeholders require their advertisement was broadcasted in the required time, for the required period, and with the required number of repetitions. They need to have the advertisement shown to their target audience. The audience, in its turn does not wish to watch the commercial ads, but wish the TV company developed, and broadcasted interesting TV projects, the latest movies and serials, etc. The projects need financial inflow, the license for broadcasting movies should be bought, etc. consequently, the audience is forced to watch the TV ads. TV Company management in its turn should keep the balance: if there are too much ads, it will lose the audience; if there are too few ads, the company will lose profit, and, consequently the audience.

The matter of choice also should be taken into account, when analyzing the profit vs. duty conflict. It means, that the audience should have the choice of what to watch. There is a huge number of TV channels and TV networks, which offer the content, required by particular categories of the audience. Admission to independent and assorted media outlets is significant for the national democracy, as the pleas court rightly distinguished in its control. That is why congressional omission over the pending Federal Communications Commission (FCC) creation of the rules will be so essential to the agency’s congressionally authorized quadrennial appraisal of local media possession regulations. Nevertheless, oversight and critique is not essential. Progressives must now provide a thoughtful and practical alternative to the FCC’s business-as-usual advance to media ownership.

Interpretation

The interpretation of the problem is generally made in the direction, which has been already discussed. It is claimed, that the conflict of profit and duty to serve the public interest is the balance, which is essential for serving this interest.

The fact is that, the very interpretation of the “public interest” concept in the mass media entails essential controversy. On the one hand, the public interest includes the following points: program diversity, quality reception, and “character” evaluation of licensees. These are the key demands of the broadcasting company, and it should be emphasized, that there is any mentioning of the lack of commercial advertisement.

On the other hand, there is a trusteeship model, which implies the application of the entrepreneurship approach for the development of the TV Company. Actually, this approach is mainly accepted by the cable TV Companies, and the Cable Act does not entail the “Public interest, convenience and necessity” stipulation. However, the cable TV Companies may afford not to include so much commercial ads to the broadcasting net, as frequently it takes the monthly fee, for providing high quality services. So, the price for getting rid of the advertisement (at least from the significant part of it) is the monthly fee, that can not be afforded by some stratums of the citizens.

The requirement to serve the public interest is stipulated in the huge numbers of the broadcasting policies. These policies are stated in the license agreements, TV broadcasting acts, Statutes of the TV companies. Nevertheless, it is necessary to have the joint.

Moreover, the matter of the public interest (in the media context) is the issue of political debates, however, anybody of the politics did not manage to solve the profit vs. duty conflict, which is discussed in the current paper.

Evaluation

The evaluation chapter should be started from the notion, that TV sphere is predominantly commercialized, as the private ownership is mostly interested in the profits, then in the popularization of some particular political or social idea, especially if it is used just to popularize some particular politician (i.e. not in the public interests).

Taking into account the business point of view, the TV sphere (media in general) is rather concentrated market, consequently, any stakeholder, who wishes to broadcast his advertisement will find the company, where to put the advertisement. Stakeholder is not interested in satisfying the public interests, but he seeks the target audience. The TV company management, in its turn, wish to get income, and put the ads into the broadcasting net, simultaneously satisfying the public interests (Friedrich, 2002).

The experiential evidence reveals that conventional mass media still controls the dissemination of news and information. Further loosing of the controlling regulations for the media ownership will cause the appearance of much more concentrated markets and consequently the reduced variety of news and data resources, as the concentration of the media market inevitably leads to the increase of the advertisement broadcasted.

Engagement

It is argued, that any conflict should be solved jointly. Broadcasters, who gain immense profits from this public resource, pay the community nothing in response for its use. The broadcasters who do not earn from the advertisement do not have enough resources to improve the quality and diversity of the broadcasting net. The loosing of the control regulations will cause the over concentration of the market, and the tightening of the regulations is not in the public interests. Consequently, this problem should be regulated only by the TV companies themselves. It is suggested, that the TV companies should create the alliance, based on the principle of satisfying the public interest, and appeal to the FCC in order to set the increased minimal cost of the advertising time. The companies and the audience will benefit from this decision, as there will be the decreased amount of the commercial ads, and the TV companies’ incomes would stay on the same level. The only difficulty is that it should be solved on the governmental level, and the companies would fail to create the alliance, as every has particular interests in particular spheres and regions, and will not wish to share this influence.

Conclusion

In the conclusion, it should be summarized, that the profit vs duty conflict will not be solved within the nearest time. The TV companies are obliged to search the balance between audience’s and stakeholders’ satisfaction, and create the ad policies, that firstly would not harm the public interest, and secondly – would allow to gain the necessary incomes.

References

Cassata, Mary B., and Molefi K. Asante. Mass Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Macmillan, 2007.
Friedrich, Carl J., ed. The Public Interest. New York: Atherton Press, 2002.
Zeff, Robbin. “Critical Literacy in a Digital Era: Technology, Rhetoric, and the Public Interest.” The Journal of Business Communication 43.1 (2008): 67

Click Here To Order Now!