The ownership of media has a major effect on society today. It shows us only what major companies want to show us, so it does not allow us to see the different views of the world. Our media is being controlled by bigger authorities who allow us to watch certain shows on television and access different news sources. “Conditions of access to the media – the implicit and explicit rules governing who may and who may not distribute messages, the nature of the messages distributed, the terms under which messages may be received and by whom – are of vital political, social and cultural importance” (Media Ownership, n.d.). This means that our media is always controlled by a certain group. These groups have the power to control what we see in the media. This means that the media may only promoting a few certain beliefs, not the beliefs of everyone in today’s society. This will brainwash viewers into following these beliefs because we as individuals tend to believe that everything we see in the media is true. This makes us ignorant to the beliefs of other groups which is not good since Canada is a very multicultural country that has all different kinds of people who have their own views and opinions. The intent of this essay is to show why the government should reduce concentration of ownership of media because there is no freedom of expression, no diversity, and restrictions when it comes to this topic.
One reason why ownership concentration should be reduced is because it limits freedom of expression. So far, we already have restrictions on free speech such as regulations of market. “A regulated market is a market over which government bodies or, less commonly, industry or labor groups, exert a level of oversight and control” (Staff, I., 2017). Our rights our already limited, so limiting freedom of expression takes away more from us. If a certain network has its own beliefs, it will not share or follow the beliefs of theirs because it goes against their own. If this network has plenty of shows and programs, they will only be viewing one belief and that may not be the same as the viewers. It may be fair to some that these networks are allowed to only share their own beliefs because they own their channels, but “communication is a social process” (Hrynyshyn, D., 2018). This means that each individual is involved with what comes out of these shows because they are meant for people of society to see. “Individuals are products of society” (Hrynyshyn, D., 2018), and they should therefore be included in what is being communicated to them. If there is only one belief being discussed, the communication is one-sided which is not fair to the individual viewers. It is important for society to learn about other people’s beliefs because it allows them to understand why certain individuals think the way they think and it allows all beliefs to be free. There are many groups of individuals who feel marginalized because of the way the media portrays them. For an example, In the news we see terrorists that are mostly Muslim. This puts a bad image on Islam because they are seen as being a very violent religion. If the media were to show the positive things that Muslim people have done then they would not be framed as violent because viewers will see that terrorism is an act of an individual, not a religion. This would promote freedom of expression because the all aspects of Muslims would be expressed in the media instead of just negative aspects.
Another reason why ownership concentration should be reduced is because it limits diversity. Our media is not diverse because it does not show all sides to an argument or story. For an example, with a newspaper you can read about a war between two countries. The newspaper may side with one country because of their own beliefs. The reader may side with the other country. Since the newspaper is only talking positively about one country, the reader will not be able to hear about the positive things of their country, and may also read negative things about it because the newspaper is biased. It is very important for the media to become diverse because Canada is such a diverse country. It is unfair for a news channel to only promote Canadian beliefs because Canada is known to be understanding of the different cultures that we have in the country. There was a fairness doctrine that was “formulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required licensed radio and television broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest to their communities, including by devoting equal airtime to opposing points of view” (Stefon, M., 2017). This doctrine “was later abandoned” (Hrynyshyn, D., 2018), which is the reason why we have so much bias in the media today. If this doctrine still existed, we would be able to understand the different sides to a story instead of having negative views on opposing sides. Since there is bias in the media today, “choices for individuals may not be enough” (Hrynyshyn, D., 2018). “Bias can be successful in markets” (Hrynyshyn, D., 2018), but that only works for groups of people who have similar beliefs. Diversity is present in media also because as mentioned before if the network has a lot of programs, they would just be showing the beliefs of one group of people, not everyone as individuals.
The last reason why ownership concertation should be reduced is because there are too many restrictions. The “Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is an independent public organization that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications systems in Canada” (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 2011). An example of one the regulations of the CRTC is “No licensee shall distribute a programming service that the licensee originates and that contains anything that contravenes any law” (Legislative Services Branch, 2018). This may prevent a news channel from broadcasting a positive story about someone who went against the law for a good cause, or other similar stories. For an example, if someone was wrongfully accused of murder and there were protests that may have gotten a bit violent, then news would portray this story as a negative one because it involves the law being broken. This does not make the accused guilty, but viewers would have a negative feeling towards the person because of the news. “Regulations can tilt the playing field in one direction rather than another, creating a rigged game. New specialty channels are a prime example of how regulators can determine success or failure. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has the power to decide if new specialty channels are in the “must carry” category on basic cable” (Taras, D., 2015 p.87). This means that any channel can be cancelled by the CRTC if they do not follow the regulations. This could mean that an unbiased educational show for every audience member can be canceled and that prevent society from being informed about the many sides to a news story.
All in all, media ownership does more harm than good in today’s world. It covers up all the information that we can use to properly understand what is happening in society. As Nelson Mandela once said, “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”. If the Canadian government allows the reduction of concentration of ownership media, we would be able to understand and respect other individual’s views and beliefs. If this were to happen Canada would become a better place and there would be less negative experiences like racism and discrimination. With freedom of expression we are able to understand why people think the way they do. If there was more diversity, we would be able to hear more than one side of a story. And lastly, if there were less restrictions, we would be able to look at the positive aspect of a story and there would also be more shows for individuals to watch and learn. The media has a huge impact on society because it is what we turn to every day. When we wake up some of us may turn on the news or read the newspaper. On our way to school or work we may listen to the radio. On our way home, we may be on our phones looking at different news outlets that are provided to us. No matter we do, there is always a way that media reaches us whether it is intentionally or unintentionally.