top-rated free essay

Time Warner

Oct 08, 1999 1923 Words
Time Warner

In 1989, the largest Media Corporation was formed. The
integration of Time Inc. and Warner communications produced Time Warner, which in 1996 with the acquisition of Turner
broadcasting, regained it’s status from Disney as the largest media corporation in the world.
The company right now, with over 200 subsidiaries world-
wide, is becoming fully global with it’s profits from the USA falling, and it’s profits throughout the world rising. Globalisation is proving to be Time Warner’s major asset in beating other competition to the World market.

Currently, Time Warner has interests in many different
business fields. Music accounts for a large proportion of
its income, while not far behind are its cable systems,
entertainment, films, video and television holdings. But,
the company has also centred its resources and invested in the global media, producing programmes and channels for
countries around the world, which in turn has proven to be a very lucrative area of growth. Time Warner in general
has become a “major force in virtually every medium and on every continent”
So then, why should a company like Time Warner be a threat to the public, and something which all of us citizens
around the World should be aware of ? Isn’t Time Warner just a success of capitalism ? A successful company, which employs thousands of people and makes massive turnovers,
while at the same time advancing the cause of the global
market and promoting commercialism doesn’t seem like a thing of public concern. In the World village today, why
should we need thousand’s upon thousand’s of small independent company’s and tv stations and newspaper’s, when we could have ten large conglomerates who would control

everything from production to sales to distribution ? The
way in which thing’s have developed over the past ten years, that scenario or fiction might even become fact or
reality. So why should it bother the people of the World
?
To begin answering that question, we need to go back a
hundred years or so and look at the work of Karl Marx and
his interpretations of “socio-economic order produced by industrial capitalism” . Marx believed that the unequal distribution of wealth and the way in which the capitalist class controlled this wealth through the possession of raw materials, means of distribution and labour, enabled them

to make huge profits and further their interests. This in
turn control over production consolidated their position as the dominant class. As Marx saw it “…the owners of the new communication companies were members of the general

capitalist class and they used their control over cultural production to ensure that the dominant images and
representations supported the existing social
arrangements…” He proved his point at the height of the American Civil War, when he pointed out the connection
between the British newspapers insistence on supporting the South and the government in power. Marx realised that
there was profit to be made for the ruling class that owned many of the leading newspapers and in the interests of the Prime Minister as well.
So what does ownership of the means of cultural production have to do with concentration, oligopoly and vertical
integration ? In the process of answering that question,
we need to look at the terms involved. To maximise a
company profits the same company has to maximise its reach with the public. So, instead of owning only the sales of a product, the company owns the production and distribution
of that same product. To make it more simple, instead of
owning just a film, the media company owns the studio in
which the film was shot, the cinemas where people can go
and see the movie, the stores where people can go and rent the movie, the record company which releases the soundtrack and the stores which sell them, and the company which
produces all the essential memorabilia (such as T-shirts,
coffee mugs, calendars…). The list does not stop at
movies. Ownership can cover more important fields of
cultural production like newspapers, TV stations, satellite and digital broadcasters, book publishers’ etc. That process is known as vertical integration. Monopoly is when there is only one company that owns all the means and

oligopoly is when there are only a few companies that
compete between each other, squeezing out all other
potential competition. By explaining these terms we can
now go back to the point of ownership and who controls the media and what that essentially means for the public.
During the 1980s in the USA pressure from the government,
the World Bank and the IMF to deregulate and privatise
media and communication systems resulted in the rise of
oligopolys . The price the American public is paying now
is a media system spinning out of control in a hyper-
commercialised frenzy. Everything from sports to arts to
entertainment and children programmes is turning to full-
scale commercialisation, with every aspect of human life
carpetbombed. Breakfast talk shows, sitcoms and feature
films are “in”, while Classical concerts documentaries and educational programmes are “out”. On one hand there are the “critics of the critics” who insist that ultimately the audiences are the ones who decide what is shown on

commercial television. On the other hand there are the
critics who insist that powerful economic and political
interests use television as an instrument of control. Let
me elaborate.
As the competition grew stronger on the American media
market, the result was only a few media companies owning
all them means of cultural capitol. In the process, the
usual democratic expectation for the media, diversity and
ownership and ideas, disappeared as the goal of official
policy, and worse, as a daily experience of a generation of American readers and viewers. It must be understood that
the safest way to ensure diversity of opinion is the
diversity of ideas. Unfortunately, in America that
diversity has been sacrificed in the name of free market
economics, with the result of oligopolys, concentration and vertical integration. But what is most worrying, is what
that effect has had on the American democracy (And
democracy around the World). It is well known that the
media perform political, social and cultural roles in a
modern democratic society. They offer access to the
general public with information, public debate and a wide
range of opinions and debate on important issues. The
media also represents the views of the ruling party and the opposition, which is essential to a democracy. In turn, if media holds the central position in informing the
citizenry, then issues about ownership should also be
important because patterns of media ownership is a central determinant of media content. Now if only a few companies
own the means to distribute information, then diversity is affected, and effectively so is democracy. For decades
many Americans have believed that corporate ownership and
the dependence on advertising, does not effect the content because the people eventually “get what they want” and that journalistic integrity prevented certain biases. Now some

people are beginning to question those views. If a company like Time Warner owns practically everything, and shares
that wealth with only 5 or 6 competitors, then Time Warner has the ability to dictate the content that is most
profitable to them. The profit would obviously come from
more and more advertising, which would lead to less and
less non-commercial programmes. I perfectly remember, while I was in the USA a couple of months ago, watching the news, and the first thing the reporter said was “…Welcome to the nine o clock news sponsored by GODZILLA…”. In such an uncompetative market the public has little or no say what

so ever, because they might not like the ads but the ads
are profit and they stay. It is common knowledge that even little children are not spared, with commercials offering
Batman toys or Power Ranger figures every fifteen minutes
or so (The toy companies being owned by the media
oligopolys). At the same time not even journalistic
integrity is spared with their autonomy and ideological
diversity reduced making way for a more pro-business
direction. News broadcasting in the USA has been snatched
away from the journalists and handed over to the corporate chiefs and advertisers (Godzilla example). As you walk
into any news store today all you see are fashion, gossip, music and teeny magazines which are over half full of
adverts offering new images, smells and escapes from your
everyday life, while bookstores offer SAS, crime and love
interests. All this has reduced the significance of public service ­ of the notion that there is any purpose to the
media except to make money for the shareholders.
On a more global scale the same oligopolies have been
accused of “cultural imperialism”. Herbert Schiller explains his point by pointing out that instead of using
military force or repression as a way to influence a
country, the USA has used mass media as a weapon reaping
benefits for both the companies and the government. “…the easy availability of American movies, music and television programmes subtitled or dubbed in local languages has been drowning the cultural voices of their societies…” At the same time the US government and the large media firms have encouraged the way in which smaller media companys operate and manage their structure, to follow a more

“materialistic” approach. Specifically, including advertisements in their magazines and television
programmes. Inevitably this leads to consumption of
American products, which undermines the smaller countries
economic stability.
In Europe, a bit closer to home, intellectuals know fully
well that American programmes and films flood the airways
and magazines on a daily basis. So, to counter the reach
of the oligopolies, in 1990 the Ministers at the European
Council approved a £250 mil project called MEDIA, which
would develop the European media industry and offer its
products to the rest of the World, while at the same time
providing competition for the conglomerates.
What can be done to stem the tide then ? By establishing
non-profit and non-commercial media a lot of the problems
would be solved. In the UK for example, the BBC should be
helped in maintaining its role as a public broadcaster, and given more financial aid from the government. Advertising
could be controlled more vigorously and regulated,
particularly during children’s programming (As in Sweden). A more drastic approach would be the breaking up of the
vertically integrated oligopolies, and establishing more
competitive markets. In general, any change must strive to serve all of societies needs and interests, which includes audiences and broadcasters, and not only advertisers and
media moguls.
So, in the end are oligopolies, vertical integration and
concentration matters of public concern ? Of course they
are. Matters of ownership of the media and the means of
production, distribution and sales are too important to be ignored. In the interests of holding on to a healthy
democracy, diversity has to be achieved and maintained. As I have tried to show oligopolies and vertically integrated media industries are just as dangerous as state run
ministries that have a monopoly over information.
“Concentrated media power is political and social power”. Thankfully, the World hasn’t yet become like the latest offering from James Bond “Goldeneye”.

Cite This Document

Related Documents

  • Fox and Time Warner Merger

    ... 21st Century Fox was considering buying Time Warner in July. It is the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch’s, boldest bids. Murdoch “proposed an $80 million dollar takeover which would be the biggest one in history” (Merced). Time Warner, owns HBO, which in itself is valued at around $80 million, therefore, Fox did not calculate the other as...

    Read More
  • Comcast And Time Warner Cable Merger

    ... Comcast and Time Warner Cable Merger Haley Miller, April Brooks-Price, Heather Henley, Germaine Wright, and Anthony Young American InterContinental University Abstract Included in this paper the firms I the proposed merger are described thoroughly. Annual sales and extent of their operations are listed. The incentives to consoli...

    Read More
  • Aol Time Warner- What Went Wrong

    ...acquiring Time Warner through a complete stock deal to create the largest media company in the world. Not only was the merger the biggest ever in the media industry, it was also one of the biggest in the history of the corporate world. As per the merger agreement, AOL and Time Warner stock was converted to AOL Time Warner stock. AOL sharehold...

    Read More
  • Time Warner

    ...Time Warner Inc. Part 1 Time Warner Inc. is one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world it is only behind Walt Disney and News Corporation. The main areas of activity are film making, publishing and TV broadcasting. Time Warner combines subsidiaries like Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, Turner Broadcasting, through the ...

    Read More
  • Challenges at Time Warner

    ...CHALLENGES AT TIME WARNER Challenges at Time Warner An Assessment Study on the Impacts of Acquiring Fox News Abstract The purpose of this case study was to examine the impact of acquiring Fox News on Time Warner, Inc. The multi-faceted Time Warner merged with AOL in 2001, created a loss in value to both companies. Time Warner has ...

    Read More
  • Time Warner Analysis

    ...BUSINESS CASE ASSIGNMENT 1 Jie Tian Zhaopeng Li A. As part of strategic planning exercise, describe and analyze the vision and mission statements of Time Warner Inc. There is no explicit vision or mission statements on Time Warner’s website. But according to the description of vision and mission statements on class the “ABOUT US” st...

    Read More
  • Time Warner Case Summary

    ... The management teams were motivated by a desire to maintain corporate growth and increase shareholder value. Time felt that growth in the magazine business was limited and that video was the media of the future. Warner's cable operations would combine easily with Time's. Additionally, Warner had a leadership position in film, records, home ...

    Read More
  • AOL Time Warner

    ...1. In the AOL / Time Warner transaction, which party was the acquirer? It was structured as a MOE (Merger of Equals). However, after the transaction, the previous AOL shareholders owned 55% of the new company (“New Co”) so the industry analyst commented that AOL acquired Time Warner. However, the deal process (due diligence, merger agreeme...

    Read More

Discover the Best Free Essays on StudyMode

Conquer writer's block once and for all.

High Quality Essays

Our library contains thousands of carefully selected free research papers and essays.

Popular Topics

No matter the topic you're researching, chances are we have it covered.