Money Talks

One of the ideas discussed in Reading 6 (I can't remember the author's name) is the reality that the people supplying the money have a direct say in the content of the tv show, news program, magazine, newspaper, radio station, etc. Lately, I have been listening to a radio station that is primarily listener-supported. This week was their annual membership drive, and consequently, every twenty minutes or so they would take a break from their usual programming and ask for money. This is extemely annoying, BUT it's a good reminder that the aspects of this station that most of its listeners value (the wide variety of news stories and viewpoints, the style and quality of the music, etc.) are only on the air because the listeners support these things financially. If the listeners were not happy with the station, they would stop sending their money, and the station would need to change it's content, find a different source of income, or go off the air.

By the same token, if a big corporate sponsor is pouring money into a media venue, that sponsor is going to want content that attracts the most consumers and sells the most products. The station, newspaper, etc. has to work to please the sponsor in order to continue to recieve the funding it needs.

This may or may not be good for the consumer. One of the problems with media conglomerates is that, not only are the numbers of options of sponsors decreasing, but these major companies are growing in power. The media can no longer decide what to give the public based soley on what the public wants; they must make their decisions with much more concern for what the sponsors want. I suppose you could argue that the sponsors and the general public want the same things, but I don't think that is always the case. (If it is, we're in more trouble than I originally thought!)