A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
What do you think is a more important regulatory role for government: regulating content or industry structure?
I think the more important regulatory role for the government is regulating industry structure. Currently, the government regulates ownership of media outlets to ensure that no one broadcaster monopolizes the market. This is extremely important because if one broadcaster monopolizes the market then the audience is not receiving a variety of messages and is rather just viewing/listening to one opinion and one message. This is not enough information for one to make an informed decision.
This is called media consolidation and an excellent example of this is Disney who owns ABC and ESPN along with a host of other channels.
Media consolidation is not competitive and it causes the restriction or manipulation of news coverage, again hindering American citizens from being accurately informed on national and global issues.
Like Lizzie, I also think that a more important regulatory role for the government is regulating industry structure. It seems like the industry does a good enough job of regulating itself in terms of content as studios and networks will give the green light only to texts that they feel will be profitable, and profitable things tend not to be overly obscene and indecent. Government intervention in regulating content would most likely limit and constrain the industry far too much and the public would suffer as we wouldn’t be able to see our shows with the relatively obscene or indecent content that we currently enjoy.
A personal example of this is that one of my favorite television shows is The Walking Dead, and gore and brutality are essential aspects of the show. Without those elements, the show wouldn’t be as intriguing and captivating as it is and I would most likely stop watching the show. Therefore, the industry would not only be hurt by governmental regulation, but we would be hurt also as a media-loving public. I believe that it is far more important for the government to regulate industry structure to prevent certain conglomerations from becoming too powerful and like Lizzie said, ensure that no single broadcaster monopolizes the market.
In terms of a regulatory role for government, industry structure is more important. I think that there should be far less regulation from the government in terms of the creative content that is published to the public. I think that if something ever goes too far or is too outrageous, the people will speak up and say so. With the amount of technology we have today, everyone has a voice, and everyone will make sure that it's heard.
I know that this point has already been made, but I also agree with Lizzie and McKenzie. The point that Lizzie makes is spot on in that media serves the public because it more than often, if not always, has something on for everyone. If the government allowed media structure to operate entirely on its own with no regulation, I believe that there would, without a doubt, be monopolies and media would lose variety.
The industry seems to regulate itself in order to prevent governmental intervention, because in the end, that could result in limited profits.
When I think about the industry regulating itself, I think of my favorite show, "Pretty Little Liars." I know that in class it was said that the show increased in its explicitness because it was finding its demographic, but part of me also believes that it was slowing into showing content that may be considered too racy for a channel like ABC Family. If this is the case, I think this is a good example of self regulation of content.
As most people here have already said, I think it is more important for the government to regulate industry structure rather than content. If the FCC focuses more on content, it will be easier for monopolies to start forming at the price of variety. From what has already been said, monopolies will start broadcasting narrow and singular messages, but the media's most fundamental intention is to serve the public, meaning that monopolies are not wanted.
I think content is a very difficult thing to regulate because of the First Amendment and censorship, which I think is why it would essentially be more beneficial for the FCC to improve industry structure. I also think that media industries also do a good job of regulating their own content. Profits are the driving force in terms of what shows are given the go ahead to be released on the air and which will not. Honestly, I feel like it should be up to the parents/consumers to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what is not. Shows and movies, like Game of Thrones for example, on HBO are probably not the most appropriate for little children but HBO is also not trying to aim their target audience to the children demographic.
Like Vierra said, I agree with Pretty Little Liars becoming less racy because abcFamily is a channel for families to enjoy together. I don't necessarily agree with it changing because of the demographic because content-wise, the show was never intended for little kids or children really- it deals with murder, sex, violence, kidnapping, LYING. I think the demographic was more for teenagers and young adult girls and I don't really think that much has changed.
I think that regulating industry structure is more important regulatory role for government. Media consumers and media industries themselves regulate the contents. It means that media industries self-regulate the contents by themselves not to get complained about the contents by media consumers or groups of audiences. However, media consumers don’t complain about media industries’ structure. For instance, issues relating with media oligopoly, which is the consequence of pursuit of profit, have to be regulated by government, which administers the structure of every institution of nation and has right to decide laws.
Like everyone else has previously stated, I believe that regulating industry structure is more important for the government to regulate. The First Amendment makes it very hard to justify regulating content and censorship. As Varraveto mentioned, the media is driven by profit. Their mandate is to make money. To achieve this, networks will produce content that is received well by the audience.
By regulating industry structure, the government can prevent monopolies from forming. Stopping these monopolies from forming creates a more diverse and competitive market.
I think it is more important for the government to regulate the industry structure. By keeping the structure in check, the government can help prevent monopolies, like in the Paramount case, which results in a less diverse array of media received by consumers. The content regulations put on by the FCC certainly are important. However, if the government starts getting too involved, it could hinder the creativity of content creators. I think the self-regulatory measures of content creators, with the FCC stepping in when necessary, is a good model for US media.
I think it is more important for industry structure to be regulated. As many of my peers have pointed out, a monopolization of the market could potentially result in a homogenization of programs. With a competitive market, we are able to see different types of programs that suit many different tastes. I think that if content was regulated, we would not have as much interesting content available for viewing. Media companies would be afraid to put out content that might be considered controversial and have a huge backlash. Shows like Modern Family might not have appeared on our screens. By making sure that there is at least some diversity in the media industry structure, there is more content available for people to consume.
I agree with many of the comments and think that industry structure regulation is more important than content regulation. I think that structure regulation prevents monopolization and leads to more creativity and diversity in the media. Even though content regulation is important, companies do a lot of self-regulating and make decisions based off of choices that will result in the most profit. For example, a show might choose on its own not to show obscenity and indecent content, because it most likely wouldn't be tolerated by the public and lead to a low viewership. Ultimately, it is important that monopolies are prevented so corporations so that people are exposed to different media and have a variety to choose from.
Well I accidentally addressed my answer to this question in the last question... I think it is more important to regulate structure than content. If we want to protect the minority in our democratic system then the best way to do that is to make sure everyone has access to getting their voice heard and for everyone to have equal access to these outlets. Backtracking to the last question, clearly the government does not do a great job or regulating industry structure as media consolidation, meaning companies like Disney can still own a host of other channels. If the government does not regulate industry structure than democracy will be at risk and probably even more so than the obvious content regulation because one company will be able to discretely broadcast their views in ways that make them normalized into culture and more difficult to pick out.
I agree that the more important role for the government is regulating industry structure.
In my opinion, it is in the hands of the stations themselves to control content. The audiences themselves are the best regulators of content because they are quick to voice their opinions when content is either inappropriate or simply not entertaining enough. The stations create content in order to please their audiences, so it is in their hands to reshape the content to make it both interesting and appropriate.
The government should focus on regulating industry structure in order to ensure that no one monopolizes the market. This is something that audiences are often unaware of. It is necessary to keep an eye on this so that the content isn't all coming from one source, and therefore biased.
It seems to me that my opinion has been exhausted at this point but I too believe that a more important regulatory role for the government is industry structure. It seems to me, and it seems others agree, that most of the industry does a fine job at regulating itself. Each part of the industry has come up with a system that seems to work for them and I don't think there needs to be more government involvement. I do however feel that government presence is necessary when it comes to regulating industry structure. Their involvement in this area allows for the industry to remain on a fair and level playing field where monopolies are avoided and where no one company can become all powerful.
This seems to be already pretty unanimous, but I would have to agree with the rest of the group. I think that the government is best suited to regulate structure. I think that government should not have as much control over content—that is the role of the industry and the public; the consumers who regulate by responding to material. Government regulation is relatively incidental via the FCC, so it had impact on content in any event. However, I think that the government should be influential in structural regulation. The fact that certain companies in the media industry are basically oligopolies or the closet things we have to monopolies means that they have a lot of license and need some checks and balances by a regulating power. We don't want total consolidation of ownership and we probably don't want the reality of what could happen if ISPs had total control over broadband use. Government regulation could at least provide an extra check over companies that may have too much power.
I would have to say regulating structure because content is safe under creative freedom and speech . This doesn't mean there is absolute,y no rules, because there is a structure that each station and network abides by due to ownership and most common viewer's discretion/indecency. The FCC seems to do a fine job managing and/or watching over the airwaves, and industry companies do a good job for the most part follow regulation because there is such a want for profit, which is controlled by the amount of viewers, ratings, etc.
Just to spark up a little debate against everyone who has been saying industry structure is more important, I would have to disagree with everyone supporting industry structure over media content regulation. If media content were not regulated with as much enforcement, then some viewers would start to file more complaints about all the profanities and obscenities that are broadcasted. I think that as college students, we do not believe that the growing amount of obscenities and profanities allowed over broadcasted television is a problem, but there are other demographics that would definitely think otherwise including the more formal older generation as well as some parents of young children. With media content not having strict regulation, certain companies in the industry who test the water with raunchier content may have to stop broadcasting these certain shows that generate revenue, potentially causing these companies to shut down which will increase the likelihood of the creation of a monopoly, which everyone here seems to not want.
I believe regulating industry structure is more important for the government than regulating content. In a media industry protected by the first amendment, it is hard for the government to regulate content. Content in controlled by the media industries which in turn is controlled by profit. The advertisers and consumers generate profit for the industries, therefore, we the people are pretty much in control of regulating the content. We pay for and use the media content we wish to, and ignore the stuff we don’t. In a free market system the content regulates itself. However, if the media industry becomes too monopolized there will be no competition and the control over content is lost. A single media entity could make whatever is wants and we would either pay for it or not. Therefore, it is important for the government to regulate the industry structure to prevent a monopoly over the system.
As everyone else pretty much has said, I believe that industry structure is the more important one to regulate. The media is a for-profit business. Because of this they self regulate their own content to assure that they make the most money and keep the most viewers happy. This in turn, works pretty well for the most part. It is the industry structure that needs to be regulated for the same reason. Since companies are always looking to grow and expand, there needs to be regulation over how much of the market a company to own. This way, competition stays between businesses and prices are maintained at a level that the public can still enjoy.
I think it is more important for the government to regulate industry structure. I think looking at the big picture like this will trickle down and help make changes on a smaller level later down the road. If the government is able to regulate industry structure they can enforce more of a free market and encourage competition amongst more companies, rather than leaving a few major companies to own such large quantities of the market. I agree with what mckenzie said, about how the industries already do a good job of regulating content themselves. An example of this, which I didn't know until our class discussion last week, was movie ratings. I didn't realize that it wasn't an actual legal law that forbid certain ages from seeing movies, instead the movie theaters follow the ratings guidelines for their own benefit and is down throughout the country, making the playing fields very fair amongst movie theater companies alike. I think our countries time and energy would be better spent on bigger issues like industry structure that will hopefully encourage change after initial involvement by the government.
19 comments:
I think the more important regulatory role for the government is regulating industry structure. Currently, the government regulates ownership of media outlets to ensure that no one broadcaster monopolizes the market. This is extremely important because if one broadcaster monopolizes the market then the audience is not receiving a variety of messages and is rather just viewing/listening to one opinion and one message. This is not enough information for one to make an informed decision.
This is called media consolidation and an excellent example of this is Disney who owns ABC and ESPN along with a host of other channels.
Media consolidation is not competitive and it causes the restriction or manipulation of news coverage, again hindering American citizens from being accurately informed on national and global issues.
Like Lizzie, I also think that a more important regulatory role for the government is regulating industry structure. It seems like the industry does a good enough job of regulating itself in terms of content as studios and networks will give the green light only to texts that they feel will be profitable, and profitable things tend not to be overly obscene and indecent. Government intervention in regulating content would most likely limit and constrain the industry far too much and the public would suffer as we wouldn’t be able to see our shows with the relatively obscene or indecent content that we currently enjoy.
A personal example of this is that one of my favorite television shows is The Walking Dead, and gore and brutality are essential aspects of the show. Without those elements, the show wouldn’t be as intriguing and captivating as it is and I would most likely stop watching the show. Therefore, the industry would not only be hurt by governmental regulation, but we would be hurt also as a media-loving public. I believe that it is far more important for the government to regulate industry structure to prevent certain conglomerations from becoming too powerful and like Lizzie said, ensure that no single broadcaster monopolizes the market.
In terms of a regulatory role for government, industry structure is more important. I think that there should be far less regulation from the government in terms of the creative content that is published to the public. I think that if something ever goes too far or is too outrageous, the people will speak up and say so. With the amount of technology we have today, everyone has a voice, and everyone will make sure that it's heard.
I know that this point has already been made, but I also agree with Lizzie and McKenzie. The point that Lizzie makes is spot on in that media serves the public because it more than often, if not always, has something on for everyone. If the government allowed media structure to operate entirely on its own with no regulation, I believe that there would, without a doubt, be monopolies and media would lose variety.
The industry seems to regulate itself in order to prevent governmental intervention, because in the end, that could result in limited profits.
When I think about the industry regulating itself, I think of my favorite show, "Pretty Little Liars." I know that in class it was said that the show increased in its explicitness because it was finding its demographic, but part of me also believes that it was slowing into showing content that may be considered too racy for a channel like ABC Family. If this is the case, I think this is a good example of self regulation of content.
As most people here have already said, I think it is more important for the government to regulate industry structure rather than content. If the FCC focuses more on content, it will be easier for monopolies to start forming at the price of variety. From what has already been said, monopolies will start broadcasting narrow and singular messages, but the media's most fundamental intention is to serve the public, meaning that monopolies are not wanted.
I think content is a very difficult thing to regulate because of the First Amendment and censorship, which I think is why it would essentially be more beneficial for the FCC to improve industry structure. I also think that media industries also do a good job of regulating their own content. Profits are the driving force in terms of what shows are given the go ahead to be released on the air and which will not. Honestly, I feel like it should be up to the parents/consumers to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what is not. Shows and movies, like Game of Thrones for example, on HBO are probably not the most appropriate for little children but HBO is also not trying to aim their target audience to the children demographic.
Like Vierra said, I agree with Pretty Little Liars becoming less racy because abcFamily is a channel for families to enjoy together. I don't necessarily agree with it changing because of the demographic because content-wise, the show was never intended for little kids or children really- it deals with murder, sex, violence, kidnapping, LYING. I think the demographic was more for teenagers and young adult girls and I don't really think that much has changed.
I think that regulating industry structure is more important regulatory role for government. Media consumers and media industries themselves regulate the contents. It means that media industries self-regulate the contents by themselves not to get complained about the contents by media consumers or groups of audiences. However, media consumers don’t complain about media industries’ structure. For instance, issues relating with media oligopoly, which is the consequence of pursuit of profit, have to be regulated by government, which administers the structure of every institution of nation and has right to decide laws.
Like everyone else has previously stated, I believe that regulating industry structure is more important for the government to regulate. The First Amendment makes it very hard to justify regulating content and censorship. As Varraveto mentioned, the media is driven by profit. Their mandate is to make money. To achieve this, networks will produce content that is received well by the audience.
By regulating industry structure, the government can prevent monopolies from forming. Stopping these monopolies from forming creates a more diverse and competitive market.
I think it is more important for the government to regulate the industry structure. By keeping the structure in check, the government can help prevent monopolies, like in the Paramount case, which results in a less diverse array of media received by consumers. The content regulations put on by the FCC certainly are important. However, if the government starts getting too involved, it could hinder the creativity of content creators. I think the self-regulatory measures of content creators, with the FCC stepping in when necessary, is a good model for US media.
I think it is more important for industry structure to be regulated. As many of my peers have pointed out, a monopolization of the market could potentially result in a homogenization of programs. With a competitive market, we are able to see different types of programs that suit many different tastes. I think that if content was regulated, we would not have as much interesting content available for viewing. Media companies would be afraid to put out content that might be considered controversial and have a huge backlash. Shows like Modern Family might not have appeared on our screens. By making sure that there is at least some diversity in the media industry structure, there is more content available for people to consume.
I agree with many of the comments and think that industry structure regulation is more important than content regulation. I think that structure regulation prevents monopolization and leads to more creativity and diversity in the media. Even though content regulation is important, companies do a lot of self-regulating and make decisions based off of choices that will result in the most profit. For example, a show might choose on its own not to show obscenity and indecent content, because it most likely wouldn't be tolerated by the public and lead to a low viewership. Ultimately, it is important that monopolies are prevented so corporations so that people are exposed to different media and have a variety to choose from.
Well I accidentally addressed my answer to this question in the last question... I think it is more important to regulate structure than content. If we want to protect the minority in our democratic system then the best way to do that is to make sure everyone has access to getting their voice heard and for everyone to have equal access to these outlets. Backtracking to the last question, clearly the government does not do a great job or regulating industry structure as media consolidation, meaning companies like Disney can still own a host of other channels. If the government does not regulate industry structure than democracy will be at risk and probably even more so than the obvious content regulation because one company will be able to discretely broadcast their views in ways that make them normalized into culture and more difficult to pick out.
I agree that the more important role for the government is regulating industry structure.
In my opinion, it is in the hands of the stations themselves to control content. The audiences themselves are the best regulators of content because they are quick to voice their opinions when content is either inappropriate or simply not entertaining enough. The stations create content in order to please their audiences, so it is in their hands to reshape the content to make it both interesting and appropriate.
The government should focus on regulating industry structure in order to ensure that no one monopolizes the market. This is something that audiences are often unaware of. It is necessary to keep an eye on this so that the content isn't all coming from one source, and therefore biased.
It seems to me that my opinion has been exhausted at this point but I too believe that a more important regulatory role for the government is industry structure. It seems to me, and it seems others agree, that most of the industry does a fine job at regulating itself. Each part of the industry has come up with a system that seems to work for them and I don't think there needs to be more government involvement. I do however feel that government presence is necessary when it comes to regulating industry structure. Their involvement in this area allows for the industry to remain on a fair and level playing field where monopolies are avoided and where no one company can become all powerful.
This seems to be already pretty unanimous, but I would have to agree with the rest of the group. I think that the government is best suited to regulate structure. I think that government should not have as much control over content—that is the role of the industry and the public; the consumers who regulate by responding to material. Government regulation is relatively incidental via the FCC, so it had impact on content in any event.
However, I think that the government should be influential in structural regulation. The fact that certain companies in the media industry are basically oligopolies or the closet things we have to monopolies means that they have a lot of license and need some checks and balances by a regulating power. We don't want total consolidation of ownership and we probably don't want the reality of what could happen if ISPs had total control over broadband use. Government regulation could at least provide an extra check over companies that may have too much power.
I would have to say regulating structure because content is safe under creative freedom and speech . This doesn't mean there is absolute,y no rules, because there is a structure that each station and network abides by due to ownership and most common viewer's discretion/indecency. The FCC seems to do a fine job managing and/or watching over the airwaves, and industry companies do a good job for the most part follow regulation because there is such a want for profit, which is controlled by the amount of viewers, ratings, etc.
Just to spark up a little debate against everyone who has been saying industry structure is more important, I would have to disagree with everyone supporting industry structure over media content regulation. If media content were not regulated with as much enforcement, then some viewers would start to file more complaints about all the profanities and obscenities that are broadcasted. I think that as college students, we do not believe that the growing amount of obscenities and profanities allowed over broadcasted television is a problem, but there are other demographics that would definitely think otherwise including the more formal older generation as well as some parents of young children. With media content not having strict regulation, certain companies in the industry who test the water with raunchier content may have to stop broadcasting these certain shows that generate revenue, potentially causing these companies to shut down which will increase the likelihood of the creation of a monopoly, which everyone here seems to not want.
I believe regulating industry structure is more important for the government than regulating content. In a media industry protected by the first amendment, it is hard for the government to regulate content. Content in controlled by the media industries which in turn is controlled by profit. The advertisers and consumers generate profit for the industries, therefore, we the people are pretty much in control of regulating the content. We pay for and use the media content we wish to, and ignore the stuff we don’t. In a free market system the content regulates itself. However, if the media industry becomes too monopolized there will be no competition and the control over content is lost. A single media entity could make whatever is wants and we would either pay for it or not. Therefore, it is important for the government to regulate the industry structure to prevent a monopoly over the system.
As everyone else pretty much has said, I believe that industry structure is the more important one to regulate. The media is a for-profit business. Because of this they self regulate their own content to assure that they make the most money and keep the most viewers happy. This in turn, works pretty well for the most part. It is the industry structure that needs to be regulated for the same reason. Since companies are always looking to grow and expand, there needs to be regulation over how much of the market a company to own. This way, competition stays between businesses and prices are maintained at a level that the public can still enjoy.
I think it is more important for the government to regulate industry structure. I think looking at the big picture like this will trickle down and help make changes on a smaller level later down the road. If the government is able to regulate industry structure they can enforce more of a free market and encourage competition amongst more companies, rather than leaving a few major companies to own such large quantities of the market. I agree with what mckenzie said, about how the industries already do a good job of regulating content themselves. An example of this, which I didn't know until our class discussion last week, was movie ratings. I didn't realize that it wasn't an actual legal law that forbid certain ages from seeing movies, instead the movie theaters follow the ratings guidelines for their own benefit and is down throughout the country, making the playing fields very fair amongst movie theater companies alike.
I think our countries time and energy would be better spent on bigger issues like industry structure that will hopefully encourage change after initial involvement by the government.
Post a Comment