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.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Mandates
So, imagine your are the president of a new country. Which mandate (public or commercial) would you want your media industries to follow? Why?
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If I was the president of a new country I would adopt the commercial mandate for media. While I do believe that the non-commercail model is a better way to represent the individual in sometimes a more unbiased take on things, I believe that the commercial model creates an industry that supports the economy in a more powerful way. The commercial model provides a platform for companies to advertise to customers. And while this can lead to a biased market, some forms of government regulation can help to regulate that while still allowing for a healthy economy.
I would want the media industries to follow a commercial mandate. I believe this would allow for a competitive market and the creation of diverse content. With more options on the market available for viewing, media companies would strive to make content that appealed to customer's interests. Although, there would be a few regulations to prevent obscene content. For example, children's programs wouldn't be allowed to have an exorbitantly high volume of violence, sex, and drugs.
I would implement the commercial mandate because it allows for the greatest margin of profit. It also keeps a safe yet flexible barrier to allow for creative expression. This would allow different interest groups to indulge in the content of their choosing while keeping a guidance for censorship and content for every demographic.
Though the commercial mandate seems to be more profitable and easier to implement, I'm not entirely sure it is the best option when thinking more critically of the "new country" aspect.
Considering that the public media approach directly serves the citizens is is presented to, I feel that it would be a strong force in establish union and connection for the individuals of the new country. At the same time, it is difficult to create programs for a large group of people in the sense that not everyone may find something to resonate with.
This problem, though, can also occur through the commercial approach considering that content in this mandate targets demographics, and the demographic of this newly developing country may not be well represented in commercialized media, which could result in upset with the decision makers of their country (AKA ME :( ). Additionally, the public mandate approach is funded by the public, which might make it difficult for a newly established country to allot money.
Though the commercial approach initially seems like the best choice, I think that there is a lot more to consider in both the short run and long run.
As of right now, I can't say for certain which mandate I would implement. I feel like there is an obvious answer, and that I am reading into it too deeply, but I feel that there are pros and cons with each mandate that should be carefully assessed based on the nature and conditions of the country's reason for establishment and demographic.
Thankfully, I am not in charge of any new country, nor will I be any time soon!
I would want the media industry to follow a commercial mandate. I think that this would be the best option because a commercial mandate encourages alternative points of view and competition for a thriving market. Although non-commercial focuses on communication as a public service, commercial allows private media institutions to have more freedom of expression. Many may argue that a commercial system may be too profit driven, I think that non-commercial media serves a particular interest group and not the general public, and can reflect the interests of the government. However, I do agree with Vierra that they both have pros and cons that make it a difficult choice.
Since we know that no medium in the US operates as a perfect free market and there is always government interference in some way, I'm tempted to lean towards the commercial mandate option. If I were the president of a new country, I'd try to make the most money while also keeping the creation of diverse content alive. The commercial mandate allows for this and can also provide content that we, as viewers, are most interested in ("selling eyeballs"). In a public mandate, the goal isn't about how many viewers we can gather but rather how much variation in content we can provide. I also understand that the media service would be fully for the citizens. As good as that sounds, I just don't think it's that simple. The commercial mandate has the ability to provide variation too, while also gaining profit and supporting healthy competition.
I agree with Vierra's comment about how difficult it is to choose one mandate over the other without seriously considering both sides (which would take a lot of research and time) but for now I am going to go with the commercial mandate. Maybe someone will make a really good point about the public mandate that will make me change my mind!
I think that normally I’d lean more to a commercial mandate, but exploring the benefits of a public one is pretty important. What everyone has said so far about the country being “new” is really important, and definitely something to take in. Having a commercial mandate makes a lot of sense, because you need a market to grow diverse and be healthily competitive—like Melinda and Nicolette said.
On the other hand, just by having a public mandate, a media organization is charged with giving the people of their country very diverse media as to meet the needs of (supposedly) every demographic. They are held to this especially because we, the citizens pay for this service directly. Of course this isn’t a perfect system, but it directly supports the people within a country because their mandate—their cause—is all about serving their audience. They measure their success by questioning whether or not the needs of the people have been served, which I think is a pretty great mandate as a viewer.
The book also mentions that most countries began with public broadcasting systems and then gradually moved to have mixed systems with commercial broadcasting. I think that beginning with a public system and then bringing in a commercial one would be much healthier for a country—I think it would allow the public and the impact of the media to assimilate and grow without exploding out of control.
Considering I am the president of this country, and not the dictator I was hoping I would, I suppose I would want to serve my loyal and loving public by collecting all of their money by law in the form of taxes and then use that to create noncommercial film, television, and radio. Of course, I don’t believe in sex because that’s totally wicked and evil so I would impose a bunch of really fun restrictions. Also only catholic rich white men will appear in my shows. Sometimes women are allowed, but we will pay them much less and they are only allowed to wear trendy knee length skirts. I think that my public will love this because they elected me so obviously we share the same set of values and beliefs, except for the people who did not vote for me, but they are idiots and obviously have extremely poor taste in the “arts”. Since all of my fellow classmates are Americans, which fundamentally means being in support of democracy, obviously I mean we’ve been taught that since the 1st grade! Come on! I am assuming that we all agree in the importance of freedom of press! My citizens are going to be so happy especially since I’ve created a wonderful system of programming for children that will indoctrinate them with our new countries set of totally awesome beliefs! I will meet my countryman’s’ need for education and base the success of my shows off how well it meets that. Everyone will be happy and nice because no one will ever have to pay for anything and we don’t have to worry about corporate interest dictating our values through hidden subtitles. After all, I am not trying to sell you anything! I am your beloved leader who just eliminated your Comcast bill! All hail president Kerri!
While noncommercial mandates prioritize the needs of citizens, they require financial support from the government. I would want my nation to operate under a commercial mandate. Commercial mandates favor a nation’s economy. I think a profit driven market inspires competition and improvement.
If I were the president of a country, I would try to incorporate a system of media that is similar to England. They have BBC which has a license fee paid per year that gives public programming to all that subscribe. They also offer commercial options through ITV and Channel 4 (the major commercial programming channels). Therefore, all people have accessibility to television programming, but others have the option to pay more for channels that they enjoy.
I believe that all people have a right to information that is unbiased and suits the range of demographics represented in each country, which is why I think a public mandate is absolutely necessary. This gives a diversified option for those who wish to view programming that pertains to them. In addition, all people have the right to hear national and world news because this information is absolutely vital to being an active member in society.
This is why I would use both commercial and public mandates.
Everyone seems to agree they would adopt the commercial mandates, but I agree with Paris that noncommercial mandates have some just as important benefits as commercial mandates. She opts to transition her country from one mandate to another: starting with public system and then brining in a commercial one. My approach would be slightly different. I think transitions can be difficult for countries and many people do not enjoy change. I would begin with a combined mandate system: commercial and non-commercial. This would offer individuals and organizations the freedom to be involved in television, but still promote competition and large companies to be involved in the industry. PBS and governmental mandates have assisted in the growth of our country on a knowledge level, but commercial mandates allow for business to make profit and produce media on a larger scale.
I agree with Paris and Lauren that it is necessary to remember the importance of a non-commercial model. This model directly serves the people.
For example, the FCC requires all public broadcast channels to air at least 3 hours per week of core programming for children. The content of the core programming must be designed to fit the educational needs of children. Without this E/I programming, our television channel schedules would be full of Spongebob Squarepants and Ninja Turtles. While there is nothing wrong with these shows - and while they certainly bring in the money - we need more educational programming for children, and the noncommercial model ensures that this programming will always be there.
There are so many industries in this world that have profit as the only goal. I personally believe that media should have other goals, including education and information. When I have a child, I will be more than willing to give tax money in order for my children to be served with E/I programming.
If I was the president of a new country, I would want to follow a public mandate. I think it is very important to explore the benefits of both commercial and noncommercial mandates in order to determine which would be best for my country. I believe that a public mandate actually allows for more diversity than a commercial mandate because they can better fit the needs of many different types of people. A commercial mandate system considers what the most valued consumers desire. what? what about everyone else??? commercial mandates strive on profits, which means that the media workers are looking for what would be a "hit". Well, in a public mandate, I think there is more opportunity for more diversity to fit the needs of more people, not just the "most valued". Having alternative content for media would be the measure of success.
In commercial mandates, money is how success is measured. Commercial mandates are all about which media industry profits the most from advertising, which is fine, but I would like to consider the consumer for a moment. Just because a media industry has money streaming in from advertisers does not necessarily mean that the consumers are actively taking in the advertisements. Let's be real here: how many people actually tune in to television commercials and Facebook ads. With the exception of the SuperBowl, it is more than likely that people who consume media will go away, or text, or go online somewhere, or better yet use sites like Netflix that have no commercials, instead of actually paying attention to what the advertisers are trying to sell to us. Also, in a commercial mandate, the advertising budget comes from the consumers! I know in a public mandate, the consumers still pays for it, but in return, the media system is meant to serve the people. I think a commercial mandate really only has themselves in mind, rather than the actual consumer.
Ok, I feel like I just went on some crazy rant. Overall, I think both types would be just fine, and there are different benefits for commercial and public mandates. But I am leaning over toward a public mandate because it is more diverse in my opinion and is less biased.
If I were the president of a new country I’d develop a hybrid mandate, public and commercial, for the media industries to follow. While both of them have their limitations, in a perfect world the two could work in harmony and eliminate their individual drawbacks. Where commercial mandates are undemocratic and reproduce inequality, noncommercial mandates would be democratic and spread the wealth to everyone. Everyone would need something basic, and deserves access to a variety of media that should serve the public good. This should include the news, etc. In addition, I believe there should be commercial mandates to push competition and provide material for niche populations that are willing to pay for it.
For the sake of the argument, I would disagree with the majority of the “presidents” here and go with the public mandate over the commercial mandate. Although the commercial mandate seeks to advertise products for a large quantity of viewers, the public mandate’s measure of success is keeping the audience happy by showing them what they want. As mentioned in the book, this could mean continuing to air a show that may not have a lot of viewers as more popular primetime shows. As president of this country, I would say that I am sure that a lot of students in the class had/has a television show that they personally enjoy, but has been discontinued after one or two seasons because it has not reached a wide enough audience. Implementing a public mandate would keep more people happy by continuing shows for all demographics of television viewers and would not be too much of a problem if the shows are simply moved to different stations in order to keep a balance of television shows for a wide range of viewers.
As president, I would choose to adopt a commercial mandate. Following a commercial mandate would promote competition and innovation. This would reflect in the economy, a crucial aspect to the well being of the country. I believe that the competitive and economical boosts would make a commercial mandate better for a new country than a non-commercial mandate.
This is not to say non-commercial mandates do not have their own strengths. I believe that public mandates represent the people better than the hegemonic content found within commercial mandates. Like anything in life, I believe there needs to be a balance. I would start with a commercial mandate to drive competition and boost the economy then transition to more of a hybrid model as Jacob stated.
If I were the president of this country I think I would go with the commercial mandate. As the president I think my biggest priority would be in maintaining a successful economy and the commercial mandate would better support this decision. I think by using the commercial mandate there is a better ability to make the largest sum of money while also maintaining a large variety of content. In this way, viewers can receive the content they desire, money can be made through advertisements and the industry can also thrive making the most possible money and serves the economy.
If I were the President of a new country I would make the media be under commercial mandate in order to increase competition and create a wide variety of content for my country to view. Hopefully different media producers will create a range of opinions that will allow the people of my country to see things from a wide point of views. Even though this is what is in place right now in the US, and people often just stick to watching what they believe to be "better" or "right", the citizens have the option to seek out other networks on television or other websites online to see what others people are saying. Even though the media in my country would be commercially mandated, I would give government sectors like the FCC more power to enforce the idea of diversity on networks. Just like the enforce how many hours of children's education content a network needs to air in a week (3 min), they would have the authority to create a minimum of amount of time that a network needs to address varying points of views on a topic. Networks like Fox news, and it's viewers, would be forced to listen to different arguments and hopefully create a more well rounded society as a whole.
If I were the president of a new country, I would like my media industries to follow commercial mandate in order to pursue profits, which make nation wealthy. It is clearer to evaluate their success than public mandate and every production has to compete each other. It pursues the customers’ need, makes high quality of productions, and activates the flow of customers’ money. Commercial mandate has more transparent and less argued contents than public mandate does because they might have some issues like hidden facts that people, who have high status and money such as governments and politicians, direct or help create the products. To have diversity in my country, commercial mandate is easier to fit the nation’s entire needs based on diversity of ethnic, religious, class and ages.
As president, I would choose to go with a commercial mandate, because it creates competition amongst creators and lead to more unique content. While I think that non-commercial may be good in terms of creating content for the good of the public, commercial allows for a more diverse range of media content since it isn’t just serving the government or coming from its point of view. While much of the intent in a commercial mandate will be focused around profit, I think there will be more of a chance for media that is more artfully done than in a non-commercial mandate.
23 comments:
If I was the president of a new country I would adopt the commercial mandate for media. While I do believe that the non-commercail model is a better way to represent the individual in sometimes a more unbiased take on things, I believe that the commercial model creates an industry that supports the economy in a more powerful way. The commercial model provides a platform for companies to advertise to customers. And while this can lead to a biased market, some forms of government regulation can help to regulate that while still allowing for a healthy economy.
I would want the media industries to follow a commercial mandate. I believe this would allow for a competitive market and the creation of diverse content. With more options on the market available for viewing, media companies would strive to make content that appealed to customer's interests. Although, there would be a few regulations to prevent obscene content. For example, children's programs wouldn't be allowed to have an exorbitantly high volume of violence, sex, and drugs.
I would implement the commercial mandate because it allows for the greatest margin of profit. It also keeps a safe yet flexible barrier to allow for creative expression. This would allow different interest groups to indulge in the content of their choosing while keeping a guidance for censorship and content for every demographic.
Though the commercial mandate seems to be more profitable and easier to implement, I'm not entirely sure it is the best option when thinking more critically of the "new country" aspect.
Considering that the public media approach directly serves the citizens is is presented to, I feel that it would be a strong force in establish union and connection for the individuals of the new country. At the same time, it is difficult to create programs for a large group of people in the sense that not everyone may find something to resonate with.
This problem, though, can also occur through the commercial approach considering that content in this mandate targets demographics, and the demographic of this newly developing country may not be well represented in commercialized media, which could result in upset with the decision makers of their country (AKA ME :( ). Additionally, the public mandate approach is funded by the public, which might make it difficult for a newly established country to allot money.
Though the commercial approach initially seems like the best choice, I think that there is a lot more to consider in both the short run and long run.
As of right now, I can't say for certain which mandate I would implement. I feel like there is an obvious answer, and that I am reading into it too deeply, but I feel that there are pros and cons with each mandate that should be carefully assessed based on the nature and conditions of the country's reason for establishment and demographic.
Thankfully, I am not in charge of any new country, nor will I be any time soon!
I would want the media industry to follow a commercial mandate. I think that this would be the best option because a commercial mandate encourages alternative points of view and competition for a thriving market. Although non-commercial focuses on communication as a public service, commercial allows private media institutions to have more freedom of expression. Many may argue that a commercial system may be too profit driven, I think that non-commercial media serves a particular interest group and not the general public, and can reflect the interests of the government. However, I do agree with Vierra that they both have pros and cons that make it a difficult choice.
Since we know that no medium in the US operates as a perfect free market and there is always government interference in some way, I'm tempted to lean towards the commercial mandate option. If I were the president of a new country, I'd try to make the most money while also keeping the creation of diverse content alive. The commercial mandate allows for this and can also provide content that we, as viewers, are most interested in ("selling eyeballs"). In a public mandate, the goal isn't about how many viewers we can gather but rather how much variation in content we can provide. I also understand that the media service would be fully for the citizens. As good as that sounds, I just don't think it's that simple. The commercial mandate has the ability to provide variation too, while also gaining profit and supporting healthy competition.
I agree with Vierra's comment about how difficult it is to choose one mandate over the other without seriously considering both sides (which would take a lot of research and time) but for now I am going to go with the commercial mandate. Maybe someone will make a really good point about the public mandate that will make me change my mind!
I think that normally I’d lean more to a commercial mandate, but exploring the benefits of a public one is pretty important. What everyone has said so far about the country being “new” is really important, and definitely something to take in. Having a commercial mandate makes a lot of sense, because you need a market to grow diverse and be healthily competitive—like Melinda and Nicolette said.
On the other hand, just by having a public mandate, a media organization is charged with giving the people of their country very diverse media as to meet the needs of (supposedly) every demographic. They are held to this especially because we, the citizens pay for this service directly. Of course this isn’t a perfect system, but it directly supports the people within a country because their mandate—their cause—is all about serving their audience. They measure their success by questioning whether or not the needs of the people have been served, which I think is a pretty great mandate as a viewer.
The book also mentions that most countries began with public broadcasting systems and then gradually moved to have mixed systems with commercial broadcasting. I think that beginning with a public system and then bringing in a commercial one would be much healthier for a country—I think it would allow the public and the impact of the media to assimilate and grow without exploding out of control.
Considering I am the president of this country, and not the dictator I was hoping I would, I suppose I would want to serve my loyal and loving public by collecting all of their money by law in the form of taxes and then use that to create noncommercial film, television, and radio. Of course, I don’t believe in sex because that’s totally wicked and evil so I would impose a bunch of really fun restrictions. Also only catholic rich white men will appear in my shows. Sometimes women are allowed, but we will pay them much less and they are only allowed to wear trendy knee length skirts. I think that my public will love this because they elected me so obviously we share the same set of values and beliefs, except for the people who did not vote for me, but they are idiots and obviously have extremely poor taste in the “arts”. Since all of my fellow classmates are Americans, which fundamentally means being in support of democracy, obviously I mean we’ve been taught that since the 1st grade! Come on! I am assuming that we all agree in the importance of freedom of press! My citizens are going to be so happy especially since I’ve created a wonderful system of programming for children that will indoctrinate them with our new countries set of totally awesome beliefs! I will meet my countryman’s’ need for education and base the success of my shows off how well it meets that. Everyone will be happy and nice because no one will ever have to pay for anything and we don’t have to worry about corporate interest dictating our values through hidden subtitles. After all, I am not trying to sell you anything! I am your beloved leader who just eliminated your Comcast bill! All hail president Kerri!
While noncommercial mandates prioritize the needs of citizens, they require financial support from the government. I would want my nation to operate under a commercial mandate. Commercial mandates favor a nation’s economy. I think a profit driven market inspires competition and improvement.
If I were the president of a country, I would try to incorporate a system of media that is similar to England. They have BBC which has a license fee paid per year that gives public programming to all that subscribe. They also offer commercial options through ITV and Channel 4 (the major commercial programming channels). Therefore, all people have accessibility to television programming, but others have the option to pay more for channels that they enjoy.
I believe that all people have a right to information that is unbiased and suits the range of demographics represented in each country, which is why I think a public mandate is absolutely necessary. This gives a diversified option for those who wish to view programming that pertains to them. In addition, all people have the right to hear national and world news because this information is absolutely vital to being an active member in society.
This is why I would use both commercial and public mandates.
Everyone seems to agree they would adopt the commercial mandates, but I agree with Paris that noncommercial mandates have some just as important benefits as commercial mandates. She opts to transition her country from one mandate to another: starting with public system and then brining in a commercial one. My approach would be slightly different. I think transitions can be difficult for countries and many people do not enjoy change.
I would begin with a combined mandate system: commercial and non-commercial. This would offer individuals and organizations the freedom to be involved in television, but still promote competition and large companies to be involved in the industry. PBS and governmental mandates have assisted in the growth of our country on a knowledge level, but commercial mandates allow for business to make profit and produce media on a larger scale.
I agree with Paris and Lauren that it is necessary to remember the importance of a non-commercial model. This model directly serves the people.
For example, the FCC requires all public broadcast channels to air at least 3 hours per week of core programming for children. The content of the core programming must be designed to fit the educational needs of children. Without this E/I programming, our television channel schedules would be full of Spongebob Squarepants and Ninja Turtles. While there is nothing wrong with these shows - and while they certainly bring in the money - we need more educational programming for children, and the noncommercial model ensures that this programming will always be there.
There are so many industries in this world that have profit as the only goal. I personally believe that media should have other goals, including education and information. When I have a child, I will be more than willing to give tax money in order for my children to be served with E/I programming.
If I was the president of a new country, I would want to follow a public mandate. I think it is very important to explore the benefits of both commercial and noncommercial mandates in order to determine which would be best for my country. I believe that a public mandate actually allows for more diversity than a commercial mandate because they can better fit the needs of many different types of people. A commercial mandate system considers what the most valued consumers desire. what? what about everyone else??? commercial mandates strive on profits, which means that the media workers are looking for what would be a "hit". Well, in a public mandate, I think there is more opportunity for more diversity to fit the needs of more people, not just the "most valued". Having alternative content for media would be the measure of success.
In commercial mandates, money is how success is measured. Commercial mandates are all about which media industry profits the most from advertising, which is fine, but I would like to consider the consumer for a moment. Just because a media industry has money streaming in from advertisers does not necessarily mean that the consumers are actively taking in the advertisements. Let's be real here: how many people actually tune in to television commercials and Facebook ads. With the exception of the SuperBowl, it is more than likely that people who consume media will go away, or text, or go online somewhere, or better yet use sites like Netflix that have no commercials, instead of actually paying attention to what the advertisers are trying to sell to us. Also, in a commercial mandate, the advertising budget comes from the consumers! I know in a public mandate, the consumers still pays for it, but in return, the media system is meant to serve the people. I think a commercial mandate really only has themselves in mind, rather than the actual consumer.
Ok, I feel like I just went on some crazy rant. Overall, I think both types would be just fine, and there are different benefits for commercial and public mandates. But I am leaning over toward a public mandate because it is more diverse in my opinion and is less biased.
If I were the president of a new country I’d develop a hybrid mandate, public and commercial, for the media industries to follow. While both of them have their limitations, in a perfect world the two could work in harmony and eliminate their individual drawbacks. Where commercial mandates are undemocratic and reproduce inequality, noncommercial mandates would be democratic and spread the wealth to everyone. Everyone would need something basic, and deserves access to a variety of media that should serve the public good. This should include the news, etc. In addition, I believe there should be commercial mandates to push competition and provide material for niche populations that are willing to pay for it.
For the sake of the argument, I would disagree with the majority of the “presidents” here and go with the public mandate over the commercial mandate. Although the commercial mandate seeks to advertise products for a large quantity of viewers, the public mandate’s measure of success is keeping the audience happy by showing them what they want. As mentioned in the book, this could mean continuing to air a show that may not have a lot of viewers as more popular primetime shows. As president of this country, I would say that I am sure that a lot of students in the class had/has a television show that they personally enjoy, but has been discontinued after one or two seasons because it has not reached a wide enough audience. Implementing a public mandate would keep more people happy by continuing shows for all demographics of television viewers and would not be too much of a problem if the shows are simply moved to different stations in order to keep a balance of television shows for a wide range of viewers.
As president, I would choose to adopt a commercial mandate. Following a commercial mandate would promote competition and innovation. This would reflect in the economy, a crucial aspect to the well being of the country. I believe that the competitive and economical boosts would make a commercial mandate better for a new country than a non-commercial mandate.
This is not to say non-commercial mandates do not have their own strengths. I believe that public mandates represent the people better than the hegemonic content found within commercial mandates. Like anything in life, I believe there needs to be a balance. I would start with a commercial mandate to drive competition and boost the economy then transition to more of a hybrid model as Jacob stated.
If I were the president of this country I think I would go with the commercial mandate. As the president I think my biggest priority would be in maintaining a successful economy and the commercial mandate would better support this decision. I think by using the commercial mandate there is a better ability to make the largest sum of money while also maintaining a large variety of content. In this way, viewers can receive the content they desire, money can be made through advertisements and the industry can also thrive making the most possible money and serves the economy.
If I were the President of a new country I would make the media be under commercial mandate in order to increase competition and create a wide variety of content for my country to view. Hopefully different media producers will create a range of opinions that will allow the people of my country to see things from a wide point of views. Even though this is what is in place right now in the US, and people often just stick to watching what they believe to be "better" or "right", the citizens have the option to seek out other networks on television or other websites online to see what others people are saying. Even though the media in my country would be commercially mandated, I would give government sectors like the FCC more power to enforce the idea of diversity on networks. Just like the enforce how many hours of children's education content a network needs to air in a week (3 min), they would have the authority to create a minimum of amount of time that a network needs to address varying points of views on a topic. Networks like Fox news, and it's viewers, would be forced to listen to different arguments and hopefully create a more well rounded society as a whole.
If I were the president of a new country, I would like my media industries to follow commercial mandate in order to pursue profits, which make nation wealthy. It is clearer to evaluate their success than public mandate and every production has to compete each other. It pursues the customers’ need, makes high quality of productions, and activates the flow of customers’ money. Commercial mandate has more transparent and less argued contents than public mandate does because they might have some issues like hidden facts that people, who have high status and money such as governments and politicians, direct or help create the products. To have diversity in my country, commercial mandate is easier to fit the nation’s entire needs based on diversity of ethnic, religious, class and ages.
As president, I would choose to go with a commercial mandate, because it creates competition amongst creators and lead to more unique content. While I think that non-commercial may be good in terms of creating content for the good of the public, commercial allows for a more diverse range of media content since it isn’t just serving the government or coming from its point of view. While much of the intent in a commercial mandate will be focused around profit, I think there will be more of a chance for media that is more artfully done than in a non-commercial mandate.
Post a Comment