Assess The Impact Of Media Regulation On The Watchdogs

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” That quote from Malcolm X proves the necessity of regulations on the media. The media collectively has unfathomable power to bend and control the minds of the public. Just as the media has the role of being the watchdog over government; government too has a role in being a watchdog over the media. It is an essential and delicate balance that must be maintained in order to protect the public from big government and big business. When examining the history of regulation one can look at the development of radio and television and how regulations protected

One important example of how media regulation has changed is the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications Act of 1934 and led to a large amount of media consolidation, particularly in radio and television. The Communications Act of 1934 limited the number of stations a company could own and reduce the potential of media monopolization. The Act was created to address the needs of the telephone and radio industries; which compared to today were in their infancies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton, deregulated media and ultimately led to the formation of huge media conglomerates (Rodman 219). With numerous established companies in the media space the government did not worry nearly as much about media monopolization (NYU). However, the formation of media companies through mergers and acquisitions has led to fewer players in radio, television, and movies. Almost all major television channels, radio stations, cable providers, and movie producers are controlled by only a few corporations such as Disney, Comcast, and Time Warner. The centralizing of media hurts free speech, because it allows for fewer outlets for artists to be heard by the mainstream. Fortunately, the internet has helped combat this problem, but it is still worrisome that so few control so much. With fewer companies there is less competition and less competition drives up

The CSI effect is the change in the amount of murder convictions due to the television show CSI. After the show became a hit on television, juries began acquitting potential murderers because viewers of the show learned to trust DNA testing over everything else. Even in situations where it is apparent a murder took place because of witness’ testimony, weapons, or video surveillance; people still voted to acquit because DNA evidence was not conclusive (Rodman 243). The CSI effect shows the power media can have over people even to the point of acquitting murderers. The CSI effect shows that what Malcolm X said regarding media’s ability to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent is true. We need to understand the power of media and how few voices are really talking to us. This is why I support increased regulation of media in order to protect consumers. It is explained in the Radio Act of 1927 that broadcasters are to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” I think government should do what it has done in the past and maintain and increase valuable regulations that help the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” of all Americans (Rodman