Forum 2 critical thinking sample

Question one

Advantages of media concentration
Since the enlightenment period, capitalism has been the economic and political ideology adopted by many people, it encourages healthy competition in the media industry; hence, regulating prices, policies and uphold the practice of professionalism. It is also known that managing a media firm requires a high level of creativity (Biagi 23). A less concentrated media organisation usually achieves this requirement because exemplary ideas from the few owners can sustain the performance of the organisation. The power to control other subsidiaries and devising any workable strategy to ensure that stiff competition is managed requires few policy makers (owners).
A media firm owned by few entities does not experience conflicts of interest, which arise from varied opinion over a given policy, strategy or information. This also means that, the media, because of its level of concentration, would adopt few opinions. It would be advisable that the ownership of the media should be concentrated in few people because the media acts as the mouthpiece of the public.

Disadvantages of media concentration

A less concentrated media organisation is prone to take biased positions in informing the public or reporting about a given incidence. The information reported or position taken is likely to be in favour of that of the owners. Apart from that, a political party can easily influence a media institution with few owners because the leadership might be convinced easily (Biagi 24). Considering that the media firm with few owners has powerful influence in the society; then, it stands a chance of controlling even federal and the state government in terms of policies.

Question two

Speech rights of corporations be treated the same as those of individual people
A corporation is a group of people coming together to ensure that they achieve a given goal. As an entity, they should be given same speech rights as individuals. For instance, a media firm is a corporation and it should enjoy the freedom of speech just as people because it is composed of a group of people who have come together and share a given goals. Failure to allow corporations (for instance the media) enjoy speech right would create a situation where every movement or activity of the corporation is regulated by the government (Equities 1). As individual, corporations should be allowed to enjoy the provisions of first amendment as long as they act within the constitution. It is important to note that, the sustainability in performance of any corporation depends on the level of freeness (in terms of speech) they have. Consider a situation where the government would want to increase Value added tax, most human right activists and other civil societies would protest to ensure that the government does not implement such a policy. Similarly, corporations should also enjoy such privileges because failure to that, it would discourage investment. On 16th 2011, a court in eastern district of Virginia presided by Judge Cacheris James, ruled against the state, which alleged that employee of a corporate firm, attended a fundraiser campaign of a political party. It was held that corporations should be allowed freedom of speech, just as individuals (Equities 1).
It is always a common practice for individuals with money to influence the political parties and the election in order to acquire a larger share in expressing themselves in the society. Corporations should be also allowed to utilize their resources in influencing politics for purposes of benefiting from criticising the authority, filing suits, and engaging in any other impersonal activity human beings such as contributing their views over a given controversial problem.

Works cited

Biagi, Shirley. Media/impact: an introduction to mass media. 10th ed. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Equities, Carlin. ” Why shouldn’t a corporation have the right of Free Speech and Press? | Peace . Gold . Liberty .” Peace . Gold . Liberty | Daily Paul. Version 1. The Daily Paul, 20 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 June 2013. .