Literature

The media has always been a major influence in the workings of society and the day to day living of humanity. No matter how much other people deny it and or snob these influences, media has played a big part in the formation, evolution, growth and expansion, and to some extent, even to its slow degradation and destruction. As what Ted Turner has pointed out in his feature article, the media has drastically changed from the early 90s when it was still full of optimistic promise. Media, with all its intricacies, complexities, and negative money-making reputation, managed to become one of the best examples of how times have changed. Because of this, medias changes have also shown how society itself has changed with regard to how they think and what they value.
 
In the article of Ted Turner, entitled My Beef with Big Media, he creatively uses sarcasm, wit, and humor to drive his point which is the negative effect that consolidation had on media, society, and life as a whole. It could even be said that it is media which committed faulty acts against itself as major companies and big wigs fought to think of more money-making strategies that eventually led to so many negative consequences, which Turner has all pointed out and explicated in his article. However, this is not the entire point of Turners article. It is merely brushing on the surface of what Turner is really trying to point outit is the governments fault why media has hindered so many events which could have given more opportunities for people to truly experience media communications at its best and as what the subtitle of his article states, government protects big mediaand shuts out upstarts like him.

Turner uses a chronological-style in the writing of his article to emphasize the whole point regarding the change in policies that the government or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gave to independent media companies to the eventual new rulings that stripped the independent companies of a chance to be media companies. Turners own experience with how he acquired the failing little-station-but-which-turned-out-to-be-the-famous-CNN-in-the-future is that of a success story only possible in business fairy tale books. Yet, he does make a pointif in the early 1960s until the late 1970s, it was possible for a nobody like him to compete against the big wigs like ABS, CBS, and NBC, then why is it not possible for other nobodies like him to do it right now As what Turner points out, the answer is quite simple that was then (2). That single phrase explains the whole reason for his ranting and raving on the injustices done by the government that has failed to protect the interests of not only the audience but also of the other media companies that should have been big conglomerates.

In trying to point out the negative effects of the governments change of heart over the support of nobodies, Turner also explains what led the government to have their change of heart and the specific actions that proved their change of heartactions like raising the cap of media ownership by the big companies which resulted in more monopolization and fewer competition that could have given the audience more diversity and variety. But over the many arguments of Turner, there are two things which really hit home and would make anyone curse over what could have been if the government was not too pigheaded over rules over the media, since it would seem with todays tragic happenings it is the media which governs over the rules. The two points which make Turners whole argument so convincing and substantial lie in the way in which he presents his own story that really proves that there is something terribly wrong with how the FCC deals with the media. First is his argument and explanation that the FCCs new rule (and new rules and new rules) gave the masses fewer options to choose from even if it would seem that there would be a wide array of things to choose from. Though there are many networks and channels now, they are more than often owned by the same companies, preventing the audience from trying to find new programs or way of programming that would really be novel. This novelty is linked to the second point which Turner convincingly explains in his article small companies with big ideas are losing their opportunity to showcase their big ideas since the big companies are crushing them with showcasing said companies so-so ideas.

Turner is not vehement about FCCs new rulings which damaged him and potential Ted Turners in the industrywhat he is vehement about is how the government has failed to protect its people by making these rules and allowing the big companies to have their way. Since big conglomerates are controlling majority of the media, then there is a possibility (which is actually happening already) that they are controlling what is fed to the people and, like a domino effect, what kind of people we have in the society. This is why Turners argument regarding his beef with big media is important to everyone as it would allow us to see the big picture and the background of what happened to media and how it was before. After all, a historical perspective will allow us to determine whether a change should happen before all things are too late and humanity is turned into zombie-like idiots perfect for Resident Evil 3.

What makes Turner very convincing with his argument is not only does he display such rational wit and sarcastic humor, but he also presents practical and understandable facts that would be easier to comprehend by the common man. Facts and figures would after all be meaningless and useless if it cannot even be understood on what are those facts for and what do they mean. In the end, Turner has managed to prove that it is indeed the fault of the government because of their rulings and most of all, because they chose not to do anything when they saw (or perhaps, they still do not know) that the rulings were not effective and advantageous.