| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Reading comprehension Oct 13th 2012, 07:54 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The source for all engineering and legal education news in India | | | Reading comprehension Oct 13th 2012, 07:31 First AOL and Time Warner announced their intention to combine. Even more significant, however, has been the speculation that these mergers have caused:. There is even the possibility of a nightmare scenario-a wave of media mergers so large that within a decade most of our information will be supplied by perhaps six of these huge conglomerates and a fringe of much smaller firms. It's time to ask two critical questions. Is this kind of media oligopoly what we, as a society, want? And if not, can the antitrust laws effectively prevent the threatened merger wave? The answer to the first question is clear. We do not want a media oligopoly. We should distrust a media oligopoly because it would give undue control to a small number of individuals.. Rather, it could consist of a change in editorial viewpoints, a shift in the relative prominence of links to certain websites or a decision not to cover certain topics, because they are not "newsworthy". These problems could exist without any improper intent on the part of the media barons. Even if they try to be fair and objective, they will necessarily bring their own worldview to the job. And in time some of these conglomerates may be controlled by people who are not fair or objective. The anti-merger laws are commonly understood as protecting price competition, and a relatively small number of firms-to greatly oversimplify, let's say at most half a dozen-are normally thought to be enough to keep a market price-competitive. In industry after industry firms merge until there is only a handful left, and the antitrust enforcers are normally unable to do anything to prevent this. Even if a handful of firms are enough to insure effective competition in most industries, would six conglomerate media firms be sufficient for the diversity of viewpoints necessary to democracy? Would we be reassured if they could somehow guarantee that they would sell their magazines and Internet advertisements at competitive prices? I am hopeful that the antitrust laws, if correctly and vigorously interpreted, are adaptable enough to meet this challenge. This is because antitrust is not exclusively about price .Consumers should be able to make their choices along any dimension important to them-including price, variety and editorial viewpoint. Communications media in part by offering independent editorial viewpoints and an independent gatekeeper function. Six media firms cannot effectively respond to the demand for choice or diversity competition by extending their product lines, because new media products will inevitably bear, to some degree, the perspective of their corporate parent. Thus, competition in terms of editorial viewpoint or gate-keeping can be guaranteed only by insuring that a media market contains a significantly larger number of firms than is required for price competition in other, more conventional markets. It is ambiguous, however, whether this interpretation of the anti-trust laws will be applied by the enforcement agencies and the courts. What is needed, therefore, is a much more careful look at the challenges that will be raised by future media mergers. This could best be accomplished if Congress created a Temporary Committee to Study Media Mergers and Media Convergence. This committee could include members of Congress; the heads of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department's antitrust division; CEOs of media companies; and representatives of consumer groups. The committee would identify problems that may be caused by large media mergers and by media convergence. This may be the only way to prevent the nightmare scenario of a media oligopoly. 1. Meaning or impact of "A wave of media mergers" - be a threat to democracy
- result in limiting editorial viewpoints
- result in misuse of certain laws
- both (1) and (2)
- none of the above
2. What could be the most significant outcome of media oligopoly? - An increase in the cost of newspapers
- The fact that in the long run, there will be a shift of power to people who might not be balanced and fair in the way they deal with the media
- Certain websites may get more prominence than others
- There will be no competition among the newspapers
- There will soon exist only six media conglomerates
3. Following statements, according to the author, are true - Half a dozen firms are enough to keep the market price - competitive
- Half a dozen companies are not enough to provide a democratic media
- Enforcement agencies may not interpret the ant-trust laws correctly
- Half a dozen companies will be inadequate to meet the consumer demand for product diversity
- a, b
- a, b, c
- a, b, c, d
- b, c, d
- a, c, d
4. The current laws related to that of antitrust law - are not sufficient to deal with issues relating to large scale media mergers
- can prevent mergers from happening
- will be effective if properly interpreted
- favour a particular company or group of companies
- none of the above
5. To get a clear picture of the challenges posed by media mergers, the author recommends :> - creation of strict laws
- strengthening the enforcement agencies
- creation of a study committee by the congress
- none of the above
- all of the above
Answers and explanation - The author discussed about the necessity of diversity of viewpoints being essential for democracy. Therefore, a lack of it could be a threat to democracy. So (1) can be inferred. Choice (2) is clearly mentioned in the passage. Choice (3) cannot be inferred from the passage. Choice (4) is the correct answer.
- In the last line of the third paragraph, the author talks about the contents of choice (2) as the serious threat to medial oligopoly. While the author refers to the possibility of only six conglomerates, he uses the number six figuratively and not factually. Choice (2).
- In the third paragraph, the author tells that media mergers may not results in prices increasing. Statement (a) is mentioned. In the same paragraph, he clearly puts forth the case that the oligopoly will not be able to provide a democratic media. And in the sixth paragraph, the author mentions statement (c) and (d). Choice (3) is correct.
- In the first line of the fifth paragraph, the author mentions that the existing antitrust laws, if understood properly, are adequate to meet the media merger challenge. Choice (3).
- The last paragraph of the passage provides a proper suggestion. Choice (3) is correct.
|  | | |  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment