Media Privatization and Impact of Advertisers

There can be no industry without something for consumers to buy. The material they produce is the service mass media outlets provide to their customers. Adequate privatization measures are a critical precaution against media consolidation and a method to preserve genuine media plurality, resulting in a press that gives a various viewpoint, and not only numerous venues, which is why the question of media ownership is essential to media freedom. Overall, private media increased diversity of opinion and, in some instances, freed the press from political interference. However, a major drawback is the impact that advertisers have on the content decision-making process of privatized media outlets.

Mass media outlets, such as television networks, newspapers, and news websites, all rely on original material to stay afloat. Selection of material is an integral part of every information system due to the constraints of time and space. Decisions on which stories to cover and what material to provide an audience are never easy for the mass media. Unfortunately, not all tales are turned into “content” and shared with the audience. Mass media content decisions are impacted by a wide variety of both internal and external influences. One of the most important of these is the business climate of the sector. All of the money for privately held broadcast media and much of the revenue for the print and Internet media comes from advertisements, making advertisers a crucial external component in any examination of the commercial aspects of the mass media. The amount of money that mass media outlets may charge advertisers depends on the size and composition of their audience. The material itself is not being sold to advertisers; rather, it is the audience for that content that is being sold to them, since the size of that audience determines the advertising rate.

A privatized channel 4 will exist to serve the billing of the pay masters. Given their financial stake, some worry that advertisers may use their considerable power to dictate what is published online. Producers, editors, and publishers often censor or remove stories that might offend advertisers, write pieces specifically to appease or attract advertisers, avoid topics that create controversial “environments” for advertising, and tailor articles and programs to attract the audience that advertisers covet. The bottom line is that they often compromise journalistic standards in pursuit of advertising revenue. When Channel 4 is privatized, financial considerations will take precedence above all others, shifting the focus of the staff from journalism to matters more directly connected to the company’s bottom line. This means that tales that might offend certain listeners are passed over in favor of ones that are more likely to appeal to a wider audience, that stories that are expensive to cover are minimized or disregarded, and that stories that pose financial concerns are also disregarded. As everyone knows, no businessman wants to do things that are thankless.

The quality of journalism will decline as advertisers prioritize delivering a large audience to advertisers above covering stories that might drive them away. As a result, channel 4’s focus as a for-profit enterprise will be on its advertisers rather than its viewers, readers, and listeners. As scholars point out, the negative effects of the mass media serving primarily the marketers’ financial interests are exacerbated by the major role they play in giving information in a democratic society. The relentless march of commercialization is another major cause for alarm. Similar to how the media landscape is always evolving, the advertising landscape will adapt as well. In an effort to reach their audience demographics, advertisers constantly adjust their media placement techniques in audience to the preferences of their target audiences. Sponsorship and product placement have increased as a result of the fragmentation of advertisers caused by technologies like as digital audience recorders (DVRs), the Internet, cable television, and pay-per-view. This raises the crucial issue of whether or not media censorship is required for the fulfillment of these advertising objectives. One can assume that the primary goal of advertising is not to shape content but rather to consistently and repeatedly contact as many people as possible who fit a certain audience. According to this theory, it is not essential to have complete or even partial sway on media content in order to accomplish marketing objectives. The evidence for a reduction in journalistic quality and media performance standards due to growing commercialization is, however, not very substantial.