In the world of telecommunications media moguls are responsible for the spread of a plethora of information to people around the world.  The three powerhouse moguls of the world are the Azcarraga Family, Silvio Berlusconi, and Rupert Murdoch.  Latin America is ran by the Azcarraga Family, lead by Emilio Azcarraga Milmo, who has reached virtually every Spanish-speaking household in the world.  Emilio has transformed the Azcarraga family name into one of the top telecommunications monopolies in the world.  Silvio Berlusconi rules the Italian world and has taken most of Europe by storm with his television networking skills.  Rupert Murdoch is on top of the corporation level in America with owning much of the media that American's read and watch on a day-to-day basis.  There is a downside in having a few and powerful individuals in control of the media throughout the world and that is that the economy suffers, which is the case with any monopoly as Dr. Rob Brown, a local economics teacher, feels towards the issue.  Ups and downs are daily occurrences that face media in the wide world of telecommunications.

Adam Grogg

     The Azcarraga family is the media powerhouse of Latin America.  Emilio Azcarraga Milmo, also known as "The Tiger," established the main telecommunications empire in Latin America.  Under the ownership of Emilio Azcarraga Milmo, the Azcarraga empire stretched over many different aspects of mass media.  In 1994, Televisa, Azcarraga's company, owned 80 percent of Mexico's television market through four different networks and sold programming to 90 other countries, including Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Venezula (Caban, 1993).  Televisa also was the home to Mexico's largest print media publisher, the cable television franchise for Mexico City and 16 Mexican radio stations which were used to promote stars signed to Televisa's three recording labels (Malkin, 1995).  However, Azcarraga was not just satisfied with that.  Azcarraga wanted to reach every Spanish-speaking household in the world.  Azcarraga pursued this goal by investing in half of the PanAmSat satellite system and invested in three of his own satellites.  At the height of the Televisa company's fame and power, Azcarraga controlled 95 percent of the Mexican television market (Esparaza, 1997).  Azcarraga was able to reach his audience by focusing on what they wanted.  Azcarraga created his own programming of Spanish soap operas and other television programs starring performers that Azcarraga hand-picked and trained himself, instead of providing dubbed Hollywood programming.  Also, Azcarraga was able to keep a tight reign over his stars by threatening to fire them if they ever appeared on a competitor's program (Malkin, 1995).

     Azcarraga also held a tight reign on what information the Mexican citizens learned.  Under Azcarraga, all of the news media had to be pro-governmental.  News broadcasts were designed in favor of Mexico's closed one-party system.  Azcarraga received daily phone calls from the Interior Ministry with "suggestions" for news stories to cover during the broadcasts.  Stories, such as the massacres that were arranged by the ruling party, PRI, of two rural farmers, were never supposed to be aired (Preston, 2000, p.1C).  In 1995, when local elections were producing losses for PRI, Televisa's main newscast were bullfights (Malkin, 1995).

     Emilio Azcarraga Milmo died in April of 1997.  However, he did not leave the family company to his son.  Instead he only gave Emilo Azcarraga Jean, Milmo's son, only 26 percent of Televisa.  Some people suggested Azcarraga has regained total control of Televisa and is already to continue his father's dream.  However, Azcarraga does not have the same political fervor as his father.  The news now is more open to the public's interpretation.  Azcarraga has said that Televisa is going to go global and compete with such companies as Walt Disney and Time Warner Inc.  Azcarraga has started to pursue this venture by reorganizing Televisa.  So far, Azcarraga has laid off 6,000 of his father's former employees and reorganized the news systems politically independent (Preston, 2000, p.1C).  Azcarraga is rebuilding the virtual monopoly that the Azcarraga family once had.

     Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s media tycoon, has become one of the most dominating media figures throughout the world. Currently, he is the chief owner of the three largest private television networks - Canale 5, Rete 4, and Italia 1. Those three networks control 90% of the country’s television advertising and 45% of the audience who watches television in Italy (Stille, 1999). During his 1994 prime ministers’ election campaign, Berlusconi reportedly “blanketed the airwaves with catchy, slickly produced commercials and was constantly present on every network” (p. 4). He most certainly knew how to utilize his own money making machines and advertise himself to the citizens of Italy.

            Not only does Berlusconi control the majority of Italy’s television networks, he also reigns as the main king of the publishing empire there as well. The largest publishing conglomerate, Mondadori, is overwhelming in the country; it constitutes more than 30% of the trade book market. He currently dominates his magazine group with the biggest national news-weekly, Panorama, and other magazines of other women’s and mass-market interest. Two daily newspapers, II Giornale and II Foglio, are under his ownership as well. Other than his television stations, his championship soccer team, Milan, has popularized his widely recognized persona even more so than ever (p.1-2). Berlusconi seems to be the reigning king of the media empire as well as the present Prime Minister of Italy; he is sure on top of the world.

Pam Grignon

    In today’s media most outlets are owned by a handful of very large corporations yet there are few that can touch the power of Rupert Murdoch. Owning everything from print media to the Dodgers and from television to satellite systems across the globe, very few come close to being as diversified as he is.

            Since his birth in 1931 he has been surrounded by the business of media. His father owned a chain of newspapers and radio stations in Australia, which he later inherited. This was the first step for Murdoch in his way to the top. A brief list of his assets includes: The New York Post, Fox News Channel, Fox Movies, Fox TV, DirecTV and Harper Collins Publisher just to name a few ( Fellows 2.)  Rupert Murdoch owns a veritable empire of media outlets all over the globe and it only keeps growing. Some say that he owns too much and that at some point it has to stop, but at what point?

            A known conservative Murdoch often has final say into what goes into his programs. This can be a real problem since he owns such a vast quantity of outlets. He has done this with politicians already. He plugged Tony Blair in the Sun Times in London, who in return, has proposed relaxations on TV ownership laws that would benefit Murdoch’s News Corp (Fallows 7.). Murdoch did something similar with Newt Gingrich by giving him a $4.5mil book deal in hopes of similar laws being passed in the United States.

            Rupert Murdoch believes that the media should be treated like any other business and shouldn’t have any restrictions at all. This is a scary thought because if others feel this way than more and more lies will be sold to the public who won’t even know what’s going on. Congress has proposed measures to limit the amount of different media assets one can own, but these measures haven’t gone through as of late.

            If wealthy media owners can manipulate the system in such a way then obviously there are many changes that need to be made. Until then the public will continue to get one sided stories from the straight media furthering the lowest common denominator of the media literacy rate of United States citizens. If we are ever to know the truth of what goes on in the world then we must make changes to the media.

Thadius Greer

     It is apparent to see that there is an ever present bias in the media.  Bias in the media causes many bad situations for consumers.  One of the main arguments opposing media monopolies would be the economical effect. 

            Dr. Rob Brown, an economics teacher at a local school, explains that monopolies and oligopolies such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation put a major damper on the economy.

          “In the case of Murdoch, he is doing more harm than good.  His company is basically in a league of their own.  They make great news coverage but sometimes it seems too good.  They are so efficient that no other company can ever have a chance at emerging.  When there is only one company this means that there is only one set price.  They charge whatever they desire to local stations for their intense, exclusive coverage.  Then in response to the station paying out more money, they in turn charge the consumer more money.  It is a vicious cycle that not too many realize.”

            Much like any business or field of interest, when there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the consumer is the one being effected.  Not only is their news coverage increased in price, but there are also a number of other things that monopolies, such as Murdoch’s, control.  For example, Murdoch owns an array of publishing houses, television networks, radio stations, websites, movie production companies, and magazines.  This means that he controls a portion of almost every form of entertainment in his country.  Once again this leaves the consumer flat on his back.

            Monopolies and bias in the media are very influential products.  They control the entertainment lives of people. More importantly, these examples control the wallets of the people.  When a company controls a countries pocketbook, it can be assured that the countries economy will show.

Jonathon Gorny

     Throughout this report we have examined the control and practices of three major players in the mass media market. Each has engineered a place of influence and authority that affects everyone either directly, for those with the capability to obtain their media messages, and indirectly for those who cannot. The bias’ that exists, blatantly or otherwise, have an impact on how we as an audience and consumer, view the media and the world around us.

     We learned from Dr. Brown of the economic impacts of oligopolies and monopolies in the mass media, and how consumers are affected. We have highlighted the exploits of Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide media empire. The man behind Fox has the thirst and capabilities to control media content while influencing government regulations. We have also brought to light the practices of Italian Prime Minister and media mogul, Silvio Berlusconi, a master of public manipulation and dominance of his countries airways. Finally, we conveyed the Latin American media supremacy of Emilio Azcarraga, someone who used government inequalities to his advantage to change the face of television media in Mexico.

     When I speak of bias in the media, I am referring to the limitations and parameters of what rich and powerful media moguls want us as consumers to see and hear.  As consumers we must demand the truth without ulterior motives. Understanding that we hold the power to determine what outlets we pay attention to and which ones we ignore.

Jason Gunn