Media moguls is a term that refers to an entrepreneurial type of businessman or woman, a person who builds their business up from nothing and becomes a leading figure within their industry. This essay will discuss the characteristics of a media mogul and draw focus on one in particular media mogul, how they operate and if they have benefited their industry through their business. There are two types of media moguls, the industrialist and the inheritor, one who builds up the empire and the other who inherits (usually a family member) and takes over the business (as second generation) once the original entrepreneur has gone.
According to Turnstall and Palmer (1991) a media mogul is defined as “a person who owns and operates major media companies, and who takes entrepreneurial risks, and who conducts these media businesses in a personal or eccentric style.” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 105). Whereas in the words of Della Ratta, Sakr and Skovgaard-Petersen “the term mogul evokes oriental dynasties of the sixteenth century and seems to have connotations of absolutism combined with unpredictable and sometimes erratic and brutal behavior.” (Della Ratta, Sakr and Skovgaard-Petersen , 2015; 4).
The way a media mogul obtains a key media business is an important characteristic of a media mogul as it often includes a form of hostile takeover, moreover with the mogul buying the business more often than not during a hostile takeover senior members of the business are unwilling to agree to the merger. Most media moguls have political influence either by obtaining politicians as allies or been party of a political party, this often helps the interests of the media mogul as they can influence political agenda’s to suit the best interests of their business. Of course there are different types of geographical media moguls who have different characteristics depending on where they are located.
A common consequence of the media mogul is concentration of media ownership which is often brought about by cross media ownership and the elite few owning and controlling the majority of media channels “This results in the possibility of less diversity and reduced quality of journalism as political interests may not allow certain topics to be covered.” (Shah, 2009). concentration of media has both social and economic consequences as “the public is only seeing the topics that bring in the most ratings (news regarding, sports/sports figures, scandal’s, etc.). This means that the media conglomerates are looking at what sells versus what is important.” (Morreale, 2011).
The United States of America media moguls are known to be more corporate, investing in their business for the simple outcome of increased capital and higher profit turnovers to boost the business and the interests of the particular mogul. On the other hand, European media moguls are more public service broadcasting oriented seeing themselves as ‘society’s guardians’ rather than entrepreneurs, focusing on the best interests of the public when issuing their media to somewhat fit the public’s needs.
The United States of America ownership model of media mogul’s shows that the USA has “a relatively wide spread and large number significant media companies” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 111). This shows that American moguls are invested in media power and focus on their commercial nature, by owning significant media companies the individual mogul is able to focus on business activities of the company and capital rather than the media output of the establishment.
An example of a media mogul who follows the characteristics of the USA ownership model is Rupert Murdoch, he started building a small private company and has since bought or taken over masses of newspapers, publishing houses and televisions stations with one of his most successful and famous takeovers been that of News Corp, while becoming the one of richest media moguls of our time. “Murdoch owns many of the books and newspapers people read, the television shows and films they watch, the radio stations they listen to, the websites they visit, and the blogs and social networks they create.” (Biography.com Editors, 2016) which shows the mass industry that Murdoch has successfully takeover to create a media empire of enormous corporate stature. This media mogul example shows the US characteristics of a media mogul, the purchasing and takeovers of several media organizations creating a ‘media giant’ driven by their commercial desires.
The European media mogul ownership model has differences to the US ownership model, as mentioned before European moguls are based around public service broadcasting. European media moguls are like barons (often deemed as a title of honor) acting on behalf of the public to ensure their services (media outlets) are provided to the public and are to some extent catered to the masses needs usually including “heavy overtones of national culture, education and public service” (Turnstall and Palmer 1991; 11), while making a profit to benefit the business and the specific mogul’s interests for future growth at the same time. Take for example, the BBC in Britain (a well-known public service broadcaster) their ethos it to “inform, entertain and educate” (BBC, 2016) which fits the European ownership model due to their loyalty towards public service and national oriented programming.
An example of a media mogul that fits the characteristics of the European mogul is Robert Hersant, he owned and created 38% of the national press in France, referred to himself as a media baron and it’s known that through his political prominence he corrupted the law to gain greater access to ownership of the press changing the restriction from 10% to 38% ownership rights. “Robert Hersant was a pragmatist and claimed he was just giving readers what they wanted. He didn’t interfere in the daily running of Le Figaro and France-Soir.” (Perrone, 1996) this shows the European mogul characteristic of public service as Hersant was providing readers with information that the public desired.
Clearly there are many different types of moguls with core characteristics associated with either the US or European ownership models, demonstrating common attributes of the media mogul and their greater influence upon the media industry. Resulting in domination of the media with little room for small media outlets to have a voice within the industry.
However, “looking at individual media moguls is one way of getting a handle on the wider complexity of European media.” Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 1). The European mogul is an example demonstrated by Italian media mogul, Silvio Berlusconi. This section is going to show the impact one media mogul can have on a country through the impact of media concentration and one man having an influence on a nation.
Silvio Berlusconi, more commonly known for his political success and controversial personal life, is one of the most successful media moguls that shows characteristics of the European mogul, “Berlusconi, an individual media mogul personally probably has some advantages in the new media world” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 7). Berlusconi operates his business ventures strategically and early in building his empire he took calculated risks to construct his fortune of current, 5.6 billion pounds.
Berlusconi ventured into commercial television, after his venture in the construction industry, as he was interested in the new opportunities which it would provide him such as planning the type of programming and “commercial television offered an unprecedented opportunity for him to make quick money” (Ginsorg, 2005; 33). Berlusconi started his media domain by firstly owning Italian television stations which featured mostly entertainment programming in the category of game shows, uncensored women and programming that “typically led to the proportion of American content” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 3). These new disputed television programs (not popular with the catholic population of Italy) deemed effective as “in Italy Berlusconi’s Canale-5 became the leading force” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 31).
Berlusconi took advantage of his new television platform as he knew “the mystique of television entertainment’s multivalent (sic) appeal for its audiences, and how specific audiences reacted to it” (Kishan Thussu, 1998; 179) was important for Italian media to promote Berlusconi’s ideologies and messages, an effective example of this is Berlusconi using his media influence through his television stations to promote him as a positive change for Italy to rise to prime minister within just 4 months of his plan, this gave him a political advantage. It could be argued that “Berlusconi was the prime beneficiary of the political revolution that shook Italy” (Bickerton and Invernizzi , 2014; 27) as his coming to power benefited his business interests, averted him from becoming bankrupt and stopped him form facing a prison sentence . After this was achieved Berlusconi created 18 new laws to allow him 90% ownership of Italian TV “Berlusconi and his early competitors found a convenient gap in the Italian law” (Turnstall and Palmer,1991; 32) to greater his impact on the Italian public and his media control.
Berlusconi’s media ownership did not end with television however, after recognizing cinema as an influential media channel Berlusconi began to dominate the cinematic industry, becoming the leading owner of Italian cinemas. Berlusconi also played a significant role in the film industry after realizing that film and cinema were an important aspect of Italian media, it didn’t take Berlusconi long to “become the dominant in the Italian film industry” (Turnstall and Palmer, 1991; 31). However, this is clearly a large concentration of the Italian media, some scholars say to censor Berlusconi’s image to the public in order to create a manipulated public sphere that recognizes Berlusconi and his political views as positive, this “provides compelling evidence of the casual connection between concentrated media ownership and an undesirable narrowing in the diversity of the political opinions available to the public via the media.” (Doyle, 2002; 20). Berlusconi’s ownership of the media is too condensed, not allowing alternative medias to contribute to the nations viewing, through this we “increasingly see the Berlusconi anomaly as a highly suspicious one that violates the fundamental rules of democracy” (Mcdonnell and Albertazzi, 2005; 3-8) by not allowing freedom of different media messages.
Most critiques of Berlusconi’s media concentration agree that “the main point of pluralism…[is] a heightened risk of over representation of certain political viewpoints or values or certain forms of cultural outputs at the expense of others.” (Doyle, 2002; 147). This does not however show Berlusconi as a mogul who uses his media empire for public service broadcasting but only that his media outlets were a tool for (personal interests rather than serving the needs of the country) Berlusconi to become powerful and rich.
An alternate view point however would be, Berlusconi created independent channels with programming that was dramatically different from the Italian norm, there are also more traditional programs that offer a perspective on Italian culture as Berlusconi’s “Italian television transmit powerful and continuous version[s] of what Italian family life and values should be” (Ginsborg, 2005; 109) this shows a more conservative viewing experience for the masses, providing alternative and diverse viewing leisure’s for the population. Berlusconi also provided a powerful change as the leader of Italy, boosting the countries spirits through his energy, passion and ability the relate to the people of Italy as “he empathizes with ordinary citizens and relates to business men while seeking to be the father of the nation” (Allum, 2011; 281-294) showing genuine care and compassion for his nation and people.
However, through these independently created channels Berlusconi held could be considered Italian versions of western shows such as game shows, naked profanities and Americanization of advertising, could show that Berlusconi is influencing the Italian people to buy into western ideologies by creating such content, benefiting capitalist ideas and his own self interests.
To conclude, a media mogul is an entrepreneurial businessman/woman who builds their company up while taking over or buying other companies in the process, there are many characteristics of a media mogul which depend on different ownership models, primarily the differences between the European mogul and the US mogul. Silvio Berlusconi, a European media mogul, fits some characteristics however each individual media mogul has different qualities. Berlusconi formed his title of media mogul by introducing new commercial television stations, offering viewers a different viewing experience and ultimately bought several media outlets such as film, cinema and event department stores to cause media concentration in Italy and ultimately use his media power to influence the masses and become prime minister. On the whole Berlusconi’s impact led to concentration of the media only allowing one dominant view point to the people, most of Berlusconi’s actions when building his media empire and rising to political power were to benefit himself and not the masses.
Word count: 2087
References:
Allum, F. (2011). Silvio Berlusconi and his toxic touch. Representation. 47 (3), 281-294.
BBC. (2016). Mission and values. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Bickerton and Invernizzi. (2014). Democracy Without Parties? Italy After Berlusconi. The Political Quarterly. 84 (1), 23-28.
Biography.com Editors. (2016). Rupert Murdoch Biography. Available: http://www.biography.com/people/rupert-murdoch-9418489#later-career. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Della Ratta, D., Sakr, N., & Skovgaard-Petersen, J. (2015). Arab Media Moguls. London: I.B. Tauris. 1-225.
Democracy Now. (2004). Berlusconi’s Unrivalled Control of the Media and the Italian Political Landscape. Available: https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/24/berlusconis_unrivalled_control_of_the_media. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Doyle, G (2002). Media Ownership. London: SAGE. 20-200.
Ginsborg (2005). Silvio Berlusconi television, power and patrimony. 2nd ed. London: Versco. 1-190.
Kishan Thussu (1998). Electronic Empires global media and local resistance. 2nd ed. United states of America: Oxford University Press. 1-200.
Litchfield. (2013). Media mogul and former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi gesture. Available: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/?attachment_id=196502. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Mcdonnell and Albertazzi. (2005). Enough Vaccine? The Berlusconi Years. Modern Day Italy. 10 (1), 3-8.
Morreale, C. (2011). Concentration of Media Ownership. Available: https://jmorreale.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/concentration-of-media-ownership/. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Pavli. (2010). Berlusconi’s Chilling Effect on Italian Media. Available: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/berlusconi-s-chilling-effect-italian-media. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Perrone, P. (1996). Obituary: Robert Hersant. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-robert-hersant-1306862.html. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Rome. (2006). Berlusconi in a box. Available: http://www.economist.com/node/7912736. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Shah, A. (2009). Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership. Available: http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Stille. (1995). Media Moguls, United. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/28/opinion/media-moguls-united.html. Last accessed 20th November 2016.
Turnstall and Palmer (1991). Media Moguls. London: Routledge. 1-258.
Professional and academic development journal. 