Which statement about media concentration is NOT supported by Curran and Seaton?

Which statement about media concentration is NOT supported by Curran and Seaton?

• A. It tends to limit variety, creativity and quality.
• B. It improves journalistic quality.
• C. It keeps media independent from government.
• D. It gives audiences what they want.

Answer: (B)

Concentration of ownership is seen by Curran and Seaton as something that can narrow what gets produced and how it’s produced. When a small number of owners controls most media outlets, editorial decisions are more tightly tied to profit motives, market pressures, and the preferences of advertisers and owners. That tends to limit variety and creativity because risky, niche, or investigative journalism often costs more and may be less financially viable. It also makes it harder for media to act as a robust check on power, since owners’ interests can shape or constrain how government and other powerful forces are portrayed. The statement that concentration improves journalistic quality goes against this view. Curran and Seaton argue that the pressures of concentration and the market can lead to more formulaic, sensational, or surface-level reporting rather than deeper, quality journalism. So that choice is not supported. The other ideas align with their concerns about how ownership concentration shapes content and influence: it tends to reduce variety and creativity and can affect the media’s independence and responsiveness to audiences, rather than guaranteeing them.

Concentration of ownership is seen by Curran and Seaton as something that can narrow what gets produced and how it’s produced. When a small number of owners controls most media outlets, editorial decisions are more tightly tied to profit motives, market pressures, and the preferences of advertisers and owners. That tends to limit variety and creativity because risky, niche, or investigative journalism often costs more and may be less financially viable. It also makes it harder for media to act as a robust check on power, since owners’ interests can shape or constrain how government and other powerful forces are portrayed.

The statement that concentration improves journalistic quality goes against this view. Curran and Seaton argue that the pressures of concentration and the market can lead to more formulaic, sensational, or surface-level reporting rather than deeper, quality journalism. So that choice is not supported.

The other ideas align with their concerns about how ownership concentration shapes content and influence: it tends to reduce variety and creativity and can affect the media’s independence and responsiveness to audiences, rather than guaranteeing them.