Wavy Profits

(A Study of the Economics of Minority Coverage in the Media)

10 Dec 2001

The economics of minority coverage in the media is the same as the economics of everything else. The person who is funding the money-making venture (which, by the way is what all of the media outlets are. They are not, as so many would like to believe, public services) makes her decisions based on what she thinks will accrue the most return on her investment, or hires someone else to do this job for her. Whether those decisions are morally right or wrong is not the issue, it is only whether this investor believes that the decision makes money.

If the owner (or representative thereof) of a small town newspaper decides to put only stories in her paper that involve white males, because she sees that the majority of her audience is white males, then she has the right to make that choice. It is not anyone else’s place to dictate to her what her paper can contain, because it is HER paper, she can make as many bad decisions as she wants, and if the consumers don’t like it, then they wont buy her paper. Whether or not it’s a good business decision is not her fault, if the paper sells better with no minority coverage, then she has a right to make that extra money, and not have her reporting style criticized by the rest of the world.

It’s like the native radio stations out in the rural west. Companies wont give the stations money, because it’s a bad investment. NOT because they’re bad companies, companies are in business to make money, and we have been fostering such companies since the foundation of our capitalist society. If you ask an understandably money-oriented company to invest in a project with zero return value, they will turn it down, no matter how good the cause. Unless, of course, they believe that donating money to this great cause will make their company more desirable to the consumer in general, and will increase sales in the retail market. Like how Coca-cola is buying books for inner city children.

As far as politics are concerned, we need to look along the same lines. Politicians are in the business of obtaining power. If to obtain more power, they feel that a change in the way they view things is necessary, then they will do it, whether they believe that it is morally correct or not is not the issue, they will do whatever it takes to get votes. And if this requires catering to the majority, then the minorities are going to be left behind. Whenever a political issue comes down to a conflict between two sides, the majority side will win… that is how our system is set-up. That is the politician’s job: to cater to the majority whenever possible, in such a way as to obtain as much support as possible for his election. There is no other way to be a politician, unless you would like to be an un-employed one. Like most of the libertarians, who have the most open-minded and morally correct platforms, yet they have no jobs.

Politics and economics have a strong tendency to bend to the will of the majority, in a capitalist-republic such as the one in which we live. These rules are natural, and will not change. Therefore, the only way to effect the situation is to convince the majority of people that change is necessary.
The only way to change the top is to reconstruct the foundation.

Usage permission information

Contact CB Droege