Privatized media - benefical or what?

Well-known economist Adam Smith coined the metaphor known as "the invisible hand" - in a free market, one pursuing their own individual interest tends to also promote the good of their community as a whole, meaning that the individual maximizing revenue for himself is thus maximizing the total revenue of society as a whole.

Without focusing too much on economic principles, this concept developed by Smith relates to the first social benefit of private media enterprise, which is to stimulate the condition of affordable goods and services that consumers have expressed a need or want for through their buying decisions. Of course, one might argue that consumers buying decisions cannot be exactly calculated, even with polls and focus group studies. Take the example of major Hollywood blockbusters. Few succeed in comparison to the amount that flop. So the studios lose money on the flops and depend on the big hits to make up for their losses. It's similar in the case of television programs. New programs are introduced every Fall and while some prove to be popular, some fail and are canceled within weeks. Advertising plays a large role in publicizing and generating consumer demand around new films and shows. That being said, it is still very difficult for media economists to predict peoples tastes.

The second supposed benefit is that consumers receive media content for free (ie: radio) or at a minimal cost (ie: newspapers) due to the fact that this industry is subsidized by advertising. Now, let's be honest, this is not entirely true. Although the programming on the radio may seem to be "free" because we do not directly pay for it, we do, in fact, pay for it in other ways. Every time a consumer buys a product that was advertised on the radio station they listen to daily, they just helped to support it. Advertising costs are built into the price of the product (from toothpaste to potato chips), so everyone is technically supporting media programming in some way.

Selling the attention of consumers is a key element in the success of commercial media. A popular TV sitcom will attract a large audience and thus advertisers with commercials airing throughout that broadcast will gain the attention of a lot of people. Media managers collect data on their audiences (demographics such as age, income, sex, etc.) using advanced measurement techniques and then sell the information to advertisers. So basically, "they" know what we're watching...do you find that creepy? "Big Brother" comes to mind.

In a nutshell, supply generally governs demand. Consumers can only choose from what is being presented to them. Is that really free choice?