The World as a Global Village - Essay Example

?Essay Question Discuss and critique the news media as an industry. What are the various roles played by the participants in the news industry? How does management differ from journalists in their perspectives on what constitutes the who, what, where, and why of a story? Who and what controls the media in the 21st century and why? The world today has turned into a global village. Everybody wants to remain connected to the rest of the world and to cater to this need of the age, an industry has revolutionized; the News Media Industry. They are there to deliver the news to the general public. To keep the world connected; to keep the public updated and to communicate exactly what the public wants to hear, is what their function is all about. A few years back, it might not have been an industry but today it’s a business for many. Countless mediums of news media are now in action. Today, the news media has various mediums including the internet, broadcasting and the printed version. Just like in any other industry, there are different players in this field as well, fighting for the market share just like and willing to play dirty if they have to. But this industry has more at stake than in any other because it has a direct affect on the mentality and morale of the user. The players of this market now are even willing to go to an extent of being categorized as unprincipled due to their practices. Media is a very delicate medium of communication with the public. Whatever that is shown or communicated on the news media, becomes the public’s point of view. It can affect the thinking process and the perception of the community; leading them to prosperity or disaster, depending upon the way media portrays the happenings. This profession is something pious. It used to mean something to those who worked for it. They had strong and unwavering values on which they never compromised. But the development of it as a business industry has blown the whole sanctity of the profession. People have turned this profession into money machine, disregarding what affect it might have on public. The role of the participants in this industry is very vital. All the participants work together to put up the skeleton of the job. The public is the most vital participant because the news is about them and for them as well. Then, there are people who are working round the clock to get the news delivered on time and finally, there are those who in reality deliver the news to the public. Today’s era is ahead of the previous one; now people can even give their feedback. Public literally dictates the news media; if the public demands to remain in touch with all the bitter realties of their society, then the media would automatically present them with harsh truth. On the other hand, if the society wants to remain in their bubble of optimism, then their whole media would be in line with the cherry news. Management and journalists have always had a point of conflict on two main things. The first one being what sells the most. Secondly, how much of it is being backed up by the titans of the markets and society. The management looks for the benefits of the organization as a whole. They consider themselves as the profit making organizations, where as journalists believe that they are working for a better cause than just simple money. On this point, the management is even ready to mutilate the story as per required for the situation and the demands of the time. They can elaborate or hide the facts that can lead to severe consequences for some, out of plain need for finances for their organization. The management also looks forward to please the mighty in the society, be it the political gurus or business tycoons; they want to keep them in their good books for future needs. This might make them alter the truth, but the journalists want to provide the public with truth, without any sugar coating. In the 21st century, public controls the media. The public now, is highly aware. They want to hear the truth without any layers of sweetness over it. Reporting is supposed to be complete and unbiased, because if the reporters fail to do that, then somebody else would, and that might result in protests against them. The world today is very “user friendly”; you get exactly what you want to get. People are kind of ordering what they want to be communicated. The kinds of news people want to hear, are the topics that get broadcasted. The gatekeepers decide what is worthy of your attention. Gate keeping is the process through which information is filtered and disseminated in all the mediums, be it publication, broadcasting, internet or some other type of communication. Bibliography: Good news and bad, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, Essay Question 2  What are the similarities and differences in the way Johnsons & Johnson dealt with the Tylenol crisis and Exxon with the Exxon Valdez crisis?  Companies would always be laying face down to crises and troubles outside their control. What makes a business sustainable, amidst all the harms, is how they deal with them. One of the supreme hullabaloos during the 1980’s was the Exxon Valdez oil spill that took place on a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez ships had recognized icebergs and were certain to take a diverse course to get around them. Unluckily, the oil tanker crashed into petty water, this vicinity is called the Bligh Reef, but because of the thump, the tanker lost about 10 million gallons of rough oil into the reef. This calamity got the media’s consideration saying Exxon’s reaction to the environmental spoil that they had caused was very amateurish. The company completely snubbed to communicate honestly and efficiently. The CEO of the company, Lawrence Rawl even refused to be seen for roughly a week. Efforts to control the spill out were unhurried and Exxon's response was very sluggish. Because of the lack of outward show from high profile human resources from Exxon, it left the notion that the Exxon Corporation did not take this mishap seriously. Exxon Valdez case became one of the orthodox case examples of a “what not to do in management with a crisis”. By the time they started to take some action, their standing was already stained with off-putting remarks from the community. (Llawliet 2010) Now and again, problems coming up in a company may not be caused by unprofessional conduct; sometimes there are external factors that cause problems to crop up. It might not even be the company’s fault, but the real challenge is how they cope up with the problem and deal with it. An excellent example of how a company can do it right is that of Johnson & Johnson in terms of the company's comeback to the Tylenol poisoning. In 1982, Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol tablets headed 35 per cent of the US over-the-counter pain relieving sell - representing an impressive chunk 15 per cent of the company's profits. Regrettably, at that point one person succeeded in lacing the medicine with cyanide. Seven people died as a result of it. Consequently, the company's market value chopped down by $1bn. Differences: Johnson and Johnson They reacted hurriedly, with absolute directness about what had happened, and without more ado, sought to get rid of any cause of menace based on the most horrible case situation - not waiting for proof to see whether the infectivity might be more prevalent. Having acted speedily, they then sought to make certain that procedures were carried out to make sure that such a dilemma never occurs again. They explained themselves to be geared up to put up with the short-term price for the purpose of customer protection. That, more than anything else, established a basis for belief and hope in their clientele. Within five months of the tragedy, the company had improved 70% of its market share for the drug and the verity went on to get better over time, showing that the corporation had succeeded in preserving the long-term value of the brand. (Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol n.d) Exxon and the Exxon Valdez crisis: The company failed to demonstrate that they had effectual systems in place to sort out the crisis and in exacting their capability to shift rapidly once the difficulty had happened was not in facts. They proved modest headship after the happening in showing the conviction that such a hazard would never occur again. They even failed to give a concrete expression to show that they were bothered with what had happened. They appeared uninterested to the ecological damage. (Exxon Mobil and the Exxon Valdez n.d) Similarity: the reputation of both the companies suffered shoddily. The penalty for Exxon of its bilateral disaster, the spill and its environmental consequences, alongside its devastating exchanges, was colossal. The spill cost around $7bn, including the cleanup costs. $5bn of this was made up of the major disciplinary fines ever handed out to a business for corporate giddiness. For Johnson and Johnson, the cost was a lofty one. In addition to the bang on the company's share price when the catastrophe first hit, the wasted production and damaged goods because of the recall were significant. Bibliography: Exxon Mobil and the Exxon Valdez, "“What is the Kyoto Protocol, carbonify.com, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol, “companies in crisis – what to do when it all goes wrong,” corporate social responsibility, Data accessed on March 24, 2011 Llawliet, “Exxon Valdez, Johnson and Johnson,” Business and Management’ 2010, data accessed on March 24, 2011,< http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Exxon-Valdez-And-Johnson-Johnson/21586> Essay Question 3  Explain the different types of market imperfections. Explain the natural monopoly problem, the different manifestations of this phenomenon, and its results.  Market imperfections and alterations generally mean any variation from the hypothesis of perfect competition. Many of the hypotheses in perfectly competitive markets are implicit rather than explicit i.e. they are not always declared. Monopoly, Duopoly and Oligopoly A monopoly has the capacity to affect both the price and the output that exists in the market. A duopoly consists of two firms working in a market. An Oligopoly firm is outsized enough, relation to the size of the market, which can influence the price balance in the market through changes in the production (Suranovic, 2001). Externalities Externalities characterize economic actions, which have special effects outside the market where the actions are taken. Externalities can occur out of production processes (production externalities) or out of utilization activities (consumption externalities). The external effects can be advantageous (positive externalities) or even harmful to others (negative externalities). Characteristically, they do not consider the sound effects when they make their production or expenditure decision Public Goods Public goods have two essential characteristics: non-excludability and non-rivalry. Non-rivalry means that the consumption or use of a good by one buyer does not moderate the utility of the good to another. Non-excludability means that once the good is provided, it is remarkably pricey to prohibit non-paying customers from using it. The core problem posed by public goods is the complexity of a free market to search out people to pay for them (Market Failures n.d.). Non-Clearing Markets A typical best guess in general equilibrium models are that the markets always clear. That is, supply equals demand at the symmetry. In reality, contrary to the assumption, markets do not always clear. When this happens, for whatsoever reasons, the market is indistinct. The most evident case of a non-clearing market occurs when there is unemployment in the labor market. Price stickiness in the downward direction can be categorized as a factor causing unemployment. A monopoly is natural if one firm can manufacture a given set of goods or services at lesser costs than can any of the other firms. A normal monopoly generally boosts when costs are lessening in the range of a firm (economy of scale) or in the capacity of its products or services (economy of scope). In natural monopoly circumstances, the monopolists will elevate their costs and taxes etc. because they needs incentives for efficiency, and are engrossed in the maximization of profit. Before finishing that directive, two questions must be retorted. The first one being whether there are any natural monopolies or not; and if they exist, would a noteworthy economic effectiveness or societal wellbeing would be achieved by regulation? Economies of scale and scope undoubtedly are present over some sets of goods and services, but these economies could be worn out at output levels that tolerate more than one supplier to stay put in the market. Pragmatic studies indicate that the large electric power plants in the United States have bushed the attainable economies of scale. Moreover, a natural monopoly can also answer if having more than one dealer would result in an extravagant doubling-up of facilities or not. Local electricity distribution systems within cities may remain a monopoly to pass up carbon copy sets of distribution wires. This underlying principle would not essentially be valid in the telecommunications industry, given that cable television and wireless communications systems offer options to the local wire connections. If there is a natural monopoly, it does not inevitably follow that there is considerable cost-effective inefficiency. Primarily, if entry into the industry is trouble-free, the intimidation of prospective competition may perimeter the level to which a serving monopolist can put a ceiling on output (and raise prices). Subsequently, a monopolist may wish to bring into play a pricing policy, connecting flat charges and a stumpy unit price, which can equally boost profits and benefits clients. Yet again, if there are a number of potential suppliers of a monopoly service, competitive request for the exact to be the monopolist can be used to lessen the supply price and augment moneymaking efficiency. Likewise, a substitute to the ruling of the electric power industry is for communities to own the restricted distribution system and haggle with power companies for the delivery of electricity. A natural monopoly transpire in an industry where LRAC falls over a wide range of output levels such that there may be opportunity only for one supplier to entirely take advantage of all of the domestic economies of scale, attain the minimum efficient scale and as a result achieve productive efficiency (Riley 2006). The natural monopoly through the use of economies of scale can, in hypothesis, weaken any real or possible rivals solely on the grounds of cost. If the monopolist mislay market share (for example by the rivalry authorities acting to tear up an accessible monopoly) there is the jeopardy that smaller-scale suppliers will create at elevated average total cost, which would embody a waste of inadequate resources. Forcing such a company to price at unimportant cost would also impose inevitable losses and pressure the long-term monetary practicality of the supplier. Bibliography: Market failures, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, Riley Geoff, “Monopoly and economic efficiency,” A2 markets and market system, 2006, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, < http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-monopoly-economic-efficiency.html> Suranovic Steven M, “imperfections and distortions defined,” International trade theory and policy, 2001, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, < http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch100/T100-1.php> Essay Question 4  What is the Kyoto Protocol? Why is the Kyoto Protocol such a controversial agreement? Who is against it and why? Explain your stance on global climate change The Kyoto Protocol was an accord conferred by many countries in December 1997 and came into strength with Russia's approval on February 16, 2005. The motive for the prolonged time duration between the conditions of agreement being matured upon and the code of behavior being unavailable was owing to terms of Kyoto requiring at least 55 parties to approve the agreement and for the sum of those parties release to be at least 55% of worldwide production of greenhouse gases (West Larry, 2011). The Kyoto Protocol is an alteration to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an intercontinental contract projected to bring countries together to diminish global warming and to deal with the special effects of high temperature increase that are obvious after 150 years of industrialization. Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed nations contracted to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to a definite percentage below 1990 point. The year 1990 was chosen as a baseline, because that was the year when the UN originally launched consultation on climate change. These sum slash in giving off would have to be accomplished by the target period of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol pertains to modern nations only. Developing countries, including India and China, were not requisite to consign to reductions because their each person greenhouse gas emissions are inferior to those of urbanized nations. This verdict also took into explanation the fact that the inferior economies of the developing countries would be incapable to soak up the costs of switching from a fossil fuel based system to cleaner fuels. The arrangement is that poorer countries will be brought more energetically into future climate change agreements as cleaner technologies develop and become less costly (Bond Eric 2003). There has been a general lack of enthusiasm to consent to the agreement, due to various controversies associated with it. The UNFCCC has held yearly conferences to talk about and tackle these issues and the individual unease of some countries, but modest improvement has been made. This has led some to the declaration that the Kyoto Protocol is defective, but before passing this conclusion, the points of controversy should be scanned separately: Penalties for Non-Compliance / Withdraw At current, no punishment exists for countries that endorse the Protocol and not be as good as required to meet its lessening targets. Possibilities under consideration include trade sanctions, financial penalties and emissions penalties under future climate change agreements. The particulars for such penalties have not been established and negotiations have been very sluggish and tricky. Furthermore, any country can end the treaty after passing it by simply giving one-year’s notice. This part of the pact, together with the lack of penalties for nonconformity, has come under unsympathetic appreciation from the scientific community as it stands that the Kyoto Protocol is very unbinding and seems to exemplify something that does not call for any serious actions since there is no price for disobedience. (Bloch Michael n.d) What constitutes an "emissions reduction?" Some countries, particularly Canada and Russia with their great forests, bickered that they should be given recognition towards their drop targets for these "carbon sinks", considering the planting of forests as a part of habitual industrial development and believe that they be counted in the similar sort of way. Sadly, no real technique exists for calculating the definite benefits of either suggestion, and while some grants have been made, all of the parties concerned claim that they have not yet been ascribed as much as necessary. The Kyoto Mechanisms The disagreement regarding the mechanisms leads to the conclusion that the methods for their genuine use have yet to be decided. If put into practice, a new global market would come into view adjoining energy credits, and they would be traded much in the similar way as other merchandise such as grease or coffee. Prices would ebb and flow with supply and demand, and there would definitely be many chances for profit and loss. No method for regulating this market has been confirmed yet, and some dispute that it detracts the Kyoto Protocol away from its factual objective. By creating a comprehensive marketplace out of emissions trading, the agreement would fundamentally alter the act of plummeting emissions into an entertainment of money matters from its exact sense of achieving aim that will perk up the excellence of life on the globe. Opponents of the Kyoto Protocol assert the agreement burden is too much for the countries that sign, while achievements are too diminutive. There are also questions about the original knowledge behind the agreement. Many world scientists claim that Kyoto Protocol does not complete what it declares as it aims. Russia's Academy of Sciences said that the Russian government’s signing of the treaty was a purely political move. President Bush has long been an opponent of the agreement and has constantly turned down to give in to public demands to sign. He has been steadfast in his disapproval. Going as far reverse as his presidential campaign, the leader spoke out in opposition to Kyoto, and said that he would say no to sign the treaty. His view is consistent with the US Senate, which nominated 95-0 against signing any agreement that would "cause severe economic damage to the US", even as excusing the rest of the world. The Bush Administration claims signing the Kyoto Protocol would cost the US financial system $400 billion and $4.9 million jobs. An additional protest of Kyoto was that it excluded several countries that are on a rise, including China and India, from signing the treaty. China is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases, while India is the fifth chief contributor. China burns more coal than the US, European Union, and Japan combined (The case against the Kyoto Protocol 2008). The Kyoto Protocol also encloses numerous dodges that allow for more wealthy economies to "pay money for" the right to pollute from inferior countries. Programs such as Emissions banking, Carbon Offsets and Emissions Trading permit some countries to go on with polluting the environment, opposing the success of the greenhouse gas reduction. Concluding, while international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol are definitely a step in the right direction to boost the awareness about the ruthlessness of global climate change, they are not an absolute answer to the environmental issues at hand. Therefore, real results and development will be seen when basic reductions in energy consumption and changes in lifestyle are observed on a personal/individual level across the sphere. Bibliography: Bloch Michael, “What is the Kyoto Protocol,” carbonify.com, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, Bond Eric, “The kyoto protocol,” Climate change and the kyoto protocol, 2003, Data accessed on March 24, 2011 The case against the Kyoto Protocol, article base, 2008, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, West Larry, “What is the kyoto protocol,” about.com, 2011, Data accessed on March 24, 2011, Read More