Power and media industries as summarised by Curran and Seaton — AQA A-Level Media Studies
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Power and media industries as summarised by Curran and Seaton explained
Power and media industries as summarised by Curran and Seaton covers 11 specification points, including Regulation and Deregulation.
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Regulation
Curran and Seaton argue that media ownership and control shape what gets produced and how diverse the output is. They link concentrated ownership, driven by profit, to a narrowing range of voices and to reduced incentive to invest in serious or challenging content. Regulation sits inside this argument as a counterweight: rules and bodies that limit ownership concentration or set content standards can restrain the power of large media organisations. In an MCQ, expect to match the term to its role in the argument, for example identifying regulation as a check on concentrated power, or distinguishing it from the profit motive that drives consolidation.
Deregulation
Deregulation means loosening or removing rules that govern media ownership, content or operation, usually so that markets can expand and new entrants can compete. Curran and Seaton examine how ownership concentration and market pressure shape what audiences receive, and deregulation is one lever that can increase concentration or reduce public-interest obligations. A concrete example is relaxing cross-media ownership limits, which may let one company hold newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same market. Learn to distinguish deregulation (removing or relaxing rules) from regulation (imposing them) and from privatisation (transferring public ownership to private hands).
Free market
A free market is an economic arrangement in which prices, production and provision are shaped mainly by competition between private suppliers and by consumer demand, with minimal state intervention. In media industries, a free-market approach assumes that competing outlets will respond to audience preferences and that profit incentives drive efficiency and innovation. Curran and Seaton question this assumption, arguing that market pressure can favour concentration, reduce investment in costly public-interest content and narrow the range of voices. Learn to contrast the free-market model with public-service or state-regulated models, and to explain how advertising funding ties commercial media to audience size rather than to civic value.
Media concentration
Media concentration describes the process by which ownership of media organisations becomes gathered into fewer, larger hands, so that a shrinking number of companies control a growing share of newspapers, broadcasting, publishing and online platforms. Curran and Seaton argue that this concentration of ownership narrows the range of voices available to audiences, because a small number of proprietors can shape what is produced and published. Concentration can occur through mergers, takeovers and vertical or horizontal integration, and it is often linked to the pursuit of profit and economies of scale. For the exam, learn to define the term precisely, explain the mechanism by which ownership consolidates, and connect it to the consequence for pluralism and democratic debate.
Public Service Broadcasting (PSB)
Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) refers to broadcasting that is funded and regulated to serve the public interest rather than purely commercial ends. In the UK, the BBC is the central example, funded by the licence fee and required to inform, educate and entertain across a range of audiences. PSB is expected to provide impartial news, cater for minority as well as majority tastes, and maintain quality and diversity that market-driven broadcasting might neglect. Curran and Seaton use PSB to illustrate an alternative to concentrated commercial ownership, arguing that public funding and regulation can protect pluralism and democratic debate. For the exam, define PSB, identify its public-interest obligations, and explain how it counters the pressures of commercial concentration.
Globalisation
Globalisation describes how media production, distribution and consumption increasingly operate across national borders, so that ownership, finance, content and audiences are transnational rather than contained within one country. In the Curran and Seaton summary of power and media industries, globalisation matters because large companies can spread risk across many markets, sell the same product worldwide and benefit from economies of scale, which concentrates power in fewer hands. A learner should be able to explain how a media product reaches audiences in several countries, how ownership crosses borders, and how this affects the range of voices available. Link the concept to concentration of ownership and to the idea that profit-driven companies favour cheap, popular content.
Conglomerates
A conglomerate is a large parent company that owns many subsidiary businesses across different media sectors, such as film, television, publishing and music. In the Curran and Seaton summary of power and media industries, conglomerates matter because owning many outlets lets a company control production, distribution and promotion, cross-promote its own products and spread financial risk. This concentration can reduce the number of independent voices and let commercial priorities shape content. A learner should be able to identify a conglomerate, explain how its ownership spans several businesses, and discuss the consequences for competition and for the diversity of content audiences receive.
Neo-liberalism
Neo-liberalism is the economic outlook that trusts free markets, private ownership and limited state intervention to deliver efficient, responsive media. Within Curran and Seaton's account of power in media industries, it is the position set against their own critical political-economy view: where neo-liberals see competition disciplining companies and serving audiences, Curran and Seaton argue that concentrated ownership and profit pressure narrow the range of voices available. To answer a question on this term, define it as a market-led philosophy, then explain the mechanism it assumes (competition, consumer choice, deregulation) and contrast it with the concern that ownership concentration reduces diversity. A concrete example is a government relaxing cross-media ownership rules in the belief that market entry will increase choice.
Surveillance
Surveillance, in media study, is the gathering and monitoring of information about audiences and citizens, whether by states, platforms or media organisations. Within Curran and Seaton's account of power in media industries, surveillance connects to control: those who own or regulate media can observe, profile and shape publics, and the capacity to watch is unevenly distributed. Distinguish two senses: state or corporate monitoring of users' data, and the media's own role in publicising information to citizens. A concrete example is a platform collecting behavioural data to target advertising, or a government using communications data to monitor populations. Answer questions by defining the term, naming who conducts the surveillance, and explaining the power relationship it creates.
Privacy
Curran and Seaton argue that the ownership and control of media industries shape what audiences are offered, and privacy is one area where that power becomes visible. A learner should be able to explain how concentrated ownership and the pursuit of profit can lead outlets to intrude on individuals' private lives, because personal material attracts attention and revenue, while also recognising that privacy is a legal and ethical limit on how media organisations gather and publish information. Use a concrete case: an outlet weighing a story about a public figure's private life against the harm of intrusion, and consider how regulation and audience trust constrain that choice.
Security.
Within Curran and Seaton's account of power in media industries, security concerns how ownership and control affect the protection of information and the trust audiences place in media organisations. A learner should explain that concentrated ownership can centralise control of sensitive material, creating risks around who can access, hold and release it, and that security also covers the safeguards organisations use to protect sources, data and reputation. Use a concrete example: an outlet deciding who may access a confidential source's identity, and how ownership structures and commercial pressures shape that decision. Connect security to accountability and to the public's confidence in media institutions.
Your focus
- State the role of regulation within Curran and Seaton's account of media power.
- Explain how regulation relates to concentrated ownership and diversity of output.
- Select the option that correctly applies the theory to a regulatory example.
Show all 33 objectives
- Define deregulation accurately in a media industries context.
- Distinguish deregulation from related terms such as regulation and privatisation.
- Explain one consequence of deregulation for ownership or content.
- Define the free-market model in relation to media industries.
- Explain how commercial funding shapes media content.
- Evaluate the free-market assumption using Curran and Seaton's arguments.
- Define media concentration accurately in terms of ownership.
- Explain at least one mechanism by which concentration occurs.
- Describe the consequence of concentration for media pluralism.
- Define Public Service Broadcasting in terms of its public-interest remit.
- Identify a UK example and its funding arrangement.
- Explain how PSB relates to Curran and Seaton's argument about media power.
- Define globalisation in relation to media ownership, production and distribution.
- Explain how globalisation concentrates power in fewer media organisations.
- Assess how globalisation affects the range of content available to audiences.
- Define a conglomerate in relation to multi-sector media ownership.
- Explain how conglomerate ownership concentrates power and enables cross-promotion.
- Assess the consequences of conglomerates for competition and content diversity.
- Define neo-liberalism accurately as a market-led economic outlook.
- Explain the mechanism by which neo-liberals expect competition to serve media audiences.
- Contrast the neo-liberal view with Curran and Seaton's critical account of media power.
- Define surveillance accurately in a media-industries context.
- Identify who conducts surveillance and whom it targets.
- Explain how surveillance relates to power and control in Curran and Seaton's account.
- Explain how media ownership and profit pressures can lead to intrusion on privacy.
- Apply a legal or ethical limit on privacy to a specific media example.
- Distinguish legitimate public interest from unjustified intrusion into private life.
- Explain how ownership and control affect the security of sensitive media information.
- Apply a safeguard for protecting sources or data to a specific example.
- Explain how security failures affect audience trust and accountability.
Power and media industries as summarised by Curran and Seaton exam tips
Marking Points
- Identifies regulation as a mechanism that can limit or check the power of large media organisations.
- Links regulation to Curran and Seaton's concern about concentrated ownership reducing the range of voices available.
- Distinguishes regulation from the profit motive that drives media consolidation in the theory.
- Explains that regulatory intervention can protect diversity or standards against purely commercial priorities.
- Defines deregulation as the relaxation or removal of rules governing media ownership, content or operation.
- Links deregulation to increased concentration of ownership and reduced plurality when limits are lifted.
- Distinguishes deregulation from regulation and from privatisation with a clear example.
- Explains how deregulation may affect the range and quality of content available to audiences.
- Defines a free market as provision driven by private competition and consumer demand with minimal state intervention.
- Explains how advertising and profit incentives shape the content commercial media produce.
- Contrasts the free-market model with public-service or state-regulated provision.
- Evaluates the free-market assumption using Curran and Seaton's concern about concentration and reduced plurality.
- Defines media concentration as the ownership of media organisations by progressively fewer, larger companies.
- Explains a mechanism of concentration such as mergers, takeovers or horizontal and vertical integration.
- Links concentration to a reduced range of voices or diminished pluralism in media output.
- Connects concentration to Curran and Seaton's argument about proprietor influence over content.
- Identifies a consequence for audiences or democracy, such as narrower representation of viewpoints.
- Defines PSB as broadcasting funded and regulated to serve the public interest rather than profit alone.
- Identifies the BBC and the licence fee as a central UK example of public service provision.
- Explains a public-interest obligation such as impartial news, minority provision or diversity of output.
- Connects PSB to Curran and Seaton's argument that public funding can protect pluralism against commercial concentration.
- Contrasts PSB with commercially driven broadcasting in terms of priorities and accountability.
- Defines globalisation as the cross-border operation of media ownership, production, distribution and consumption.
- Explains how operating across many markets lets large companies spread risk and gain economies of scale.
- Connects globalisation to the concentration of media power in fewer, larger organisations.
- Identifies an effect on audiences, such as a narrower range of voices or more widely shared content.
- Defines a conglomerate as a large parent company owning many subsidiary businesses across media sectors.
- Explains how conglomerate ownership spans production, distribution and promotion, enabling cross-promotion.
- Connects conglomerates to reduced competition and fewer independent voices in the market.
- Identifies a consequence for audiences, such as content shaped by commercial priorities or reduced diversity.
- Defines neo-liberalism as a market-led outlook favouring private ownership, competition and limited state regulation of media.
- Explains the mechanism neo-liberals assume, namely that competition and consumer choice discipline media companies and improve service to audiences.
- Contrasts the neo-liberal position with Curran and Seaton's concern that ownership concentration and profit pressure reduce the diversity of media voices.
- Applies the concept to a concrete case such as deregulation of ownership rules, showing how the term explains a real industry arrangement.
- Defines surveillance as the gathering and monitoring of information about audiences or citizens by states, platforms or media organisations.
- Distinguishes surveillance of users through data collection from the media's role in circulating information to the public.
- Explains the power relationship surveillance creates, showing how the capacity to monitor is unevenly held and can shape publics.
- Applies the concept to a concrete case such as platform data collection for targeted advertising or state monitoring of communications.
- Explains how concentrated media ownership can create pressure to prioritise attention-grabbing private material over restraint.
- Links privacy intrusion to the commercial logic of profit-seeking that Curran and Seaton associate with concentrated ownership.
- Identifies a legal or ethical limit on gathering and publishing private information and applies it to a media example.
- Distinguishes between a public figure's legitimate public interest and unjustified intrusion into private life.
- Explains how concentrated ownership can centralise control over sensitive information and create security risks.
- Identifies safeguards an organisation uses to protect sources, data or reputation and applies them to an example.
- Links security decisions to the commercial and accountability pressures Curran and Seaton associate with concentrated ownership.
- Explains how security failures can damage audience trust in media institutions.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Read the stem for the theorist's name and match the option to Curran and Seaton's power-and-control argument, not to a general view of regulation.
- 💡Eliminate options that describe regulation as a profit strategy, since the theory frames it as a check on commercial power.
- 💡Check the option names a specific effect, such as protecting diversity, rather than a vague statement about rules existing.
- 💡Anchor the definition in one sentence before adding an example of a relaxed ownership rule.
- 💡Use the contrast pair regulation and deregulation to show precise understanding.
- 💡Name the consequence for plurality or public-interest obligations rather than stopping at the definition.
- 💡State the core mechanism of competition and demand before evaluating it.
- 💡Use one concrete media example, such as advertiser-funded commercial broadcasting, to ground the concept.
- 💡Signal evaluation explicitly by weighing the free-market claim against Curran and Seaton's critique.
- 💡Anchor the definition in ownership and control rather than audience size.
- 💡Name a concrete mechanism such as a merger or takeover to show understanding.
- 💡Finish by stating the consequence for the range of voices, which is what Curran and Seaton emphasise.
- 💡Define PSB through its public-interest remit, not just its funding source.
- 💡Use the BBC and licence fee as a concrete UK illustration.
- 💡Link PSB explicitly to Curran and Seaton's concern with pluralism and democratic debate.
- 💡Anchor the definition in ownership, production, distribution and audiences rather than a vague idea of 'the world getting smaller'.
- 💡Use a named media example that operates across several countries to show the concept in action.
- 💡Link globalisation explicitly to Curran and Seaton's concern about concentrated power and profit-driven content.
- 💡Define the term precisely as multi-sector parent ownership before discussing its effects.
- 💡Use a named conglomerate and list the different media businesses it owns to demonstrate the concept.
- 💡Link conglomerate ownership to Curran and Seaton's argument about concentrated power and profit-driven content.
- 💡Open with a one-sentence definition, then spend the rest of the answer on the mechanism and its media-industry consequence.
- 💡Use the phrase 'Curran and Seaton argue' to signal whose perspective you are contrasting with the neo-liberal view.
- 💡Anchor the abstract term to a named type of policy or ownership arrangement so the answer shows applied understanding.
- 💡Define surveillance in one sentence, then name the agent doing the watching and the group being watched.
- 💡Link the concept explicitly to Curran and Seaton's argument about power in media industries rather than leaving it abstract.
- 💡Support the definition with a specific example of data collection or monitoring to demonstrate applied understanding.
- 💡Anchor each point to the Curran and Seaton argument about ownership and control rather than describing privacy in the abstract.
- 💡Use one specific media example to show how a privacy decision was made and who was affected.
- 💡Name the legal or ethical principle at stake, such as consent or public interest, and explain how it constrains the outlet.
- 💡Tie the security point explicitly to the Curran and Seaton argument about ownership and control.
- 💡Use one concrete example of protecting a source or sensitive data and explain who controls access.
- 💡State the consequence of a security failure for audience trust or accountability.
Common Mistakes
- Confuses regulation with ownership itself; keep regulation as the external check on owners rather than a form of ownership.
- Treats regulation as always increasing profits; recognise it is presented as a constraint on commercial power.
- Ignores the theorist's focus on power and control; connect the answer to concentration of ownership and its effects on output.
- Confuses deregulation with privatisation; keep the two separate by defining deregulation as rule removal and privatisation as a change of ownership.
- Treats deregulation as always increasing choice; note that relaxing ownership limits can reduce the number of independent voices.
- Assumes deregulation removes all rules; recognise that it relaxes specific rules while others remain.
- Ignores the Curran and Seaton context; connect the term to their argument about ownership and market power.
- Equates a free market with an absence of any rules; recognise that some legal framework usually remains.
- Assumes free-market competition guarantees diverse content; note that Curran and Seaton argue market pressure can narrow output.
- Confuses a free market with a free press; keep the economic model distinct from editorial freedom.
- Overlooks the funding mechanism; connect free-market media to advertising revenue and audience ratings.
- Confuses concentration with conglomeration alone; treat concentration as the broader shrinking number of owners, of which conglomeration is one form.
- Assumes concentration only affects newspapers; recognise that it applies across broadcasting, publishing and online platforms.
- Treats concentration as automatically harmful without explanation; always link it to a stated effect on pluralism or content.
- Equates PSB with any state-owned broadcaster; focus on public-interest obligations and regulation rather than ownership alone.
- Assumes PSB is only about the BBC's entertainment output; recognise duties to inform, educate and serve minority audiences.
- Treats PSB as automatically free of commercial pressure; explain that its funding and regulation are what distinguish it.
- Treats globalisation as simply the spread of technology; correct this by focusing on cross-border ownership, production and markets.
- Assumes globalisation always increases diversity; correct this by noting that concentrated ownership can reduce the range of voices.
- Confuses globalisation with a single company's domestic growth; correct this by requiring operation across national borders.
- Treats any single media company as a conglomerate; correct this by requiring ownership of multiple businesses across sectors.
- Assumes conglomerate ownership guarantees higher quality; correct this by focusing on commercial priorities and reduced competition.
- Confuses a conglomerate with a small independent producer; correct this by stressing large-scale, multi-sector ownership.
- Confuses neo-liberalism with political liberalism or with left-wing politics; keep the term tied to free-market economics and deregulation.
- Treats neo-liberalism as Curran and Seaton's own position; present it as the outlook their critical political-economy argument challenges.
- Describes the concept in general terms without linking it to media ownership, competition or diversity of content.
- Treats surveillance as only state activity; include corporate and platform monitoring of audience data as well.
- Confuses surveillance with censorship; keep the focus on watching, gathering and profiling rather than on suppressing content.
- Uses the term loosely without naming who conducts the surveillance or what power relationship results.
- Treats privacy as purely a technical issue about data storage; reframe it as an ethical and legal limit on media intrusion.
- Assumes all coverage of a public figure's private life is justified; weigh public interest against intrusion.
- Ignores the role of ownership and profit in shaping editorial decisions; connect intrusion to the commercial pressures Curran and Seaton describe.
- Treats security as only a technical IT matter; connect it to ownership, control and editorial responsibility.
- Assumes centralised control automatically improves security; weigh the risks of concentrated access.
- Overlooks the effect of security failures on public trust; explain the consequence for accountability.