Pros and Cons of Media Consolidation

This is a list of common arguments for and against media consolidation.

Arguments in Favor of the Corporate Media System

1) The lack of government control argument. Regardless of any problems that exist in a corporate media system, many people see it as superior to a system that is controlled by the government.

2) The "eyeball democracy" argument. Because the corporate media system is one that is primarily interested in profit, it is based upon ratings. If something is popular, it will remain in the media, but if it is not popular, it's gone. Because of this, consumers essentially get to vote for content with their eyeballs. If they watch it, it stays on the air. If they don't watch it, it goes away. Although consumers don't always get exactly what they want, that's how democracy works: majority rules.

3)The quality programming argument. Because people "vote with their eyeballs," quality media tends to stay in business, while poor quality media does not.

4)The synergy argument. Because media companies control so many related things, consumers can benefit through convenience. For example, thanks to media deregulation, a consumer can now purchase digital television, high speed Internet, and phone service from the same company, and pay a bundled price on one bill.

5)The media diversity argument. Because there are so many different outlets these days--thousands of television stations, radio stations, alternative newspapers, and, of course, the Internet-- it doesn't matter so much if most of the media are owned by a few. Plenty of opportunity is out there for everyone to have a voice.


Arguments Against the Corporate Media System

1)The "market censorship" argument. Because the corporate media system is primarily concerned about profit and ratings, controversial ideas often do not get much or any media coverage. This is true of ideas that are far to the left, far to the right, or otherwise outside of mainstream conventions. In effect, the market "censors" these ideas.

2)The poor quality argument. Corporate media can hinder quality programming because it squelches innovation-- especially on media that are expensive to produce, like television. Someone may have a great idea for a television show, but because it hasn't been tried before, it's considered too risky-- so the network makes yet another batch of reality shows and sexy doctor shows instead.

3)The conflict of interest argument. Ideally, the media are supposed to be gatekeepers who keep tabs on the powerful people in society and prevent them from abusing their power. However, the media themselves have become the powerful people-- so how can they be expected to keep tabs of the abuse of power, especially when abuses of power relate to corporations?

4)The monopoly argument. When markets are unregulated and companies have a monopoly or near-monopoly on services, consumers can lose out because of higher prices and poor service. When a company controls a huge portion of the media in a given market, that's a monopoly.


Read more: http://medialiteracy.suite101.com/article.cfm/media_consolidation_ownership#ixzz0NXJSOESP

Who's fault is it anyway?

When considering the cause of more power concentrating in fewer companies, we may look no further than the US government.

When consolidation gets to the extreme, it is a monopoly. Ludwig von Mises, the voice of free market economics, stated, “Almost all the monopolies that are assailed by public opinion and against which governments pretend to fight are government made.”

In other words, the moment that the government is given power over the economy, with power to make or break a business or industry, lobbyists magically appear. Many lobbyists want to influence government to pass laws that will give their company advantages over their existing competitors. Others want laws passed that will set high, strict standards to new businesses, thus reducing the birth of potential competitors into the market. Most companies, however, want to get in good with the government just to maintain their existence, that the almighty government doesn’t dictate a law and mangle their profits. The mere existence of sovereign government power in economics presents instability and danger to industry.

Because many think the fault for consolidation is in the media itself, they try to implore government to make laws against it. They try to restrict further growth of these giants. However, what about promoting growth of the little company that wants to get in? Restrictions can and should be lifted from new businesses from entering the market. Then we don’t have to punish and restrict business, but give it more life and freedom. This will naturally tackle the “problem” of consolidation and increase the amount of competitors.

The culprits of media concentration aren’t Big Media. They just do what is possible to survive and continue to grow and improve their business in challenging times. By taking government out of the economics equation, media business, including the little guys, will flourish.

Big media isn't all THAT bad...

Fewer corporations having larger influence can be scary. It seems that most people are against the increasing power of the media, but with further consideration, you can see the benefits of its concentration.

One of the concerns with media outlets merging is that “[h]ealthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices.” First of all, even though the diversity of ownership has decreased, competition still exists and is probably just as intense as before, if not more so. And while competition certainly is a catalyst for innovation, capital – and a lot of it – is essential to finance that innovation. Big Media have more “disposable” capital to invest in technology, which is a risk that smaller companies, even if they had access to it, wouldn’t be as inclined to risk.

Opponents also point out the unwillingness of media companies to report news that puts them (or its owners) in a bad light. Despite the fact that companies naturally wouldn’t report unflattering information about themselves or their owners, their competitors are more than eager to. The fact that we have knowledge, and not merely suspicions, of corporations that have hid information from the public indicates that it will somehow find its way to the public through an alternative means.

Even though there are less competitors, competition is still alive and intense. Although media don't report things that will make them look bad (and who does?), their competitors will.

Funny video about Rupert Murdoch

Big Media

How much do they really own?

On the website of Columbia Journalism Review, a magazine for journalists, they have Who Owns What, where you can pick any of the major media companies and see just how much they really do own. I knew that Time Warner owned a lot of stuff, but not that much! I personally counted over 100 magazine publications under their control. Other companies included are Bertelsmann, Gannett, Viacom, Walt Disney, and many other big name media. Check out the list of over 59 companies to see how much influence they have in our daily lives.

Walter Cronkite on Media Ownership

An article about Walter Cronkite was recently published in The Nation, in which the "the most trusted name in news" talked about his views on the consolidation of media and the future of the news industry. He mentioned that "the failure of newspaper competition in a community is a very serious handicap to the dissemination of the knowledge that the citizens need to participate in a democracy." In others, consolidation of media is a threat to a democracy.

Mr. Cronkite also mentioned his concerns that reporters for the big media are afraid to speak out against government action. He thinks it’s the duty journalism to not only report the news, but to analyze it.

It’s a good article. Check it out

Conspiracy or Reality? Is the United States an Imperialist Society?

There are many people that argue that America is an imperialist nation. These people are often referred to as wackos, nutcases, conspiracy theorists or to use Bill O'Reilly's term, "looneys". These looneys argue that America has been an imperialist nation for some time now.According to looney theory, The Monroe Doctrine was a declaration of international imperialism(Check out this video for more info on the Monroe Doctrine. Notice that the document was in fact a public declaration of U.S. imperialists intentions-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38cyHchHPhI). The looneys go so far as saying that America is imperialist today and that the media attempts to suppress this fact. Is there any truth in the looney perspective? President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned American citizens of the growing power of what he referred to as the industrial-military complex. During WWII and the Cold War, an industry of military weapons development grew and became very profitable. Eisenhower seemed concerned that this new group of industrialists would use their power to influence Washington D.C. Looney's argue that America has reached an era where war itself is exceedingly profitable to arms producers in our society. This is a frightening concept, especially if you take into consideration Eisenhower's warning(PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY). Was President Dwight D. Eisenhower a looney? Eisenhower's statement is more profound considering that he was a military man. The media often fails to convey the perspective that America is imperialist. This is troubling if you consider that the looneys are right. Does the media hide the fact that America is imperialist????

Democracy and the Media

The media plays a crucial role in a democratic society. The public must be informed of issues relevant to society. The public must be knowledgable of all the possible alternatives before making an effecient decision or supporting proper legislation. The media should provide the public with this information. There is no other institution or group capable of carrying out this function.


A society lacking an objective media system will also lack democracy. There are many examples of societies such as this. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come to mind. The media systems of those nations served the government and the status quo. The public was misinformed and in turn, was incapable of participating in any significant form of democracy.



Is the American public in danger of losing it's democratic potential because of the concentration of media ownership in America? Many people argue that when fewer and fewer people control the flow of information to the public, the potential for a conflict of interest increases dramatically. The concentration of media ownership allows at great convenience the influence of the media by corporate interests.


This is a troubling scenario. The media in the Soviet Union was tightly controlled by the government. Inevitably, the media distorted reality. The information line to the public was first channelled through a filter which removed any information that was harmful to the government's image. The public's perspective was shaped to accept the status quo.

American media has a legacy of advocating watchdog journalism. Journalist's scrutinize the government and inform the public of any wrong doing. Essentially, journalism is thought to be an objective set of eyes, guarding the public from a tyranical government.

But what happens when a very large portion of the media is owned by a few corporations? After all, CEO's are amongst the elites of our society. Could the media be used as a tool to distort reality and shape the publics perspective? It has happened numerous times throughout history in other nations.

Noam Chomsky, the head of the linguistics and philosophy department at Massachusetts Institution of Technology, is one of the most prominent critics of the U.S. media. Edward Herman and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent. The book refers to different world events in the 20th century, such as the Vietnam War and America's involvement in Latin-America. They use statistical and empirical evidence to support their argument that the U.S. media failed to convey fair and balanced information to the American public. The public was incapable of making a sound decision on government policy. The public was denied the right to voice their opinions about supplying American guns, ammunition and bombs to dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a critical public, U.S. weapons manufacturers could keep selling guns and ammunition to dictators accused of human rights abuses.

Other folks argue that media consolidation is not a problem. According to the text book, Issues In Media, media executives argue that consolidations allows massive corporations to stay competitive and create more media outlets. They argue that there is still many different voices and opinions in the media and that massive media conglomerates promote a diversity of material. They point to the explosion of technological advances in the past decades. The internet allows citizen journalists to express diverse viewpoints to a huge audience.

Today, media consolidation has reached an unprecedented peak. The textbook, Mass Communication by Ralph E. Hanson cites Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Ben Bagdikian's assessment of media consolidation. Bagdikian wrote that in the 1983, the media was dominated by 50 corporations. In 1987, there were only 29. By 2004, the number of corporations dominating the media shrunk to five.

I see this as a direct threat to American democracy. Of course America is not a direct democracy. It is a representative demacracy with elected officials making legislative decisions. But an uninformed public lacks the knowledge to elect officials that will benefit society. An uninformed public leads to an undemocratic society.

Are we headed down this road?

Dylan