Ad Policy

Mergers and acquisitions


  • April 29, 2015

    Quashing the Comcast Merger Is Just the Beginning

    A new antitrust movement is on the march.

    Zephyr Teachout

  • July 16, 2014

    When Will the Justice Department Take On Amazon?

    As the online behemoth strengthens its monopoly over the marketplace, publishers, like bookstores, are in a fight for survival.

    Steve Wasserman

  • February 20, 2014

    Stop the Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger

    The merger would be bad for consumers, bad for our free press and bad for democracy. 

    NationAction

  • September 13, 2012

    Rewriting Antitrust Law

    Helping the big get bigger, the strong get stronger.

    Herman Schwartz

  • February 15, 2012

    Still No End to ‘Too Big to Fail’

    A year and a half after Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve still refuses to block the Capitol One mergers.

    William Greider

  • Sign up for our weekly newsletter and we'll send you a FREE gift.


  • May 15, 2008

    Bring Back Antitrust!

    Americans interested in economic justice used to consider antitrust litigation a top priority. Perhaps soon we will think along these lines again.

    Harry First

  • September 25, 2000

    In Business We Trust

    The Supreme Court once championed antitrust laws as valued tools to limit corporate power and to promote the autonomy, diversity and economic rights of people and firms without power. Not anymore.

    Eleanor Fox

  • May 3, 2000

    Antitrust & the Media–I

    This spring the topic of antitrust returned to the headlines after a long absence as the government pursued and won (for the time being) its case against Microsoft and, in a more muted way, as Ti

    Robert W. McChesney

  • April 24, 2000

    Extra! Extra! Read Less About It

    * * *

    When legendary media critic A.J. Liebling issued that warning some decades ago about the corrosive effect of media monopolies on the First Amendment, media ownership was a great deal more varied than it is today.

    Even then, it was far more concentrated in a few hands than when the Bill of Rights was written, when "the press" was a low-capital venture, and newspapers were easily launched by those who had something to say. The founding fathers hardly anticipated today's media market, in which journalism is a vehicle for mega-corporate profits, and the diversity of opinion implied in the First Amendment is threatened less by a king or the state and far more by the motives of media barons.

    Nowadays, media mega-mergers are the rage, and the Bush Administration is determined to remove legal barriers to media conglomeration that long have prevented a few giant corporations from controlling all of print and broadcast journalism. But can we count on the very news organizations whose owners are zealously pursuing profit from those mergers to also objectively cover the implications of media concentration for a free society?

    The initial signs aren't promising. When America Online purchased Time Warner in the biggest media merger in US history, there was considerable analysis of the deal's business aspects but meager attention to implications for a representative democracy of having a significant portion of its media controlled by one corporation.

    Previously, one could assume that Time magazine, AOL and CNN, as well as other parts of the new conglomerate, at least reflected the voices of different owners, but that's no longer the case. Also, with that merger, AOL went from being an outsider company demanding open access to cable to being the second-largest cable operator. Suddenly it muted its open access demand, leaving the perception that the news outlets now assembled under the AOL banner might also have had a change of heart as to what's important in the cable controversy.

    Most recently, the new Bush FCC appointees relaxed a long-standing "dual network rule" barring one television network from buying another. The result is that Viacom, which owns CBS, will have a large stake in the UPN network. Will other broadcasters anticipating similar deals permit their news organizations to voice dissenting opinions, or launch investigations of the FCC's abandonment of its consumer watchdog role?

    Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch has made clear his intention to purchase DirecTV from General Motors. If he succeeds, he'll combine the largest US satellite broadcaster with his existing satellite network, which is pervasive in much of the rest of the world. Will journalists laboring in his vast empire dare raise troubling questions about the danger of one man holding such overwhelming power in the world communications market?

    Further, Bush's new FCC chairman, Michael Powell, promises to eliminate the 1975 prohibition against cross-ownership--a company owning a TV station and newspaper in the same market. That might prove immensely profitable to the Tribune Co., which, in purchasing the Times Mirror Co. last year, acquired newspapers in three markets where Tribune already owned television stations. But is cross-ownership healthy for independent journalism in those markets, which include New York and Los Angeles? Will the news outlets that are subsidiaries in the deal fully examine the journalistic implications of media concentration? Or will they only report on the wonders of what the owners celebrate as "convergence" or "synergy"?

    The answer suggested by the last election is that media have difficulty covering themselves fully when the owners' financial interests are seriously in play. How else can one explain the scant attention paid to the difference between Al Gore--who opposed cross-ownership--and George W. Bush on this issue?

    Also ignored in the coverage was the stake that media moguls had in the Democrats not gaining control of Congress. Had that happened, John Dingell (D-Mich.) would be chairing the House Commerce Committee, which oversees the work of the FCC. Dingell was on record as opposing the Tribune purchase of Times Mirror because such mergers lead to a "huge concentration of power in a small group of hands."

    That's why Dingell and others believe that government regulation to preserve a diverse media market is essential. The rules concerning media ownership were not carelessly drawn up over the preceding decades to inconvenience the media industry. Rather, they were designed to save the media business from its worst instincts.

    Regulation is a reminder that there is a public interest in the news media as in no other industry because corporate concentration threatens the competition vital to an unfettered press. The free press belongs to us all and not just to the few who own one.

    Robert Scheer

  • April 5, 2000

    Microsoft: Judgment Day

    Despite all the palaver, the denouement came quickly.

    Eben Moglen