Help

Nation Topics - Corporate Media and Consolidation

Topic Page

Nation Topics - Corporate Media and Consolidation

Articles

News and Features

Open access to the broadband Internet is essential if we are to insure that a diverse range of voices has a chance of reaching out to citizens in the new era of high-speed communications.

Should the corporate owners of newspapers like the Los Angeles Times or the New York Post be allowed to own television stations in the same city?

The pace of recent events made one of the most significant rulings in
the history of American antitrust law seem like an anti-climax.

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

* * *

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.

When Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band opened the opulent new Staples Center in LA on October 17, the Jersey Troubadour had a few choice words for those watching from the luxury skyboxes.

This article is adapted from Robert W. McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy (Illinois).
Three charts accompany this article: "Global Media Moguls," "Who Owns the Movies?" and "Who Owns the Music?"

If you combined the political roles of Republican front-runner George W.

Ten years ago, as Hungary was roiling with democratic protests, the country had two television channels, both controlled by the state.

Blogs

Standing in opposition to net neutrality is tantamount to standing against innovation, against small business, against private-sector job creation and against competition.

December 2, 2014

It is absurd that broadcast networks choose entertainment over Obama’s immigration speech.

November 20, 2014

Eric on this week’s concerts and Reed on how local TV stations boost their bottom lines with a deluge of election ads.

November 3, 2014

CNN’s climate change coverage almost disappeared like Malaysian Flight 370.

October 2, 2014

Why is it that one of the authors Amazon is choosing not to screw over just happens to be the chair of the House Budget Committee? Coincidence? Or political favoritism?

September 30, 2014

Why are certain Internet users so irrationally attached to the notion of net neutrality?

May 27, 2014

The FCC is mistaken—and democracy is threatened—when commissioners fail to embrace their authority to protect a free and open Internet. 

April 24, 2014

The merger doesn’t just impact the marketplace of cable; it threatens the marketplace of ideas.

February 18, 2014

Americans can and should say "no" to the consolidation of communications.

February 14, 2014

Eric's weekly reviews and Reed on Murdoch's media empire.

December 13, 2013