The Media Monopoly Crisis
Our new special issue takes on the out-of-control consolidation that is squeezing out independent voices and controlling what we read.
In 1960, when The New Yorker’s press critic A.J. Liebling famously observed that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” New Yorkers had seven daily newspapers to choose from. And that was just in English. The city also boasted dailies in Arabic, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish—and two in Yiddish. By the time The Nation first surveyed the publishing industry in 1996, New York was down to four English-language dailies and seven publishing houses. Our anatomy that year of what we dubbed “the national entertainment state” focused on the four corporations that, between them, controlled what Americans saw on television. Thanks to the rise of the Internet, when we revisited the topic in 2002, our chart of the “Big Ten” media companies spanned four pages. Yet when we returned four years later, the roster had shrunk to six: Disney (which owned ABC), CBS, General Electric (NBC), News Corp (Fox), Time Warner (CNN), and Viacom (MTV, Paramount, and DreamWorks).
Consolidation has only accelerated since then, with book publishing now down to a Big Five. After Simon & Schuster found its sale to Penguin Random House blocked on antitrust grounds, the private equity firm KKR snatched it up for $1.6 billion earlier this year. Given KKR’s overall portfolio of $86 billion, publishing is a minuscule part of its business. And as Tom Schatz, a historian of Hollywood’s Golden Age, reports in this issue, the fabled Big Six movie studios have been whittled down to two: Disney (with a market capitalization of $169 billion) and Netflix ($198 billion) now dominate film and TV production. But, Schatz explains, thanks to the rise of cord-cutting and the continuing decline of both film studios and cable, those two—along with competitors like Comcast and Sony—find themselves fighting over a shrinking portion of a media landscape dominated by Apple ($2.9 trillion) and Amazon ($1.5 trillion). Now that these behemoths have the corporate muscle to influence not just what gets made but also how it gets distributed and marketed, and—given Jeff Bezos’s ownership of The Washington Post—even how (or whether) it gets reviewed, we felt that a return to the scene of the crime was long overdue.
Media Special Issue
Because this time the big squeeze on independent voices isn’t just a result of corporate mergers involving the means of production. Elon Musk may be widely known—and justly reviled—for what he’s done to Twitter. However, as Siva Vaidhyanathan reports, the reason Musk really matters is that, thanks to the satellite Internet company Starlink—a side project of his aerospace company SpaceX—he controls the digital access of a substantial portion of Earth’s inhabitants. Vaidhyanathan’s three-tiered analysis of the current media landscape—infrastructure, applications (like Google and Facebook), and content—also explains why the underlying corporate structures have become so big that we’ve had to give up trying to capture everything in one neat graphic.
Instead, in the pages that follow, we offer a multitude of perspectives, from Zephyr Teachout’s rogues’ gallery of “Big Unfriendly Tech Giants” to Gene Seymour’s personal history of the rise, decline, and enduring relevance of Black media. The brilliant graphic journalist Colleen Tighe offers an illustrated Internet pilgrim’s progress from the utopian hopes of the early information age to the brutal exigencies of the attention economy, while Vilissa Thompson laments the toll our incredible shrinking industry has taken on efforts to increase diversity and to include marginalized voices.
And this wouldn’t be a Nation special issue without some commonsense radical solutions. Starting at the grass roots, Kelsey McKinney of Defector Media and Aleksander Chan of Discourse Blog offer founders’-eye-view advice on how to start your own media company. John Nichols, who has a fair claim to being Liebling’s successor in covering the carnage of local newspapers—and who notes in these pages that the term “news desert” now applies to some of our biggest cities—outlines an ambitious Marshall Plan for journalistic renewal. Not to mention Bryce Covert’s compelling close-up portrait of FTC chair Lina Khan—a woman with the power to actually do something to break up media monopolies. But then we think of this entire special issue of The Nation as a call to action.
Thank you for reading The Nation!
We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.
In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.
There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.
The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.
Thank you for your generosity.