Conglomerates Media Ownership

Conglomerates / Media Ownership Media mergers that started in earnest in the mid-1980s have continued non-stop ever since. The result is that in 1984, fifty firms controlled the majority of market share in daily newspapers, magazines, television, radio, books, and motion pictures -- today, six firms control the majority of market share in these media. (Ben Bagdikian) Such concentration of the major information sources in a handful of large media conglomerates has, understandably, given rise to genuine concern among people who cherish the ideals of democracy such as free speech.

In this essay we shall examine some of these concerns and also look at the other side of the picture. The monopolistic control of the mass media by a handful of large corporations in the U.S. has reached a stage where the ordinary citizen is not being provided with the required information necessary for making informed choice while electing their political representatives. Dependence on advertising for revenues by the print media has reduced its responsiveness to readers' desires, as the publisher has become less dependent on reader payments.

This has also eroded the early American tradition of local newspapers, which have been increasingly replaced by large national dailies. The same media groups, accompanied by a constant stream of advertising, also dominate the commercial television and radio. In order to get a larger share of advertising, serious in-depth coverage of local news and political issues and candidates at the time of elections have been replaced by 'bland' non-controversial news reporting that is catered to appeal to larger sections of the public.

This changing face of the mass media has undermined local politics, which is the essence of American democracy. (Ben Bagdikian, Chapter on "Democracy and the Media") One of the arguments against the concentration of the nation's communication in a few hands was the proliferation of "entertainment" dominated by sex and violence and a disregard of news. This concern proved wrong in the wake of round-the-clock, commercial-free news coverage by the networks. By some accounts such "public service" cost these conglomerates more than $500 million.

(Roberts) Although media managers such as Andrew Hayward (President, CBS News) insist, "We are committed to covering the story well, and won't make any choices that shortchanges the public," many skeptics will take such declarations with a pinch of salt.

For example, Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy says, "I'm not saying that everything is a horrible paranoid fantasy, but my sense is there's an implicit quid pro quo here." (Quoted by Roberts) These suspicions are further fueled by the readiness of these big media players to accept "government advice" on killing stories it does not like, and the fact that all of them have pivotal business pending in Washington.

These big media conglomerates have acquired enormous political power, as reflected in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that was purported to be an attempt to spur competition, but resulted in exactly the opposite -- the trend of media mergers actually accelerating after 1996.

What is more, with this Act, the Congress gave the digital spectrum ($40 billion to $100 billion worthy of public assets) to commercial broadcasters free of charge, which Senator John McCain referred to as "one of the greatest scams in American history." (Quoted by Duemler) There is little doubt that the increasing dominance of the global media by a handful of large, influential conglomerates is a dangerous trend. It smothers the independent voice, undermines the quality of news, compromises.