Thus, they set off a great deal of protest. Americans did not appreciate the fact that a small group of powerful corporations are given more control of the most important element of our democracy: our access to information. They are right to feel this way. The media monopoly allows a small amount of companies power over media outlets (independent and corporate alike, including on the Web). This is far too much power for them to possess, but this is the future face of media consolidation. Unfortunately, as most monopolies do, the media conglomerates operate mainly for their stockholders-major media in the United States can be very profitable (McChesney and Nichols, 2002). To ensure their profitability, they serve the major corporate interests that fund much of the media with large advertising checks.

However, new initiatives, such as the Democratic Media Legal Project (DMLP), are preparing to present legal challenges to the entire corporate and commercial basis of the media policies (Kidd, 2001). Peter Franck, legal director of DMLP, argues that "[a] commercial media [system based] on the Telecommunications Act is unconstitutional, because it limits diversity of viewpoints, leaves out or misrepresents the majority of social, political, cultural groups and classes, and is unaccountable to the people." Citizens of the United States legally own the airwaves, and, therefore, it can be argued that the broadcasting section of the Communications Act is unconstitutional.

Media conglomerates create a monopoly that has a direct effect on concrete media coverage. According to Gutierrez (2004): "If media moguls control media content and media distribution, then they have a lock on the extent and range of diverse views and information," says [Chuck] Lewis, [executive director of the Centre for Public Integrity]. "That kind of grip on commercial and political power is potentially...

The global commercial-media system is radical in that it will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits. But ultimately it is politically conservative, because the media giants are significant beneficiaries of the current social structure around the world, and any upheaval in property or social relations -- particularly to the extent that it reduces the power of business -- is not in their interest."
Because of the current situation, it is clear that structural media reform is necessary if we are serious about addressing the challenges of democracy in the United States (McChesney and Nichols, 2002). Hopefully, future efforts will better address the fact that the media industry is a monopoly that diminishes democracy.

Bibliography

Gutierrez, M. (M McChesney, Robert. Nichols, John. (2002).Our Media, Not Theirs. Seven Stories Press.arch, 2004). Fewer Player, Less Freedom, Inter-Press Service.

McChesney, R. (November, 1999). The New Global Media; it's a Small World of Big Conglomerates. The Nation Magazine.

Bagdikian, Ben. (2000). The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition. Beacon Press. pp. xx.

Free Press. (2005). Media Monopoly Made Simple. Retrieved from the Internet at http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors3/freepresstext.html.

Research Staff of National Vanguard Books. (2004). Who Rules America? National Vanguard Books.

Kidd, Dorothy. (June, 2001). Legal Project to Challenge Media Monopoly. Media File,…