Media is a powerful communication instrument that has a tremendous and diverse influence on the minds of millions and the direction of a country’s policies. It can convey critical information about various events and figures, educate individuals, and propagate progressive and beneficial ideas for the public. On the other hand, mass media can cause significant harm to society by deceiving and corrupting citizens or distracting them from critical social problems needing prompt consideration. In this context, corporate media consolidation has become an increasingly disturbing issue provoking fierce debates and encouraging scholars to study its overall effects. This research paper aims at examining the concentration of media ownership, providing and discussing relevant examples, history, and aftermaths. Moreover, the author will explain the importance of this issue and the personal position about it.
The Definition and Contexts
Media consolidation, also known as media convergence, is the process of ownership concentration of media outlets under the supervision of fewer organizations or corporations. Herewith, media consolidation can be of two types, namely, horizontal and vertical (Merskin, 2019). The former implies the merger of media companies engaged in the same technology or activity, for example, film industry or TV broadcast. The latter happens when a media organization goes beyond its primary activity and merges with companies dealing in other processes. For instance, by merging with Universal, NBS, and DreamWorks Animation, initially cable corporation Comcast also stepped into broadcasting.
The first inconspicuous sprouts of this phenomenon were rooted in the onset of the twentieth century. In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt warned that Standard Oil and international banks had controlled most of the newspapers to advance their interests by using puppet officials (Rogers, 2017). Nevertheless, the real media consolidation began after World War II, when radio and television became extensively available in the United States. In particular, via the 1960s and 1970s, local newspapers started to shut or, at best, merge because readership rapidly decreased due to consumers’ incremental preference for television news. Through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US government tried to inhibit or retard this process to preserve media diversity by adopting respective regulations (Light, 2017). These regulations did not allow one corporation to possess a high number of television stations or newspapers and embrace an overlarge audience. At that time, the view on media diversification was supported by the public and political majority.
However, in the 1980s, the situation commenced noticeably to change in the opposite way. Ronald Reagan, Chairman of the FCC, advocated for deregulatory actions, which undermined the government’s efforts to avert media convergence. Research conducted by Ben Bagdikian, media analyst, revealed that by 1983, about 50 corporations dominated the mass media, while in 1996, this number reduced to 23 media companies (Christian, 2019). Bill Clinton’s decision to enact the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became a turning point in this issue, eventually untying the hands of giant corporations almost completely. In recent years, three unprecedented mergers occurred: in 2018, AT&T merged with Time Warner, whereas, in 2019, Viacom merged with CBS, like Disney and 21st Century Fox. As a result, as of 2020, only five media corporations, such as AT&T, Comcast, Disney, ViacomCBS, and News Corp, cover 90 percent of the USA media.
It is worth noting that the rest of the media outlets, including television channels and newspapers, are also managed by a few corporate groups. For instance, in 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group announced the acquisition with Tribune Media, thereby obtaining dozens of local television stations (Rogers, 2017). Costing nearly $4 billion, the deal will provide the company with the opportunity to negotiate other mergers and occupy the conservative public. Johnson (2021) states that many principal unions occurred after gaining antitrust approval from the Justice Department. This indicates the extreme shortage of regulation regarding media companies’ activities on the media market, resulting in the formation of massive holding in all media mediums, including television stations, radio, newspapers, magazines, movie studios.
Concerning the Internet, tech giants such as Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Facebook also have accumulated an exorbitant amount of influence over media. Specifically, Facebook and Google cover 70 percent of users distributed to key news websites (Johnson, 2021). Unlike producing the content, these companies control what consumers usually view. In this regard, Christian (2019) indicates that tech companies are inclined to fuel consolidation by cooperating with media centers and stimulating large media companies to unite. Moreover, in 2008, Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, clearly stated that his Google would give preference for brands by saying, “Brands are the solution, not the problem” (Keane, 2008). Despite prolonged debates, Schmidt explained this decision by that the Internet began growing into the massive cesspool of fake news.
Personal Position and Outcomes of Consolidation
The implications of the rampant concentration of media ownership are harmful, extensive, and far-reaching, adversely impacting all parties, including consumers, the government, the public, and media producers. First of all, it is evident that corporations are one of the mainsprings of political money and, thus, considerably affect political discourses and elections. For instance, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2000 elections, businesses spent over $1.23 billion, while in 2016, this amount exceeded 6 billion (Rogers, 2017). Candidates raising the most funds won more than 90 percent of elections.
Nevertheless, there is no such powerful tool that determines voting direction and results as the media industry. Possessing the major media outlets, conglomerates can send specific messages to the public and forms their preferences and views on particular issues (Johnson, 2021). Consequently, through their modern heralds, corporations advance their agents into the power circles to lobby their interest and influence the government’s decision, especially regarding antitrust approvals and advantageous laws. An illustrative example can be the FCC’s ordinance of 2017 to relieve restrictions on media ownership, which ultimately allows one company to owe television and radio stations and newspapers in the same town (Omachonu and Schultz, n.d.). They grant their platforms to corporate-vetted candidates to run advertising, engage in interviews, and receive laudatory or welcoming punditry and editorials. Their media can also direct their efforts to denigrate or slander rival candidates to discourage voters.
Another dark side of media consolidation is corporations receive excellent opportunities to keep society and communities incognizant. That is, in addition to using media as a horn of their interest and preferable ideas, media conglomerates veil particular facts and evidence, disgracing their reputation and image. For example, as the New York Times stated in 1983, General Electric tended to employ its media holdings to conceal its activities polluting the Hudson River (Rogers, 2017). Moreover, using media, giant companies can obtain an enormous advantage over their competitors. In The New York Times, Brian Stelter, together with colleagues, claimed that Comcast charged Netflix higher fees and even slackened its transmissions to provide Hulu, partially owned by Comcast, an additional edge. Unquestionably, the fact would be hidden if Comcast controlled The New York Times or CNN.
The third significant issue that arises with media consolidation is the intensification of censorship and the threat to broad media choice. Omachonu and Schultz (n.d.) warned that media corporations, including tech companies, could ban access to some websites to please the national and international governments. Furthermore, since media is transforming into a for-profit organization, companies can cover only those news, stories, and facts that flatter and attract large audiences. Indeed, unparalleled incidents occurred when during the 2020 US presidential election, without trial, all social accounts of ex-President Trump were blocked due to the accusations of incitement to disorders and riots. The allegations are still not verified, but his accounts are closed. In addition, YouTube recently announced that it would block all videos with anti-vaccine content (“YouTube to block,” n.d.). This decision apparently favors governments and pharmaceutical companies and suppresses any dissent.
The censorship, in turn, brings a direct menace to the fundamental principles of democracy and even the First Amendment freedoms. This is because media concentration is frequently conducted via various indecent actions, expedients, and tricks. For instance, Mccarthy (2021) informs that Alden Global Capital, a billion-dollar hedge fund, managed to buy the Chicago Tribune and other local outlets. To seal the deal, the fund first brought all Pulitzer prize-winning writers and eminent journalists to bankrupt the Tribune gradually. Overall, this event urged the community to commence a fundraising campaign to bolster public news outlets that help prosecute corrupt politicians and enlighten noteworthy events.
It is worth noting that media consolidation particularly strikes at local media outlets. Pew Research Center disclosed that as of 2016, 37 percent of the television content belongs to the five largest local TV companies such as Sinclair, Tegna, Nexstar, Tribune, and Gray (Andrews, 2019). In addition, its study indicated that conglomerate ownership led to the increased focus on national or international politics rather than regional events and problems. This tendency also distracted viewers from channels recently acquired by media conglomerations; for instance, newly brought Sinclair stations lost 600 viewers on average (Andrews, 2019). The evidence mentioned above clearly demonstrates the adverse effect of media consolidation on communities and local outlets.
The final implication is connected with the dominance of particular ideas, views, and culture. The point is that mass media can create cultural hegemony through emotional appeal and its extensive reach of audience. Christian (2019) notes that western ideas and ideals are ceaselessly promoted by media giants via favorite TV shows, series, and movies, without leaving a chance for an alternative. This trend inflicts severe harm to diversity, which undermines creativity and knowledge about other cultures and minorities. The primary reason for the phenomenon is that large media corporations care principally for revenue that culture, which often spurs them to offer low-quality content, entertainment instead of valuable, practical, or thought-provoking information.
In summary, the paper has investigated the issue of media consolidation, provided related examples, and discussed consequences. Media consolidation is a modern trend of concentrating media outlets in the ownership of several huge corporations. This process mainly began in the 1980s when FCC started conducting deregulatory policy. As a result, presently, only five giant corporations, including AT&T, Comcast, Disney, ViacomCBS, and News Corp, encompass 90 percent of the USA media production. The implications of such tendency primarily comprise reducing content diversity, increased censorship, and threat to democracy. Moreover, many conglomerates have received vast opportunities to advance their political interests and conceal wrongdoings or other scandalous facts that can tarnish their image.
References
Andrews, E., L. (2019).Media consolidation means less local news, more right wing slant. Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Christian, S. E. (2019). Everyday media literacy: An analog guide for your digital life. Routledge.
Johnson, H. (2019). The unprecedented consolidation of the modern media industry has severe consequences. The Miscellany News.
Light, J. (2017). How media consolidation threatens democracy: 857 channels (and nothing on). Truthout.
Locke, J. (2021). Google “penalties” don’t always work how you think. Lockedown Design & SEO.
Mccarthy, K. (2021). Corporate media consolidation: A threat to democracy. Common Cause Illinois.
Merskin, D. L. (Ed.). (2019). The SAGE international encyclopedia of mass media and society. SAGE Publications.
Omachonu, J. O., & Schultz, D. (2021). Media concentration. The Free Speech Center.
Rogers, K. (2017). Media consolidation and net neutrality in the US. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
YouTube to block all anti-vaccine content.(n.d.). Deutsche Welle.