Media Consolidation, the process of
large companies merging with each other or absorbing other companies, is the
future of media.
In 1983, 50 companies controlled 90% of our media; today 6 companies own that same percentage. GE/Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS make up the big six of American media making almost every TV channel you turn to, magazine or newspaper you read, or movie you watch, made and distributed by these corporations. For example, Time Warner by itself owns TNT, HBO, Cinemax, TBS, CNN, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema, and more than 150 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, and People. All of these large media outlets being under the same corporate umbrella can lead to some conflict of interest. If the parent company didn’t want a certain aspect of their business displayed or if they were trying to advertise for a movie made by one of their studios all of these news outlets would react in the best interest of the parent company; either by showing special interest towards the new movie or being silent on company issues. This has actually already happened with Time Warner, according to the textbook, Converging Media, when the Stanley Kubrick movie Eyes Wide Shut was being released by Warner Brother Studios, it got both a cover story in Time magazine and mentioned frequently on CNN’s Larry King Live.
In 1983, 50 companies controlled 90% of our media; today 6 companies own that same percentage. GE/Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS make up the big six of American media making almost every TV channel you turn to, magazine or newspaper you read, or movie you watch, made and distributed by these corporations. For example, Time Warner by itself owns TNT, HBO, Cinemax, TBS, CNN, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema, and more than 150 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, and People. All of these large media outlets being under the same corporate umbrella can lead to some conflict of interest. If the parent company didn’t want a certain aspect of their business displayed or if they were trying to advertise for a movie made by one of their studios all of these news outlets would react in the best interest of the parent company; either by showing special interest towards the new movie or being silent on company issues. This has actually already happened with Time Warner, according to the textbook, Converging Media, when the Stanley Kubrick movie Eyes Wide Shut was being released by Warner Brother Studios, it got both a cover story in Time magazine and mentioned frequently on CNN’s Larry King Live.
In just the past 30
years, fifty major media companies turned to six and I believe this trend will continue.
I would even go as far as to say that eventually all media will be controlled by no more than three companies. The societal debate will center on whether or not this convergence is positive or negative. By buying more companies, these corporations have more control over what we see, hear, and believe, which is a scary thought. The idea that we are streamlining all of our news through such few points of view is a terrible occurrence. However, by keeping the revenue stream going they can continue to make innovations in media. They also have the ability to pool resources in order to cover stories more efficiently and correctly. If something were going on in a remote part of the world each parent company would only have to send out a few reporters to get the news for all of their subsidiaries, this would be incredibly costly if they were all separate companies. Whether it is good or not, media consolidation is the way of the future.
I would even go as far as to say that eventually all media will be controlled by no more than three companies. The societal debate will center on whether or not this convergence is positive or negative. By buying more companies, these corporations have more control over what we see, hear, and believe, which is a scary thought. The idea that we are streamlining all of our news through such few points of view is a terrible occurrence. However, by keeping the revenue stream going they can continue to make innovations in media. They also have the ability to pool resources in order to cover stories more efficiently and correctly. If something were going on in a remote part of the world each parent company would only have to send out a few reporters to get the news for all of their subsidiaries, this would be incredibly costly if they were all separate companies. Whether it is good or not, media consolidation is the way of the future.
I think you did a great job of covering the reasons behind the rise in consolidation, as well as briefly listing the pros and cons. What really struck me in particular was how media companies have an increasing amount of control over what we do and don't see when we turn on the TV or flip to a story in our favorite magazines, and that is truly scary to think about.
ReplyDeleteThat said, one thing that comes to mind when I think about the "dangers" of media consolidation is how the rise of the internet may effectively combat those negative results. No matter how much is intentionally left out when I turn on the news, there will always be someone providing some of their own insight on a blog or article online. In some instances, personal Youtube channels, completely separate from any large company (well, except for Youtube/Google that is) are just as popular and influential as a typical TV show on a major network, and it is this change in how we consume media that I think will, at least to an extent, counteract the negatives of consolidation.