Media Consolidation & Ownership
Pros and Cons of the Corporate Media System
Is a system where corporations control most of the media a hindrance to democracy, or a helper? Here are arguments for and against the corporate media system.
In the United States, five huge conglomerates control the vast majority of media in the United States: Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Bertlesmann, and Viacom. This is the direct result of media deregulation that occurred during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and especially as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While older media regulations controlled the amount of media outlets that any one company could control, media deregulation lifted most of these restrictions. As a result, while 50 media corporations controlled most of the U.S. media in 1983, that number shrank to 23 corporations in 1990, and now is down to five.
Is corporate ownership of the media a good thing or a bad thing-- or both? Does it hinder democracy, or help it? Is it the best possible media system? Here is a summary of both sides of the argument.
Arguments in Favor of the Corporate Media System
- The lack of government control argument. Regardless of any problems that exist in a corporate media system, many people see it as superior to a system that is controlled by the government.
- The "eyeball democracy" argument. Because the corporate media system is one that is primarily interested in profit, it is based upon ratings. If something is popular, it will remain in the media, but if it is not popular, it's gone. Because of this, consumers essentially get to vote for content with their eyeballs. If they watch it, it stays on the air. If they don't watch it, it goes away. Although consumers don't always get exactly what they want, that's how democracy works: majority rules.
- The quality programming argument. Because people "vote with their eyeballs," quality media tends to stay in business, while poor quality media does not.
- The synergy argument. Because media companies control so many related things, consumers can benefit through convenience. For example, thanks to media deregulation, a consumer can now purchase digital television, high speed Internet, and phone service from the same company, and pay a bundled price on one bill.
- The media diversity argument. Because there are so many different outlets these days--thousands of television stations, radio stations, alternative newspapers, and, of course, the Internet-- it doesn't matter so much if most of the media are owned by a few. Plenty of opportunity is out there for everyone to have a voice.
Arguments Against the Corporate Media System
- The "market censorship" argument. Because the corporate media system is primarily concerned about profit and ratings, controversial ideas often do not get much or any media coverage. This is true of ideas that are far to the left, far to the right, or otherwise outside of mainstream conventions. In effect, the market "censors" these ideas.
- The poor quality argument. Corporate media can hinder quality programming because it squelches innovation-- especially on media that are expensive to produce, like television. Someone may have a great idea for a television show, but because it hasn't been tried before, it's considered too risky-- so the network makes yet another batch of reality shows and sexy doctor shows instead.
- The conflict of interest argument. Ideally, the media are supposed to be gatekeepers who keep tabs on the powerful people in society and prevent them from abusing their power. However, the media themselves have become the powerful people-- so how can they be expected to keep tabs of the abuse of power, especially when abuses of power relate to corporations?
- The monopoly argument. When markets are unregulated and companies have a monopoly or near-monopoly on services, consumers can lose out because of higher prices and poor service. When a company controls a huge portion of the media in a given market, that's a monopoly.
As a country, the United States has accepted the corporate media system as a whole, and hasn't had a vigorous national debate about this issue since the days of radio in the 1920s and 1930s. The issue of who controls the brunt of a country's information is a crucial one. Regardless of the results of a debate over the pros and cons of corporate media, this is an important but much neglected debate to consider.
