We live in a society where bigger always seems to be "better". Huge corporations with operational efficiencies and enormous profits surround us at every turn. Major media networks control the television and news that finds its way into your home. Presidential contests captivate the public while state and local elections fall to the wayside. However with the birth of the Internet, a young star can be born on a YouTube channel and a revolution can erupt from a Twitter handle. But even here in cyberspace, giants like Facebook and Google are swallowing up other media outlets. This perpetual quest for a bigger bottom line has been going on for years in television and publishing as TV channel after TV channel and newspaper after newspaper are swallowed up by bigger companies, a cycle that has led to a few firms left charge of the vast majority of all information flowing through our society.
The following 6 major media conglomerates control 90% of what the American people read, watch, and listen to:
Disney (market value: $72.8 billion)
AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion)
Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion)
Comcast (market value: 132.85B)
News Corporation (market value: $56.7 billion)
CBS (market value: $32.61 billion)
So the question is, does bigger really mean better? Should media be controlled by the few? Should the power to transmit information be channeled through 6 executive boardrooms? Will mergers and acquisitions help or hurt the American public? Does the fact that only 6 major corporations control almost all media output make any difference at all? Can anything be done to stop this capitalistic urge for higher profits and shareholder value? Should we even question the status quo?
I believe the status quo should be questioned. Regulators and the American people must check these large corporations. Thus it is valid for us to ask "why?" Yet at the same time we continue to utilize the content and services that they provide thus validating their actions and free market behaviors. As long as these companies do not violate anti-trust laws and attempt to monopolize the entire market they will be free to conduct operations at a high level. This is not an inherently bad thing. Consumers utilize these media outlets contributing to these profits and as long as no established laws are violated these companies represent the consumers’ interests.
Though this may be a legal way to conduct business, is it a moral way to convey information to the public? Should all of the information cycled to the American people be pushed through 6 private companies. There is so much room for bias, misinformation, and incongruence. Once again, this is why the questions must be asked. Opening up the airwaves and cyberspace to more democratic media will empower consumers and the American public while fighting off the size and bias of media conglomerate control. But then again who's to say that is a "better" idea.
Sources:
http://introsociology.net/ians/files/2012/04/IllusionofChoice-1.jpg
http://introsociology.net/ians/files/2012/04/IllusionofChoice-2.jpghttp://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership
The following 6 major media conglomerates control 90% of what the American people read, watch, and listen to:
Disney (market value: $72.8 billion)
AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion)
Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion)
Comcast (market value: 132.85B)
News Corporation (market value: $56.7 billion)
CBS (market value: $32.61 billion)
So the question is, does bigger really mean better? Should media be controlled by the few? Should the power to transmit information be channeled through 6 executive boardrooms? Will mergers and acquisitions help or hurt the American public? Does the fact that only 6 major corporations control almost all media output make any difference at all? Can anything be done to stop this capitalistic urge for higher profits and shareholder value? Should we even question the status quo?
I believe the status quo should be questioned. Regulators and the American people must check these large corporations. Thus it is valid for us to ask "why?" Yet at the same time we continue to utilize the content and services that they provide thus validating their actions and free market behaviors. As long as these companies do not violate anti-trust laws and attempt to monopolize the entire market they will be free to conduct operations at a high level. This is not an inherently bad thing. Consumers utilize these media outlets contributing to these profits and as long as no established laws are violated these companies represent the consumers’ interests.
Though this may be a legal way to conduct business, is it a moral way to convey information to the public? Should all of the information cycled to the American people be pushed through 6 private companies. There is so much room for bias, misinformation, and incongruence. Once again, this is why the questions must be asked. Opening up the airwaves and cyberspace to more democratic media will empower consumers and the American public while fighting off the size and bias of media conglomerate control. But then again who's to say that is a "better" idea.
Sources:
http://introsociology.net/ians/files/2012/04/IllusionofChoice-1.jpg
http://introsociology.net/ians/files/2012/04/IllusionofChoice-2.jpghttp://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership