Skip to main content

The Growing Dangers of Media Consolidation

 Every week we see a new headline highlighting a new deal, acquisition, or merger of some big-name media companies. It’s nearly impossible to pin down an accurate map of these ownerships, as new deals are so frequently changing the corporate media landscape. Sometimes, especially in the short-term, these deals can appear to work out well for the consumer. More often, however, they can prevent innovation and competition at best, while outright undermining our democracy at worst. 

 

http://frankwbaker.com/The%20big%20picture.jpg

 

There really is no more exemplary candidate than AT&T. I would wager that most people my age are unaware that AT&T was founded by none other than Alexander Graham Bell, originally being called the Bell Telephone Company. Bell gradually accrued market dominance by either refusing to work with and/or buying out competitors, eventually rebranding to the American Telephone & Telegraph Company. Even after the formation of the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T continued to control the entire industry, growing ever steadily. Eventually, however, AT&T ballooned to the point of getting hit with anti-trust lawsuits, and while some consumers were annoyed with the consequential inconvenience, the splitting of the monopoly into 7 smaller companies generated competition that directly resulted in answering machines, three-way calling, and caller ID – all innovations modern phones would be nearly unrecognizable without. 

 

For much of history, anti-trust litigation in media has been largely aimed at telephone providers, though the TV industry was not far behind. Over the last decade or more, citizens and policymakers have been concerned about the potential democracy-undermining effects of big media consolidation. In addition to the growing number of news deserts in America, we are at an increasing risk of not being able to find different viewpoints by changing the channel:

 

 

If the last four years have taught us anything, it’s that we should be very, very concernedwith transparency in our media; when the news paints a misleading picture of the outside world, we end up with massive percentages of the population being genuinely delusional, which inevitably informs how they think, behave, and of course, vote. And while phone and TV companies are still key entities to keep an eye on, laws have also shifted toward the new frontier of mass communication: the Internet. Google, Amazon, and Facebook are noteworthy examples of a few companies owning a massive portion of what we see on the internet, with a staggering percentage of the population receiving not just their news, but also their casual entertainment from these handful of entities.

 


Photo by Charles Deluvio on Unsplash

 


These corporations – notably, corporations with political persuasions – have the ability to bend the will of the nation to their own. What they do matters, and will effect your life directly. Fortunately, your voice matters, too. Just about the only thing that has repeatedly prevented corporations from dangerously monopolizing our media has been an outpouring of opposition from the public, be it through public hearings or writing to congress. As of the writing of this article, it was newly announced that controversial FFC chairman Ajit Pai will be stepping down from his position with Joe Biden’s nomination, and some digital rights groups are concerned about reigniting the fight for net neutrality. In any case, it is clear that media consolidation will continue to pose dangers and challenges as our methods of communication continue to evolve. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Where did the Anti-War movement go?

Photo by  Stijn Swinnen  on  Unsplash   Being born in the year 2000 gives me an interesting, warped perspective on U.S. foreign occupancy and the concept of “war” in general.    Without a doubt, both the World Wars and the Vietnam War seem like some of the most hellish, gut-wrenching low points in human history. It’s really hard to overstate how disturbing it was learning about the conditions of these conflicts.  Operation Wandering Soul  was infamously used by the U.S. as a tactic of psychological warfare; content warning, listening to the “ ghost tapes ” can be genuinely disturbing. If you’ve got the time, here’s a captivating clip of a Vietnam vet recounting his experience oversees, and specifically how it differed from the narrative Americans were being fed back home:   In my mind, it’s quite understandable that such conflicts were met with passionate anti-war movements. When I look around now, however, there’s nearly  no  discussion of the concept. How did we get here? Where did a

The Rise of the Mixtape

  Engineer Lou Ottens. Image courtesy of  AD.nl   When the compact cassette first debuted, it wasn’t an entirely novel innovation. As its name might suggest, Lou Ottens sought to improve upon the bulky, often unreliable 1958 tape cassette system from RCA.     The inspiration for innovation came from perhaps the most human desire of all: convenience.  Phillips was interested in a potential market for a portable tape recorder, and after the speaker and batteries, the decreased dimensions hardly left room for the tape itself: a mere 2 x 4.5 inch space. To match the volumetric capacity of vinyl records, designers chose to, in the most analog way possible, compress the audio data in their novel tapes. By opting for a smaller stretch of tape per second of audio – 2 inches of tape compared to the then studio-standard 15 inches – the compact cassette traded some audio quality for the boost in portability.   Under pressure from Sony, Phillips allowed the Japanese tech giant license to produce h