The media monopoly, why we don't get the news

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

www.corporations.org/media/
 

Toro

Senate Member
I've been doing some research on the newspapers beaver. Do you know what they fear is happening right now? They are afraid of media fragmentation. They are losing their monopoly.

Take a look at the stocks of Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, Belo, McClatchy. They're going down, not up, because investors believe their business franchise is eroding. Readership is falling. Its current readers are getting older. The majority of people under 30 do not read a newspaper.

Radio? Try Clear Channel. Or Emmis. More competition from satellite radio and the Internet.

How about the conglomerates? Look at Time Warner. How about News Corp. Or Disney.

In cable, there's Comcast, and Cablevision. Or Echostar in satellite.

These are not charts of companies with "monopolies."

The Internet is the great dis-intermediator.
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
RE: The media monopoly, w

CanWest owns Global and all the newspapers except the Globe and Mail.

Bell owns CTV and the Globe and Mail.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
It's the blogs and craigslist. They are taking a really big hit with a loss of revenue from the classifieds.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I read three News Papers a day, the local rag, the provincial rag and the Globe and Mail. I've never read a blog, and I don't want to.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Toro said:
I've been doing some research on the newspapers beaver. Do you know what they fear is happening right now? They are afraid of media fragmentation. They are losing their monopoly.

Take a look at the stocks of Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, Belo, McClatchy. They're going down, not up, because investors believe their business franchise is eroding. Readership is falling. Its current readers are getting older. The majority of people under 30 do not read a newspaper.

Radio? Try Clear Channel. Or Emmis. More competition from satellite radio and the Internet.

How about the conglomerates? Look at Time Warner. How about News Corp. Or Disney.

In cable, there's Comcast, and Cablevision. Or Echostar in satellite.

These are not charts of companies with "monopolies."

The Internet is the great dis-intermediator.

I know what your saying but the majority of people rely on the traditional sources of TV radio and the press, I don't think the internet is yet competeing in a big way but I hope to see the monopoly broken, I think the internet is the very best source of news there is because of the multiple angles on almost every story, but I worry that it too will become centralized.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Sassylassie said:
I read three News Papers a day, the local rag, the provincial rag and the Globe and Mail. I've never read a blog, and I don't want to.

They are very powerful in the US. Ask Trent Lott and it was the conservative blogs that did him in.

Here's a nice easy and engaging read about the Daily life of a waiter in NYC. There is one by a parking attendant that is pretty good. It's a different perspective. More bottom up then top down which is what newspaper reporting is. My bias is to the proletarian sites.

http://waiterrant.net/
 

Toro

Senate Member
darkbeaver said:
I know what your saying but the majority of people rely on the traditional sources of TV radio and the press, I don't think the internet is yet competeing in a big way but I hope to see the monopoly broken, I think the internet is the very best source of news there is because of the multiple angles on almost every story, but I worry that it too will become centralized.

You're a product of your age beaver.

Did you know that, in the US, the highest rated "news" show in the US for people under the age of 30 is The Daily Show? More of that age bracket get their news from that program than any of the major networks.

Young people are paying less attention to the MSM than ever before. They're getting whatever they need online. I mean, when they're not on MySpace or surfing for porn.

The Internet is an enormous problem for the traditional media. And most really have no idea how to get their product on the Internet in a manner that isn't going to drastically attrit their business.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Stocks are down so there's no problem.

right

There'd be nothing to lose if there wasn't a monopoly in the first place so you proved his point stepping out of the blocks. monopoly is an overstatement though. For the most part that's a thing of the past. Oligopolies are pretty well an accepted institution though. Mostly because they blend in so well.

Blogs have no impact on the masses unless it involves forcing an issue into the mainstream, and that's rare.

A good read on the current state of the news media can be had from Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. If that's not your cup of tea Carl Hiaasen's always good for a laugh and paints a rather amusing portrait of the state-of-affairs of the average press room in Basketcase.

Also, if the free flow of information is a concern to you at all you should be aware that there's some big stuff going on under our noses with the back room big boys and the shakeout of the Doha round. Naturally, both the Liberals and the CPC learned a long time ago this stuff goes over most people's heads.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
BitWhys said:
Blogs have no impact on the masses unless it involves forcing an issue into the mainstream, and that's rare.

I'll be diplomatic and attribute this statement to a sudden whiff of over-confidence.

You need to research this one a bit. You can begin with Matt Drudge.

And then the early Zapatista blog which gave delegado zero international coverage and is one of the primary reasons that he is now a national candidate and not a hunted revolutionary. It's called people power. It's how real people formerly known as the masses communicate.

Your blanket statement does convey a certain attitude that the masses should be recipients and not producers of information and ideas. Very 20th century.

For insight into how technology shifts can contribute to the greater participation of the "masses" Walter Benjamin's essay on photography is helpful
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
The likes of the Drudge Report may be well known within the internet chattering class but by my reckoning so far the average citizen has no clue what it is. The democratizing effect of the internet is greatly exaggerated.

As an example on the annecdotal front, Howard Dean's rise in the 2004 primaries was foisted by internet communications and died in the real world.

If the current news media does nothing else it serves one extremely important purpose within their respective corporate conglomerates. They maintain market position. Knight-Ridder was putting out some relatively bold stuff last year. Guess what. They were assimilated.