Is the media becoming more concentrated?

CBL4 · 9th May 2005, 11:11 AM

One of Bagdiskian's claims is that the media is becoming more concentrated. Do you think this is true? (BTW, his use of the word monopolistic is clearly wrong when his support is that it is dominated 5 companies.)

I believe that over the last 100 years, we have gotten many more choices. He says that in 1910, most moderate size cities have 5 or 6 newspaper. It we are honest (and he is not always), they had zero TV stations, zero radio stations and very few magazines.

Let's go to 1970. Each city was down to 1 or 2 papers but had at least 4 TV stations with news (CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS.) Most towns seemed to have two news radio stations. There were many more magazines available. Also, each of the media organizations have a greater ability to gather news than they did in 1910. Clearly the people had more information available.

Let's go to 2005. For now, I will accept his claim that much of the media has consolidated. But we have cable TV, the internet and satellite radio. There are many more magazine available. Cable TV has brought us CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. Any time of day, you can turn on the TV and get news. The internet gives you access to the NY Times, The (London) Times, Washington Post, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor which are among the best English language sources of news available. Most are free and they are available any time at your home and your office. If you speak a foreign language, you have even more sources.

Now more than ever, we have a plethora of media outlets. To claim it is becoming more limited is absurd.

CBL

crimresearch · 10th May 2005, 06:00 AM

All of which overlooks the question of ownership of those media outlets.
When there were two newpapers in every US town of any size, they were often independent of each other, with opposing editorial points of view.

The fact that 5 mega-coporations now own a larger number of outlets is moving toward monopoly, not away from it.

CBL4 · 10th May 2005, 10:09 AM

Let's start with a relatively media reclusive person. Assume that a person does not have cable TV or the internet. Assume that he does not subscribe to any of the hundreds of magazines available now that were not available before.

If the rest of the media is owned by the 5 media conglomerates with the exceptions of PBS and NPR. This gives the media recluse 7 sources of news. This is more than Bagdikian claims for 1910 which he sometimes implies was a golden age. In addition, each of these 7 news sources has much more resources to research news. If I remember correctly, niether Gannet nor Clear Channel are included in his big 5 which makes the number likely to rise to 9. This also assumes that all the news from one of these sources is identical which is clearly not true. Even a media recluse is much better off that they were.

Now if we are talking someone with the internet, the options are glorious. Today I have looked at The Economist, CNN, the Washington Post and Google online. (Google is incredibly important because I can get virtually all of the English speaking news from the last decade in just a few mimutes.) I can do this at my home and office. Except during my commute, I always have more news available than I can possibly look for with geography no longer mattering one bit.

CBL

crimresearch · 10th May 2005, 11:06 AM

And which one of these news outlets was it that broke the Rathergate story?

Ownership concentrated in the hands of a few *might* turn out for the best..but it certainly is no guarantee of good results for anyone but those few.

CBL4 · 10th May 2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Ownership concentrated in the hands of a few *might* turn out for the best..but it certainly is no guarantee of good results for anyone but those few.

But it is not in the few. I have access to virtually unlimited media via the internet. A single person can now change the rest of the media with an or two of research as "Rathergate" showed.

Contrary to Bagdikian's implications, the average person has access to many more views even without the internet or cable TV. With them, it is a joke to say we are more restricted than before.

If you disagree, please give me a time when there were more sources than the 9 I mentioned.

CBL

crimresearch · 10th May 2005, 12:01 PM

I know that you are smart enough to know the difference between owning a newspaper, and reading one.

What is good about having *ownership* concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corps?

CBL4 · 10th May 2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

I know that you are smart enough to know the difference between owning a newspaper, and reading one.

I am not sure what you are saying. IMO, people have more choices and that is good. If they fail to take advantage of it, there is not much we can do about it.

Quote:

What is good about having *ownership* concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corps?

What is bad?

In an ideal world, we would all have the option of getting free well written, well researched news from numerous local, national and international radios, TV, newspapers, etc. But this has never been the case.

Is it better to have my 9 sources of news provided by mega-corporations or by small groups? I think it all depends on the quality of the papers. Most small towns have always had rotten newspapers. The variety of newspaper the Bagdikian talks about was not very high even in bigger cities. They tended to be run by political parties, unions or rich local business people. They had limited budgets and very parochial viewpoints. There is no reason to think they were any more independent of bias than a chain newspaper or TV station. The great small newspapers were the exceptions.

I imagine that the exceptional local papers that Bagdikian mentions are better than the Gannett papers. But I also imagine that most of the ones he fails to mention were worse.

I contend that we are better off today than we have ever been in the past. I do not think you or Bagdikian have provided significant evidence otherwise.

CBL

Ed · 24th May 2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
I contend that we are better off today than we have ever been in the past. I do not think you or Bagdikian have provided significant evidence otherwise.

CBL

A reasonably curious and technically proficient person is far better off. I suspect that the average person limits his choices to the 3 networks plus Fox and CNN.

I agree, to a point that it is tough if a person does not avail themselves of the choices out there, the problem is they are (I suspect) a majority and they vote.

CBL4 · 25th May 2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
A reasonably curious and technically proficient person is far better off. I suspect that the average person limits his choices to the 3 networks plus Fox and CNN.

I agree, to a point that it is tough if a person does not avail themselves of the choices out there, the problem is they are (I suspect) a majority and they vote.

All we can do is to provide the avenues for knowledge. You cannot make people read a newspaper or listen to an informative radio program. If people want Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that's what they will get no matter what else is out there. Many (most?) of the newspapers of 100 years ago were no better than the worst of talk radio today.

But my point is that their are more choices available and that is good.

CBL

Ed · 25th May 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
All we can do is to provide the avenues for knowledge. You cannot make people read a newspaper or listen to an informative radio program. If people want Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that's what they will get no matter what else is out there.

Agree but is it what they want or is it what they get so they say that they want it? Point is 99% Rush clones brought to you by Rupert Murdoch is not a good thing. OTOH 99% Rush clones brought to you by 99 independent owner/operators is the voice of the people.

Many (most?) of the newspapers of 100 years ago were no better than the worst of talk radio today.

Worse. Their invective was really inspiring and would put Ann Coulter to shame.

But my point is that their are more choices available and that is good.

Yes, agree completely.

CBL [/b][/quote]

9th May 2005, 11:11 AM	#1
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Is the media becoming more concentrated? One of Bagdiskian's claims is that the media is becoming more concentrated. Do you think this is true? (BTW, his use of the word monopolistic is clearly wrong when his support is that it is dominated 5 companies.) I believe that over the last 100 years, we have gotten many more choices. He says that in 1910, most moderate size cities have 5 or 6 newspaper. It we are honest (and he is not always), they had zero TV stations, zero radio stations and very few magazines. Let's go to 1970. Each city was down to 1 or 2 papers but had at least 4 TV stations with news (CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS.) Most towns seemed to have two news radio stations. There were many more magazines available. Also, each of the media organizations have a greater ability to gather news than they did in 1910. Clearly the people had more information available. Let's go to 2005. For now, I will accept his claim that much of the media has consolidated. But we have cable TV, the internet and satellite radio. There are many more magazine available. Cable TV has brought us CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. Any time of day, you can turn on the TV and get news. The internet gives you access to the NY Times, The (London) Times, Washington Post, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor which are among the best English language sources of news available. Most are free and they are available any time at your home and your office. If you speak a foreign language, you have even more sources. Now more than ever, we have a plethora of media outlets. To claim it is becoming more limited is absurd. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

10th May 2005, 06:00 AM	#2
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	All of which overlooks the question of ownership of those media outlets. When there were two newpapers in every US town of any size, they were often independent of each other, with opposing editorial points of view. The fact that 5 mega-coporations now own a larger number of outlets is moving toward monopoly, not away from it.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2005, 10:09 AM	#3
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Let's start with a relatively media reclusive person. Assume that a person does not have cable TV or the internet. Assume that he does not subscribe to any of the hundreds of magazines available now that were not available before. If the rest of the media is owned by the 5 media conglomerates with the exceptions of PBS and NPR. This gives the media recluse 7 sources of news. This is more than Bagdikian claims for 1910 which he sometimes implies was a golden age. In addition, each of these 7 news sources has much more resources to research news. If I remember correctly, niether Gannet nor Clear Channel are included in his big 5 which makes the number likely to rise to 9. This also assumes that all the news from one of these sources is identical which is clearly not true. Even a media recluse is much better off that they were. Now if we are talking someone with the internet, the options are glorious. Today I have looked at The Economist, CNN, the Washington Post and Google online. (Google is incredibly important because I can get virtually all of the English speaking news from the last decade in just a few mimutes.) I can do this at my home and office. Except during my commute, I always have more news available than I can possibly look for with geography no longer mattering one bit. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

10th May 2005, 11:06 AM	#4
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	And which one of these news outlets was it that broke the Rathergate story? Ownership concentrated in the hands of a few might turn out for the best..but it certainly is no guarantee of good results for anyone but those few.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2005, 11:53 AM	#5
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Quote: Ownership concentrated in the hands of a few might turn out for the best..but it certainly is no guarantee of good results for anyone but those few. But it is not in the few. I have access to virtually unlimited media via the internet. A single person can now change the rest of the media with an or two of research as "Rathergate" showed. Contrary to Bagdikian's implications, the average person has access to many more views even without the internet or cable TV. With them, it is a joke to say we are more restricted than before. If you disagree, please give me a time when there were more sources than the 9 I mentioned. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

10th May 2005, 12:01 PM	#6
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	I know that you are smart enough to know the difference between owning a newspaper, and reading one. What is good about having ownership concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corps?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2005, 02:15 PM	#7
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Quote: I know that you are smart enough to know the difference between owning a newspaper, and reading one. I am not sure what you are saying. IMO, people have more choices and that is good. If they fail to take advantage of it, there is not much we can do about it. Quote: What is good about having ownership concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corps? What is bad? In an ideal world, we would all have the option of getting free well written, well researched news from numerous local, national and international radios, TV, newspapers, etc. But this has never been the case. Is it better to have my 9 sources of news provided by mega-corporations or by small groups? I think it all depends on the quality of the papers. Most small towns have always had rotten newspapers. The variety of newspaper the Bagdikian talks about was not very high even in bigger cities. They tended to be run by political parties, unions or rich local business people. They had limited budgets and very parochial viewpoints. There is no reason to think they were any more independent of bias than a chain newspaper or TV station. The great small newspapers were the exceptions. I imagine that the exceptional local papers that Bagdikian mentions are better than the Gannett papers. But I also imagine that most of the ones he fails to mention were worse. I contend that we are better off today than we have ever been in the past. I do not think you or Bagdikian have provided significant evidence otherwise. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

24th May 2005, 06:24 AM	#8
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by CBL4 I contend that we are better off today than we have ever been in the past. I do not think you or Bagdikian have provided significant evidence otherwise. CBL A reasonably curious and technically proficient person is far better off. I suspect that the average person limits his choices to the 3 networks plus Fox and CNN. I agree, to a point that it is tough if a person does not avail themselves of the choices out there, the problem is they are (I suspect) a majority and they vote.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

25th May 2005, 10:31 AM	#9
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Quote: Originally posted by Ed A reasonably curious and technically proficient person is far better off. I suspect that the average person limits his choices to the 3 networks plus Fox and CNN. I agree, to a point that it is tough if a person does not avail themselves of the choices out there, the problem is they are (I suspect) a majority and they vote. All we can do is to provide the avenues for knowledge. You cannot make people read a newspaper or listen to an informative radio program. If people want Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that's what they will get no matter what else is out there. Many (most?) of the newspapers of 100 years ago were no better than the worst of talk radio today. But my point is that their are more choices available and that is good. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

25th May 2005, 02:50 PM	#10
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally posted by CBL4 All we can do is to provide the avenues for knowledge. You cannot make people read a newspaper or listen to an informative radio program. If people want Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that's what they will get no matter what else is out there. Agree but is it what they want or is it what they get so they say that they want it? Point is 99% Rush clones brought to you by Rupert Murdoch is not a good thing. OTOH 99% Rush clones brought to you by 99 independent owner/operators is the voice of the people. Many (most?) of the newspapers of 100 years ago were no better than the worst of talk radio today. Worse. Their invective was really inspiring and would put Ann Coulter to shame. But my point is that their are more choices available and that is good. Yes, agree completely. CBL [/b][/quote]
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.