In 1983, 90% of American media was owned by 50 companies
In 2011, that same 90% is owned by 6 companies
Radio: in 1995 the FCC forbade companies to own over 40 stations yet Clear Channel owns 1,200 stations
-in the U.S. 80% of stations' playlists match
Enabled by FCC deregulation and a decades-long orgy of mergers and acquisitions, the 6 giants dominate our media landscape. Until regulations return, (or they buy each other out of existence) they will continue to control 90% of everything Americans see, hear and consider important.
Brought to you by Frugal Dad
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
But aren't they just putting all the old dinosaurs in those pens?
For example radio, how many people still listen to regular radio? I know people on Pandora, or XM, or streaming internet radio stations?
Same thing with news access. Now I get news feeds on my startup page from the BBC, European news bureaus, and worldwide sources. Sure the big six have bigger chunks of the pie than before, but the pie is a smaller part of the info.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
That troubling enough, but more troubling to me is that the news seems to be permeated with what I call "entertainment crap" - touting the debut of a new series on the network or celebrity news that really (IMO) shouldn't be a story on the national news. But I guess that shouldn't be surprising since they're owned by entertainment conglomorates. So we're left to try and ferret out objective reports - a tall order when most every source seems to have its own political agenda.
I'm guessing it's because that's why draws more viewers, cydl. Do you think they would put on stuff that people WOULDN'T want to watch? Look at the checkout stand at the grocery store. How many Times or Newsweeks do you see compared to gossip rags. Why? Because the gossip rags sell more. That's what we've become.
Product placement in the news? I think it is a combination of both advertizing upcoming entertainment products but it is also because people want to hear about it.
I subscribe to a couple newsmagazines but also Entertainment Weekly.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
JSG wrote: I'm guessing it's because that's why draws more viewers, cydl. Do you think they would put on stuff that people WOULDN'T want to watch? Look at the checkout stand at the grocery store. How many Times or Newsweeks do you see compared to gossip rags. Why? Because the gossip rags sell more. That's what we've become.
Yup - I'm afraid you're right. A pretty sad state of affairs.
Not enitrely fair comparing people who buy their media at the checkout counter compared to reading it online. There are more online readers of the Wall Street Journal than Weekly World News.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
