American Government Should Allow Media Consolidation
Aakash Sheth
House Committee Media Consolidation
Rutgers Model Congress Massachusetts Republican
Churchill Junior High School
April 6, 2009
The debate over media consolidation has been a significant controversial issue for
decades. According to estimates by SNL Kagan, a leading financial research firm, the three
major cable news channels were projected to earn a combined $1.05 billion in pre-tax profits
in 2008, or 33% more than the $791 million estimate for the year before (“ABC Vs. CBS VS.
NBC Vs. FOX Vs. WB VS. UPN Viewers” 4). The media industry is an important of not
only the American economy but the life of near the American economy but the life of nearly
every American. Media consolidation is the principle that states majority of the media outlets
being owned by a small number of conglomerates and corporations. The idea of a system of
media consolidation is apparent with the development of various media companies; large
media conglomerates include Disney, National Amusements, Viacom, CBS Corporation,
Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, and Hearst Corporation (“ABC Vs. CBS
VS. NBC Vs. FOX Vs. WB VS. UPN Viewers” 4). The idea of supporting and preserving
overall media consolidation is a popular belief held by the Republican Party, stemming from
the popular belief of supporting big business. Media consolidation is beneficial for the United
States because it helps to generate profit, maintain a reliable state of media accuracy, and
conserve the traditionally successful free market news media.
The business views of the Republican Party have generally supported big business,
with progressive reforms when needed. The regulation of the media is not one of these
progressive reforms (Gloede 2). The thriving news media companies employ millions of
Americans (Gloede 2). The power of large media corporations only demonstrates the
principles of a capitalistic and free market economic system (Gloede 1). The once common
belief of Social Darwinism resurfaced in recent years (Gloede 2). Social Darwinism states
that the rich and successful are rich and successful due to their fitness in the environment that
is human society (Gloede 2). The same concept can be applied to business; stronger
corporations survive and weaker corporations fail and thus an accumulation of strong
corporations creates a stable and prosperous economy (Gloede 2). Originally this concept
was ludicrous because of monopolies that stunted competition, thus hurting Americans in the
long run (Gloede 2). New regulation, such as the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890, helped to
eliminate trusts and cartels (Gloede 2). In today’s America the regulation is too rigid and
instead of helping the development of competition, hurts large corporations. The free market
system has contributed to a natural economic environment where the survival of the fittest is
ensured.
If the United States supported small media corporations, it would undoubtedly be
detrimental to the American capitalistic philosophy. “At the heart of the issue of
consolidation is the notion of "diversity of voice," which is a fine concept but just that, a
concept (Gloede 2). “One can make the argument that there was some resemblance of this
type of diversity when newspapers were owned by individuals and often classified by readers
as Democrat or Republican. Most of these disappeared a long time ago” (Gloede 3). The
natural process of economic change and selection of best corporations to profit and survived.
The original roots of free press are still strong, even though the original concept of various
local newspapers is nonexistent (Gloede 2). The point here is that it is not diversity of voice
that matters. The notion that all viewpoints should be represented somewhere in the media is
patently ridiculous (Gloede 2). It is the quality of voice that matters (Gloede 4). Broadcast
and newspapers are media that are in slow, painful, inexorable decline. Yet they remain
vitally important as the last mass media. If these companies are to continue providing the
level of quality information and entertainment to which the American consumer has become
accustomed, consolidation and vertical integration will be necessary (Gloede 1).
Even non- profit radio organizations agree with the benefits of media consolidation.
“There is a lot of consolidation going on in the industry as a whole and buying of companies
in the major markets, and Nashville is a large market,” said Roshay Reddy, general manager
of WRVU, Vanderbilt’s non-profit radio station (“Author Lectures on Media Consolidation
Monday” 2). Mr. Reddy also stated, “You want to preserve free-form radio, but I don’t think
it’s going anywhere,” Reddy said. “I can’t fault the corporations for consolidating markets. If
the FCC allows it I’m willing to go along with it” (“Author Lectures on Media Consolidation
Monday” 2). Mr. Reddy admits that stopping media consolidation would be near impossible
because it would go against the natural order of regulated American business (“Author
Lectures on Media Consolidation Monday” 2).
The media even with consolidation maintains a high level of quality through systems
of rating and competition between other corporations. The corporate media system is one that
is primarily interested in profit, it is based upon ratings (“Media Consolidation and
Ownership Pros and Cons” 1). If something is popular, it will remain in the media, but if it is
not popular, it's gone (“Media Consolidation and Ownership Pros and Cons” 1). Although
consumers don't always get exactly what they want, that's how democracy works: majority
rules. The American public tends to “vote with its eyeballs” when it comes to media and so
media that is higher quality will outlast media that is low quality (“Media Consolidation and
Ownership Pros and Cons” 1). The opposition argues that media consolidation leads to a lack
of diversity and hurts the American consumer. In reality, because there are so many different
outlets these days--thousands of television stations, radio stations, alternative newspapers,
and, of course, the internet it doesn't matter so much if most of the media are owned by a few
(“Media Consolidation and Ownership Pros and Cons” 1). There is plenty of opportunity is
out there for everyone to have a voice. In addition, media companies control so many related
things, consumers can benefit through convenience (“Media Consolidation and Ownership
Pros and Cons” 1). For example, thanks to media deregulation, a consumer can now purchase
digital television, high speed internet, and phone service from the same company, and pay a
bundled price on one bill (“Media Consolidation and Ownership Pros and Cons” 1).
A former FCC chairman, Michael Powell, doesn’t think consolidation will limit
diversity of views and believes "the oppressor here is regulation"(“Media Ownership Rules
Matter and What You Can Do” 1). Eventually the usage of media consolidation increases the
number of different views and increases diversity through the number of outlets and in the
end increases the accuracy of news media due to lack of competition thus leading to less
yellow journalism. With many smaller news corporations the competition is so fierce that
many reporters create fictional news stories to boost ratings. This ideology of yellow
journalism was used in the 19th century Spanish American War, when various newspapers
existed; it is rumored that William Randolph Hearst told a reporter “You furnish the pictures.
I furnish the war.” Many even blame this large scale military conflict with Spain on yellow
journalism. The power of the media is clear, and if too many small companies are competing
the pressure to falsify the truth increases. Some level of competition is good and fuels growth
but too much hurts the American people. The level of competition today within the news
media is appropriate; for example, television networks ABC (part of Disney Corporation)
and NBC (part of General Electric) are quite fierce with under a 10% difference in the
number of prime to viewers (“ABC Vs. CBS VS. NBC Vs. FOX Vs. WB VS. UPN Viewers”
4). The competitive nature and the diversification of media outlets today both serve as
reasons to continue the restriction of regulation on the media.
Today’s deregulation of the media has effectively helped to maintain and conserve
the American free market principles while maintaining an effective level of accuracy and
diversity. Media consolidation is beneficial for the United States because it helps to generate
profit, maintain a reliable state of media accuracy, and conserve the traditionally successful
free market news media. The media consolidation in the United States, is apart of the
American business standard and has helped in the maintenance of preserving the free market
system. The capitalistic ideology is supported by media consolidation because it shows the
strongest corporations outlast the weaker corporations; therefore, the best corporations are
left in existence. The consolidation of the media is a traditional American economic practice
that should continue to further strengthen the American economic spirit.
Works Cited
“ABC Vs. CBS VS. NBC Vs. FOX Vs. WB VS. UPN Viewers.” highbeam.com. 17 Dec.
2008. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-121445000.html>.
“Author Lectures on Media Consolidation Monday.” insidevandy.com. 2 Mar. 2004. 6
Apr. 2009 <http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/2368>.
Gloede, William. “Why Media Consolidation is Actually a Good Thing.” findarticles.com.
6 Feb. 2007. Cable World. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m0DIZ/is_22_15/ai_102651601/>.
“Media Consolidation and Ownership Pros and Cons.” suite101.org. 29 Jan. 2009. 6 Apr.
2009 <http://medialiteracy.suite101.com/article.cfm/
media_consolidation_ownership>.
“Media Ownership Rules Matter and What You Can Do.” mediachannel.org. 18 Dec. 2008.
6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.mediachannel.org/news/indepth/fcc/#limits>.
“Spanish American War.” Library of Congress. 20 Mar. 2009. 6 Apr. 2009
<http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html>.