Talk:Concentration of media ownership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Media (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled discussion[edit]

main body of the article (as opposed to descriptions of the situations in different countries) seems to assume that media ownership is being concentrated, and that media concentration is always the result of deregulation (rather than the result of regulation).

The article should not make baseless assumptions. It would be more effective simply to list statistics showing trends of media-ownership concentration in various markets both before and after deregulation. Rangergordon (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Freedom of the Press be a worthwhile addition to the "See also" section?

I added Freedom of the Press. Brian Pearson 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The six current media conglomerates are Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. These companies together own more than 90% of the media market.

90% of the United States market, or the world-wide market?

Due to Canada's smaller population, some types of media consolidation have always been allowed.

Compared to the United States presumably, not Australia, which was just mentioned above, right? Andjam 13:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The american section needs rewriting anyway; this is a hot topic here, although not in papers owned by the media concentrators, of course...I was surprised to see so little discussion/account of the political issues/context in Canada, actually; instead of a bald-faced justification for it; and I don't buy the "smaller population" thesis; Canada is historically a network of interacting monopolies, public and private, in all areas of industry, commerce, culture; what it's about is the colonialist concentration of political power in the hands of friends of the reigning parties; but that's all ever newspapers have ever been fore, especially here in BC.Skookum1 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


This entry is a persuasive essay about breaking up media ownership, not a presentation of facts about consolidated media ownership. The intro is a convoluted and certainly doesn't effectively introduce the following topics. Many bogus implicit claims are made about the topic; seven companies providing 90% of the content in the US is good competition, how many does the author think there should be? Were the two journalists fired because the paper was trying to aid an advertiser cover up a scandal or because they using their position to wrongfully smear a business who would win a defamation lawsuit? Did people die in Minot because Clear Channel pipes in content from 1000 miles away or because there was a chemical spill? Nhertel 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for much of the 20th century us television was dominated by the Big Three television networks, so six conglomerates seems to be an improvement. Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.39.207 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This IS a joke, right?[edit]

I like the article, but for all of its many claims, the sole general citation offered is a single documentary, Orwell Rolls in His Grave. According to the IMDB, this documentary was filmed in 2003, almost five years ago, so it may no longer be valid. Moreover, the website for Orwell Rolls in His Grave cites to the website for The Nation for its data, a magazine that Wiki claims advocate the far left.

Additionally, how can one mention the concentration of media ownership without also mentioning the grossly disproportionate Jewish control of this media? Indeed, the cover of the August 1996 issue of the Jewish "Moment" magazine read: "Jews Run Hollywood, So What?" In this article, Jewish film critic Michael Medved states: "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." Medved notes that Walt Disney studios hires only "highly paid Jewish moguls," such as Jeffery Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, and Joe Roth as producers and further states: "The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."

I routinely make posting to this website on very sensitive political issues, only to be berated for the "interpretation" of my sources or some other pretextual argument to stifle alternative viewpoints. (See, for example, the discussion about the Washington, DC, "think tank," the American Enterprise Institute, being a zionist organization and how my citation to the fucking BBC was no good enough for the zionist jews who apparently run this website.) Therefore, I cannot see how someone can write an entire article with a general citation to a clearly leftist documentary film, omit a very important aspect of the subject (i.e., jewish ownership and/or control), and you guys permit this to stand.

This article should be removed immediately or at least re-written with citations and appropriate analysis.

Then Why don't you do it??


Sorry, or in fact not really, but mass-media is demonstrably more monopolised now than it was when Orwell wrote about the subject in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. You appear to have suggested that something Orwell wrote then, whilst it may have been true five years ago, is now out of date. That's just fascinating. What you actually appear to be doing is arguing for concentrated ownership of mass-media because you want to cover it up, which I would liken, for good reason, to arguing for concentration camps (presumbly you understand why I find that 'funny'), or as Orwell put it, 'rubber truncheons and castor oil', which I see are very much alive and, as it were, kicking. Presumably you're also the person suggesting that the title of this article on concentrated ownership of mass media is biased in being entitled concentration of media-ownership. This article barely even touches on the subject, or why it might really be considered problematic, but I agree whole heartedly - mass-media monopoly or monopolisation of mass-media are both adequate alternatives. With regard to references, much of the information, including that i have used myself, depends on data presented in other Wikipedia articles, but which I noticed had not been carried over where pertinent. That's data difficult to research and all the more precious for that reason. LSmok3 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Small retort to above You say "so what" about Jewish control. Perhaps it suggests a unparalleled depth of ethnic chauvinism or nepotism, a favoritism towards each other that might give clues as to why some people carry anti-Jewish feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.65.252 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear Channel merger[edit]

"Clear Channel Communications, Inc. has agreed to be acquired by a private equity group co-led by Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. in a transaction with a total equity value of approximately $19.5 billion at a price of $39.20 per share in cash." [1] Brian Pearson 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Change title of article[edit]

This article's title is biased and sets an improper tone for the presentation of information and "debate." Yes, media ownership has become more concentrated, but a proper article on the subject would be titled simply, "media ownership" and discuss the history of media ownership and subsequent consolidation. At times, this article attempts to properly discuss the issues at hand, but the intro and title are so directed towards one side of the debate, it is impossible to have an honest presentation of the facts.

This article needs to be rewritten and retitled, or it should be deleted. It is an important issue that is receiving much media attention and consumes much of the government's time at the moment. It's worthy of our time to be fixed. --Sententia (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In a discussion of the title, this is worth noting: Wiktionary describes the first (and presumably the most important) definition of the word "concentration" as referring to the degree of proportion. That first definition does not stipulate whether the concentration is high or low. See link
Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Sententia

On Sept 5, 2005, User:Beland (an administrator) merged “Media ownership” and “Concentration of media ownership,” and then created a redirect so that “Media ownership” redirects to “Concentration of media ownership.” See this history here

I think that both articles should have been allowed to exist on their own because they have different purposes --both being important. The article "Media Ownership" is much more general a topic than “Concentration of media ownership.” I suggest the re-creation of the separate article entitled “Media Ownership.” (But instead title it "Global Media Ownership," so that it would be distinguished from Media ownership in Australia and Media ownership in Canada.) -- Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More Information on Media Concentration[edit]

I've worked in media for 10 years. I've been working on a documentary about the subject of consolidation for about a year. For the small percentage that read the "talk page", I've compiled the following:

1. It's difficult to know exactly how many companies own what portion of media market-share because it's actually not public information. This is a democratic travesty. Try getting the information from the FCC. My advisers at NYU and MIT Media Lab tell me it's next to impossible to find out.

2. Congress ruled in 1934 that the public airwaves must serve the public interest. It's a clear conflict of interest to have only 5 to even 20 companies control the public space and represent the public opinions of 300 million (pop of USA). The 1st amendment exists to protect the freedom of the press — to keep the public informed and engaged in order to run a government which represents the people. A free press makes up a critical part of the democracy the founding fathers fought for.

We know statistically that Americans are overwhelmingly illinformed about basic information despite the ubiquity of media. It's no controversy at all but simply a fact that the barrage of misinformation or omitted information is all coming from the highly concentrated commercial media.

3. Unlike a few decades ago, the few, unregulated media goliaths of the USA are completely funded by advertising and closely connected to government. This means the fourth estate of our democracy (the press) serves the interests of sponsors and government first, and the people second. This is the exact opposite of what the 1st amendment meant to the writers of the US constitution.

4. Besides rarely representing the issues of economically poor or minority Americans, the networks repeatedly refuse to air ads they consider "controversial" regardless of factual or moral basis thus eliminating personal free speech even for wealthy citizen-activists. There are numerous examples of this which aught to be a wiki-article. May I suggest the title, "Government Sponsored Public Censorship".

5. The section in this wiki-article on the internet and citizen-journalists is incorrect. While recent Reuters polls show more and more Americans are getting their news from the internet, they're still going to the same big corporate media websites.

Bloggers still primarily report on information found on other big corporate media sources. A citizen with a camcorder doesn't have the resources and research capabilities of the Washington Post or CNN. Capturing police brutality is an important story but how can one expect a "citizen-journalist" with an HD handy-cam report on the Iraq war, global politics of fossil fuels and OPEC. Or the sub-prime crisis on wall street and it's relationship to fighting global warming.

It's irresponsible to propose that the advent of the internet means we don't need a professional and a public-funded press. This is why media reform and an intelligent discussion about it is so important.

6. Media concentration and copyright is a big issue of media concentration — control over the cultural references of a society. Disney, for example took works from the public domain, e.g. Sleeping Beauty etc, made a fortune off them, and then used that fortune to change copyright law so the works would never return to the public.

The implication of this is that due to the commercialization of media the purpose of stories is actually changing. Where once stories were a participatory part of culture, changed by the people telling them — tools for living, metaphors for ethical and moral decisions, now stories are given from above. Their messaging and underlying themes often approved by highly political entities unbeknownst to the general public. E.g. every Hollywood blockbuster action film that uses military equipment (most of them) must get script approval from the Pentagon. This is so the Pentagon can approve the underlying morality of the film.

That's just one example. Most societies call this kind of concentrated media system, 'propaganda'. With more competition in the market place, a news outlet which wasn't owned by the same corporation who released the action movie in question may be more likely to report the Pentagons approval process. With copyright law the way the constitution intended it, competing media companies would each do their own competitive versions of a same story. The internet today, is actually much more active in fighting copyright issues than doing citizen journalism.

7. The problem of commercial media concentration is of great relevance. Statistically Americans spend about 6.5 hours per day in full attention to the media. Kids between 8 and 18 spend over 44 hours a week in front of a video screen. A US citizen is bombarded by over 3000 advertisements every day. All this media has a profound effect on American psychology, culture and politics.

I encourage anyone who wishes to know more about this topic to use wikipedia as a discussion forum but read books by Mark Crispin Miller and Naomi Klein which may serve as a much more comprehensive knowledge base.

I'll close with the point that I don't agree with anonymous posting of information in the media. All information has a point of view and a bias. Accountability should remain a serious part of our free press, whether it be encyclopedic, periodical or editorial.


written by Matthew Cooke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.169.77 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding link[edit]

I'm adding a link to the book "When Corporations Rule the World." Stars4change (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How about adding a link to the Monopoly (game), which shows one can only get rich with good luck. Stars4change (talk)

referencing[edit]

This article is a train wreck of unreferenced allegations, factoids strung together to create synthesis, and an entire section based upon the work of a single writer. With the exceptions of the well-referenced Czech Republic and United States sections, there is only one reference in the entire article (the very last paragraph of the "debates" section. The lede is totally unreferenced, and does not really summarize the rest of the article; it focuses almost entirely upon the United States, so I could have added the globalize tag as well. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I added 3 references in intro. I will add more soon. Plus I will place them properly. I just need a bit of time. Thank you for your patience. See them here also: [1][2][3]

References[edit]

  1. ^ New Internationalist (April 2001). "Global Media". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 
  2. ^ New Internationalist (April 2001). "Ultra Concentrated Media - Facts". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 
  3. ^ Katharine Ainger (April 2001). "Empires of the Senseless". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the Canada section with referenced material in order to make this article more "global." I also put references in the Debates section. Thank you for your patience.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the "globalize" comment referred to the lede of the article (which I see you have begun to reference). The lede should summarize the contents of the article, but it currently focuses on the United States; the article has sections on quite a few countries (three of them referenced!) which should be mentioned in the lede. Horologium (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Virgin[edit]

Isn't Virgin a great example? Or that doesn't fall into the definition? 81.182.237.207 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Big 3[edit]

Why is there nothing the this article on the Big Three television networks networks that dominated US media until the mid 1980s? As it is, this gives the false impression that media consolidation is somehow a recent phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.39.207 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are six. See Media cross-ownership in the United States - Zorantb (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Removed the reference to the Big 3 from the article. Though it sort of pertains to the topic, this mention was not cited, did not provide much detail and didn't fit the rest of the section. It could possibly be added to the US section where it would be most applicable or it could perhaps be presented in a more historical context.--Btgard (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Media convergence[edit]

Media convergence is claimed to be a synonym. Another use of the term is topics related to Technological convergence. A quick survey indicates that the latter is the more prevalent use. Nevertheless, I have redirected Media convergence here because the term is explicitly called out in the lead. --Kvng (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

resource: Extra! October 2011[edit]

COVER STORY: Media Monopoly Revisited; The 20 corporations that dominate our information and ideas by Patrick Morrison. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A resource, possibly. A reliable source, no. I consider AIM a more credible source than FAIR, but neither really meets our standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification in Canada Section[edit]

I'd like to rewrite the first paragraph to show updated changes to the CRTC's mandate. The new paragraph would be:

Broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada are regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an independent governing agency that aims to serve the needs and interests of citizens, industries, interest groups and the government. The CRTC does not regulate newspapers or magazines. (citation http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backgrnd/brochures/b29903.htm) --Btgard (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Made above changes. --Btgard (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


I made changes to the merger section. I updated the major companies, including a name change for Bell Media and added Radio-Canada to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The link for Bell Media still goes to the CTVglobemedia page. I added a citation from CBC news. I also removed Newcap from the list as I thought it would be best to name the most well-known companies. However the list can be made more extensive.--Btgard (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Organizing Debates Section[edit]

The Debates section could be further broken down to make it clearer for the reader, as the flow of this article (aside from the questionable information) is awkward. I propose to change the name of the section to Debates and Issues with further subcategories: Diversity of Viewpoint, Accountability and Deregulation. This is based on the information already there (although much of it still needs to be cited). People can add further, relevant sections as they see fit.--Btgard (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one opposes the above suggestions, I will also add the following information about deregulation as a starting point: One explanation for the cause of the concentration of media ownership is a shift to neoliberal deregulation policies, which is a market-driven approach. Deregulation effectively removes governmental barriers to allow for the commercial exploitation of media. Motivation for media firms to merge includes increased profit-margins, reduced risk and maintaining a competitive edge. (McChesney, 2001). In contrast to this, those who support deregulation have argued that cultural trade barriers and regulations harm consumers and domestic support in the form of subsidies hinders countries to develop their own strong media firms; the opening of borders is more beneficial to countries than maintaining protectionist regulations (McChesney, 2001). (Full citation) McChesney, R. (2001). Global media, neoliberalism and imperialism. Monthly Review (52) 10.--Btgard (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the subheadings to the debates section. I changed one title - originally I suggested Accountability but I chose to make it Freedom of the Press and Editorial Independence instead as this relates it more clearly to the introduction (which still needs some work). I added another section - Other (which can be removed or changed once more relevant sections emerge). I reorganized the existing information, however much of it is still not cited. I added the first paragraph to the deregulation section as well.--Btgard (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Contribution[edit]

For my contribution I planned on adjusting grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that there is flow and a look of professionalism. As well, the opening of the states that some citations are required to enhance the article, it is my intention to add citations where needed and adjust any statements or information as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc lacroix (talkcontribs) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I made some changes to multiple sections involving grammar and sentence structure. There was quite a few areas where the information presented did not make sense, so I altered the information and added some more facts to create flow and cohesively presented information. In addition, I looked through each section and where it was indicated that a citation was needed I did some research to find academic sources that supported the information presented or altered the information so that the information was presented accurately and made sense.

Electoral democracies[edit]

The relevance of the following sentence is not clear to me:

"The nations where these companies were created and are located — Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the United States — are considered highly-developed or fast-emerging electoral democracies by organizations like the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House and the IMF."

Yes, the countries that contain big companies tend to have industrialised economies, and industrialisation tends to be linked to democracy. But why is that relevant here?

This sentence seems to imply some sort of causal link, between media conglomerates, industrialisation, and democracy. If there is evidence for, or theories of, such a link then this should be stated outright, with refences. If there are references, then this could happily be a section within the article. Otherwise, this sentence does not belong.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Conccentration and Internet[edit]

Hi, folks! This article doesn't seem to discuss the apparition of Internet and the effects in the diversification of media ownership. Can anyone add information on this? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of the BBC?[edit]

Or the size and scope of many other major state controlled outfits, not to mention their impact in crowding out potential private entities? The UK section just mentions Murdoch and some other private actors who have managed to operate, despite the lede including the concept of state control. After all, the page isn't titled "Concentration of private media ownership". Frankly this article is poorly written, biased as hell, and should probably be deleted. It reads like a niche position paper by someone with an agenda and what useful information it contains could easily be included in other, more legitimate articles. If it has any hope of being a worthwhile article it needs vast amounts of work and a less cherry-picked factual presentation that provides a comprehensive view of the media landscape, including giants like the BBC and PBS, along with more information about the fundamental nature of modern media as opposed to just listing a few seemingly random papers or networks and who owns them. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)