These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

[massadvj]

The Internet has created a phenomenon we in marketing call "the long tail" which simply means that in any good or service, the medium has created wider choice to the consumer than ever before.  This includes media choice.  Early on, people assumed that this would be of benefit to lesser-known brands because the playing field would be level and these low market-share brands would be able to compete against the big boys.  For example, it doesn't really cost an Internet retailer much more to offer 10 million songs on his website than one song; whereas, in traditional retailing, space is expensive and limited.

People argued that, thanks to the Internet, there would no longer be superstars like the Beatles.  The audience would become too fragmented.  And yet today we have superstars who are bigger than ever: Coldplay and Lady Gaga, for example.

In the media industry there are now literally millions of options available to consumers who want access to news.  But what wasn't really calculated is the fact that instantaneous global communications also meant that people would arrive at a consensus sooner, and settle on a preferred brand, and there would be big advantages in creating a large community.  For example, a retail site that offers thousand of reviews of its products has a big advantage over one that offers only a few.

This "long tail" phenomenon now means that while there are MORE choices than ever before, there is also a consolidation of preferred choices.  Take search engines as an example.  There are hundreds of them available.  But Google gets two-thirds of the market, and if you take the top three (Google, Yahoo and Bing) they control over 95 percent of the market.  The same has happened with blogs.  The same has happened with other media.

My own opinion of the matter is that, so long as it is market-driven, this trend is neither good nor bad.  So long as barriers to entry remain low, innovators will come along and break through.  It is not that news consumers have no choice.  We have plenty of choice.  It is that consumers seem to be making the WRONG choice (ie, getting their news from Jon Stewart) that has us confounded. 

I think it would be a bigger mistake to outlaw Jon Stewart, even though I recognize that the other side would outlaw Rush Limbaugh if they could.

[MACVSOG68]

I can't speak for Dan, but I will just say this.  Intelligence has very little to do with it, in my opinion.  It has more to do with a willingness to accept the reality of things, regardless of how extremely uncomfortable it may make one.

I couldn't agree more.  Accepting the reality of what probably happened in the Ukraine isn't easy for those heavily invested in another outcome.   

It is something that we all struggle with at times, it is a part of human nature.  But it hinders us, prevents us from facing things as they are, and forces us to cling to that "which we want to be true."  And on many of the topics that we discuss here, there is a very strong tendency for all of us to want to see, and hold on to, any "solution" that promises the least amount of pain and dislocation.  But the rub is, that no matter how much we wish to cling to these hopes, reality keeps marching along.

Just my two cents!!

I can agree with most of what you so eloquently wrote.  I think the issue Dan and I were arguing was at least pretty narrow.  And it needn't have devolved into insults, direct or indirect.  We all have our biases, and while I respect everyone's viewpoint, if I disagree with some of them, let's agree to not make it personal.  In some areas, I'm going to be very much in the minority here, one being immigration reform.  In this area, I will certainly try to refrain from questioning posters' values or thinking ability.

BTW, in the issue of the Ukraine v Russia, I have no favorite or hopes other than a hope it doesn't spread.  I dislike both governments, but I also can't overlook the geopolitical goals of Mr. Putin.  And as I've said a couple of other times, Dan could be correct in his conclusions.

And I guess we have ventured far enough off the topic of this thread.

[MACVSOG68]

I think it would be a bigger mistake to outlaw Jon Stewart, even though I recognize that the other side would outlaw Rush Limbaugh if they could.

Interesting piece Victor.  There is always the possibility that too much information is just as bad as too little.  But how many of us would move back in time (media-wise)?

One thing I do notice consistent with that last sentence of yours is that on many if not most of the leftwing forums, a lot of effort is put into going after the conservative media, whether FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh or other rightwing media types.  But on the rightwing forums, most of what I see seems more focused on the political opposition and issues.  But I could be biased. 

[GourmetDan]

I think the issue Dan and I were arguing was at least pretty narrow.

The issue I was arguing was foundational to the thread.

That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media.  These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'.  No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'.  Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish.  Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments surrounding the 'chosen events' being discussed are not the result of a free and open market of ideas.  They are scripted and even the most conservative voices are inexplicably 'unprepared' at critical times on critical events.  There is no reason to trust the western media more than any other.

The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.

[Dexter]

The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.

 

[MACVSOG68]

Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish.

Well, I'm just a foolish kinda guy...who believes that when differing versions of events and differing opinions are expressed, I do have choices.  Whether anyone here believes it or not, we are not being controlled by these 6 mega corps.  If we are willing to dig, the information is available.  Back in the '50s and '60s we had no such choices.  It's why it took many years for the media to catch up with the JFK WH abuses, while Clinton was quickly outed. 

The media will always have its biases in both reporting and opinions.  But they are hardly together in some conspiratorial scheme.  But just as you've drawn a lot of conclusions on a variety of issues including your belief that most Americans don't want a comprehensive immigration law, so too have the rest of us.  We don't draw them from being spoon fed by the media, unless we choose to.  Point is, the information is out there, whereas for most of our history it wasn't. 

[truth_seeker]

The issue I was arguing was foundational to the thread.

That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media.  These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'.  No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'.  Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish.  Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments surrounding the 'chosen events' being discussed are not the result of a free and open market of ideas.  They are scripted and even the most conservative voices are inexplicably 'unprepared' at critical times on critical events.  There is no reason to trust the western media more than any other.

The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.

Who precisely are these master propagandists ("those who control media")?

And precisely what is their motivation?

I'll slip in my own opinion, which is these forces are motivated by $dollars and market share, and not political agendas.

And I'll go further, and posit that conservatism as a belief system will only grow, if it takes heed of "marketing" and "better images" and takes on positions which are popular with citizen voters.

[GourmetDan]

Well, I'm just a foolish kinda guy...who believes that when differing versions of events and differing opinions are expressed, I do have choices.  Whether anyone here believes it or not, we are not being controlled by these 6 mega corps.  If we are willing to dig, the information is available.  Back in the '50s and '60s we had no such choices.  It's why it took many years for the media to catch up with the JFK WH abuses, while Clinton was quickly outed. 

The media will always have its biases in both reporting and opinions.  But they are hardly together in some conspiratorial scheme.  But just as you've drawn a lot of conclusions on a variety of issues including your belief that most Americans don't want a comprehensive immigration law, so too have the rest of us.  We don't draw them from being spoon fed by the media, unless we choose to.  Point is, the information is out there, whereas for most of our history it wasn't.

Again, it is not about choosing between the different set of opinions that the 'group of 6' gives you to choose from.  It is about recognizing that:

That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media.  These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'.  No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'.  Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish.  Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.

[truth_seeker]

Still waiting to learn WHO is doing the "mass herding" and towards what "END?"

[Bigun]

I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.

If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?

[Dexter]

Still waiting to learn WHO is doing the "mass herding" and towards what "END?"

An elite class of people that owns and controls everything, and is continuing to take steps towards owning and controlling even more. The same people responsible for the polarization of politics. I'm pretty sure I know what Dan thinks about this, but I personally think what all these elites have in common goes beyond their racial background. 

[MACVSOG68]

I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.

If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?

If I understand the question, yes the print media is certainly hemorrhaging.  Earlier in our history the print media was the only source, and even then the various publications were very outwardly biased politically.  Then when TV became more and more popular it did have to compete although not seriously with the evening news from the big three.  But today it's lost its influence almost entirely and serves only to repeat what has been on the internet sometimes for days.  And the evening news is competing with the 24/7 cable news.

But there is no western media cabal  that is hiding major stories from the masses for any kind of political or other such purposes.  Are they biased?  You bet.  Do most favor Democrats?  Absolutely.  Do they tell the whole story on anything?  Hardly.  But on any issue I can easily get differing sides of everything from the border "crisis" to energy issues to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Whether anyone believes it or not, ABC, CBS and NBC are competitors as far as the news goes.  They are politically biased, but they aren't the only games in town today, and "red meat" is still going to attract almost any reporter.

Don't anyone believe that you will get any more unbiased reporting from Russia Today or Al Jazeera.  You will frequently get other sides of an issue, but the reporting will be at least as biased as the western media's, and usually much more so.  If I look at the daily KCNA news reports I will certainly get a different perspective of North Korea, but that won't change my opinions of that country or its leaders.

[Dexter]

If I understand the question, yes the print media is certainly hemorrhaging.  Earlier in our history the print media was the only source, and even then the various publications were very outwardly biased politically.  Then when TV became more and more popular it did have to compete although not seriously with the evening news from the big three.  But today it's lost its influence almost entirely and serves only to repeat what has been on the internet sometimes for days.  And the evening news is competing with the 24/7 cable news.

But there is no western media cabal  that is hiding major stories from the masses for any kind of political or other such purposes.  Are they biased?  You bet.  Do most favor Democrats?  Absolutely.  Do they tell the whole story on anything?  Hardly.  But on any issue I can easily get differing sides of everything from the border "crisis" to energy issues to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Whether anyone believes it or not, ABC, CBS and NBC are competitors as far as the news goes.  They are politically biased, but they aren't the only games in town today, and "red meat" is still going to attract almost any reporter.

Don't anyone believe that you will get any more unbiased reporting from Russia Today or Al Jazeera.  You will frequently get other sides of an issue, but the reporting will be at least as biased as the western media's, and usually much more so.  If I look at the daily KCNA news reports I will certainly get a different perspective of North Korea, but that won't change my opinions of that country or its leaders.

Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.

[jmyrlefuller]

I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.

If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?

Mostly, it's other subsidiaries of the same companies that provide the profits. NBC, for instance, was little more than an arm for RCA and later General Electric for decades, allowing them to sell their hardware. Disney has its theatrical film division. National Amusements, which owns CBS AND Viacom, runs a movie theater chain.

From a combination of resale/syndication rights to their products, along with profits from other companies, the major networks can run at a (significant) loss in and of themselves.

[MACVSOG68]

Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.

Then that's their problem.  Doesn't ratify the theory that the Big 6 (the western media) are all controlling the news to keep the masses in the dark.

[Oceander]

Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.

I agree with MAC:  the problem lies with those who are lazy and choose to passively consume what they're fed - as the Founders held, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and these folk aren't paying the bill - and the fact of their laziness says nothing about how the so-called "Big 6" operate.

Furthermore, I find it rather odd that there is this presumption that having just 6 separately owned media sources is somehow evidence of a cabal, a cartel, or a conspiracy.  After all, there are really only 7 separately owned auto manufacturers whose products one can purchase in the US:  Ford, GM, Chrysler (really should be called Fiat by now), Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda - there are some others, e.g., Mitsubishi, but they have very little market share (they're sort of the equivalent of nonconventional, online info sources).

Since there are only 7, are we to conclude that this is evidence of collusion amongst them to restrict the cars that Americans can buy?  Puh-leez.  And to see why it's absurd to blame the small number of media outlet owners for the fact that many individuals only get their news from one source and so have an unbalanced view - which carries with it the necessary implication that those sources should be forced by government diktat to provide "balanced" programming (assuming one can define "balanced") - consider the number of people who have strong brand loyalty and only buy, say, Fords, without ever considering any of the other manufacturers.  It's not unreasonable to say that when you're shopping for a new car you should look at everything that's available - compare and contrast and go with the best, regardless of brand - but the fact is that many don't.

If someone like that ends up buying a lemon because they didn't consider all the alternatives - say they buy a GM only to discover later on that the car they bought has a tendency to burn out the tranny early, a fact that they would have learned about if they'd done their research - whose fault is that?  Is it the fault of the auto manufacturers because there are only 7 of them and because the person in question bought based on brand loyalty and not on research?

I don't think so.  If someone who buys a car solely because of brand loyalty buys a known lemon, that's his/her fault; just so, if someone gets an unbalanced view of the world solely because he/she chooses to watch only one outlet, that's his/her fault, not the fault of the media industry as a whole.

[Oceander]

An elite class of people that owns and controls everything, and is continuing to take steps towards owning and controlling even more. The same people responsible for the polarization of politics. I'm pretty sure I know what Dan thinks about this, but I personally think what all these elites have in common goes beyond their racial background. 

with all due respect, do you grasp just how trite and cliched that is?  First - and on a tangent - if these people already own and control everything, then there's no point in them taking steps to own and control even more, is there?

Second, the belief that there is some shadowy group of elites out "there" who own a lot and are conspiring to own everything else is one of the oldest conspiracy theories in the world; frequently, albeit not in your case, there is a racial aspect to it as well - for example, in Europe it is frequently the Jews who are assigned the role of the shadowy elite.  It was just as obnoxious when the Nazis did it as it is when the know-nothings in the various Occupy groups do the same thing with the putative 1%.

Where is the evidence of this shadowy elite and the supposed cabal/conspiracy?  Is it merely that there are only 6 separate news outlets?  Then what to make of the computer industry, where there are only 2 - that's 2 - separate cpu makers (technically only Intel is a maker, AMD spun off its fabrication plants and is itself now just a design shop).  If there are only 2 cpu makers in the world, then surely that must be evidence of a cabal/conspiracy to force everyone to use precisely the same computer, right?  The answer to that ought to be self-evident.

[Oceander]

I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.

If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?

The fact that many of the players are hemorrhaging money is, in fact, evidence that the media markets are competitive in nature; were they not, then the players would be able to manipulate the markets so that none suffered any losses.

[Bigun]

Then that's their problem.  Doesn't ratify the theory that the Big 6 (the western media) are all controlling the news to keep the masses in the dark.

Uh no! Not at all! It is a HUGE problem for us in fact!

[Oceander]

Uh no! Not at all! It is a HUGE problem for us in fact!

Of course it is, which is why those of us who care have to do what we can to reach out to everyone else.  However, the fault/blame for the issue lies with those who get news from only one source, not from the fact that there are only 6 separately-owned news outlets.

[Bigun]

Of course it is, which is why those of us who care have to do what we can to reach out to everyone else.  However, the fault/blame for the issue lies with those who get news from only one source, not from the fact that there are only 6 separately-owned news outlets.

I agree with the first part of what you said and STRONGLY disagree with the last part. The fact that there are only 6 separately owned news outlets is a HUGE problem in and of itself!

[Dexter]

Where is the evidence of this shadowy elite and the supposed cabal/conspiracy?  Is it merely that there are only 6 separate news outlets?  Then what to make of the computer industry, where there are only 2 - that's 2 - separate cpu makers (technically only Intel is a maker, AMD spun off its fabrication plants and is itself now just a design shop).  If there are only 2 cpu makers in the world, then surely that must be evidence of a cabal/conspiracy to force everyone to use precisely the same computer, right?  The answer to that ought to be self-evident.

For me there is a lot more to it than the news corporations, but I'm not really comfortable getting into it here because in the end people like you will just come to the conclusion that I am a nutty conspiracy theorist. I believe there is evidence all around us, but when it comes to people that have already decided they won't believe it it becomes kind of pointless to talk about, so I usually don't. The polarization of politics is a big one for me, because polarization means there is a common goal somewhere.

[truth_seeker]

I agree with the first part of what you said and STRONGLY disagree with the last part. The fact that there are only 6 separately owned news outlets is a HUGE problem in and of itself!

As Oceander stated, the same consolidation of businesses has occurred in autos, energy, computers, retail, etc.

So do you believe a case for a break up could be made in court, such as the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, using the Sherman Act?

I don't, and I don't think a case could be made that they offer just one opinion, or are biased in the same way, either.

I happen to think most of these types of discussions stem from conservatism's failure to sell and resell itself, with skilled communicators and a compelling message.

[MACVSOG68]

For me there is a lot more to it than the news corporations, but I'm not really comfortable getting into it here because in the end people like you will just come to the conclusion that I am a nutty conspiracy theorist. I believe there is evidence all around us, but when it comes to people that have already decided they won't believe it it becomes kind of pointless to talk about, so I usually don't. The polarization of politics is a big one for me, because polarization means there is a common goal somewhere.

I don't follow that last one at all.  Polarization generally comes from changes in our social attitudes which lead us into political turmoil.  The mere fact of that indicates that people are getting their news and reaching conclusions from multiple sources.  If the Big 6 are somehow controlling all of that, there would be no polarization which indicates multiple opposing sides.  And they are openly in opposition.  In countries such of NK and Cuba, the media is truly controlled.

None of this means truth will out, but in politics and social values, what is truth?  It's for each of us to decide for ourselves, and the media we spend time with will more than likely just ratify our "truths" not create them.   
 

[massadvj]

I don't know.  Now that I think about it Myst and R4 seem kind of "shadowy" to me.  And who but an elitist would own a bull dog?