Comments on: Media Deconsolidation (Part 26): “Information Control” Fantasies

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:44:36 +0000

Thanks for blogging about my chart! And critiquing it. And attacking it. Without even contacting me. Stay classy, Adam.

Note that this was a personal project and is not in any way funded or endorsed by Free Press.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:44:36 +0000

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:44:36 +0000

By: dm

dm — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:57:35 +0000

As Charbax notes, the more interesting thing to count is not percentage of radio stations owned, but the percentage of the audiences involved.

Even so, audiences (and the music industry) probably would be better off if Clear Channel were limited to a handful of stations, and there were a hundred other companies managing the rest of their holdings. That way, you'd have several hundred managers deciding what goes on the air, giving the national audience a lot more choice.

On the other hand, we're arguing a bit about the buggy-whip oligopoly here, as technology has marched on.

By: How Many Competitors Is Enough? - The Technology Liberation Front

How Many Competitors Is Enough? - The Technology Liberation Front — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:33:25 +0000

[...] recent post on Free Press’s hysteria over media consolidation reminds me of the left’s general [...]

By: Charbax

Charbax — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:35:23 +0000

It's not the amount of media outlets that matter, it's the percentage of audience that the major media outlets have and who owns them. Most of the audience is concentrated in very few media outlet owners. That is even more true in certain european countries such as France and Italy.

Otherwise you would basically be comparing CNN with this weblog.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:17:44 +0000

Great job of exploding the myth of controlled media and how we need to be saved from it... by those who would control it "better!"

But the crux of your argument -- that new forms of media guarantee viewpoint diversity and freedom of expression -- does not obviate the fact that our society is undergoing massive consolidation among the traditional media.

Look at the degree of radio consolidation, for example -- http://www.futureofmusic.org/images/FMCradiostu...

I agree with the overwhelming public sentiment against traditional media oligopolies expressed during the FCC hearings on this subject.

By: Jardinero1

Jardinero1 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:06:42 +0000

I think you are being really unfair to the idea of tightly regulated markets. You mustn't forget to compare the quality of the fifty five media monopolies to the quality and diversity of programming in a highly regulated, non-monopolized media market.

Upon closer comparison, the fifty five monopolies don't hold a candle to tightly regulated non-monopoly markets. Compare, say, to the Soviet broadcast industry in the sixties and seventies, the three major US TV networks before cable or even the BBC today and you will see what I mean.

Another benefit of chaining these fifty five monopolies is that you can stop worrying about people being exposed to myriad, unusual or as I prefer to say "wrong" ideas. To maintain fairness you simply have a "fairness doctrine" where the powers that be would require that broadcasters be required to present exactly two sides to every issue.