Our Unconsolidated Media

The liberal opposition to media consolidation has always struck me as puzzling. The ACLU, for example, worries that "Six major companies control most of the media in the country, including the most popular sites on the Internet." But that list of six companies doesn't include Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo -- surely influential internet players. And if the concern here is about the health of our democracy (which I take it it is) then I don't think one would one want to deny that The New York Times (owned by the New York Times, Co.) or The Washington Post and Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post Company) are significant media outlets that remain outside the grasp of the Big Six. And, of course, other, lesser newspaper companies like the Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune, LA Times) and Gannett (USA Today) are also outside the Big Six.

But if you ignore newspapers in favor of a single-minded focus on television, then you'll find that things are, indeed, pretty consolidated but they're a good deal less consolidated than they were when NBC, ABC, and CBS were the only players in town. Meanwhile, there are the public broadcasters (NPR and PBS) and thanks to the internet the opportunity to enjoy foreign media outlets, etc. In terms of reasons people might not be all that well-informed, the fact that folks are too busy to follow the news closely or otherwise disinclined to do so strikes me as a way larger factor than any alleged consolidation problem. A person with cable and an internet connection in 2008 has access to a far more diverse set of information sources than did a person in 1988 or 1968.

The ACLU is, however, totally right about torture so they still bat a good average.

Comments

The kicker here is "a person with cable and an internet connection." Add in the fact that many people don't choose an alternate media outlet or to surf internet news, and consolidation is still a bad thing.

Posted by Persia | May 22, 2008 1:56 PM

Matthew Yglesias, every the corporate shill on such things.

Posted by soullite | May 22, 2008 1:57 PM

What's more, most of the time when people advocate "media reform" they're talking about some degree of greater state control. They're against consolidation, whether it's real or imagined, because they don't like the product and they want to force the media to write/air different things. The ACLU is the exception here.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 1:57 PM

The kicker here is "a person with cable and an internet connection."

Trust fund scumbags such as Mr. Yglesias are indifferent to your plebian concerns.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 22, 2008 2:01 PM

Well, centralization of radio station ownership hasn't really done good things for music, as stations go lowest common denominator. I don't see the argument as to why greater consolidation will help news coverage.

Plus, with news sources being folded into larger corporations, the news media has a greater institutional concern with not rocking the boat. Good journalism doesn't prioritize not rocking the boat.

This isn't a huge issue to me, but the liberal opposition is far from puzzling.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 22, 2008 2:07 PM

The Telecommunication Act of 1996 was the worst piece of legislation of the past 50 years. (Apart from the 2002 AUMF.)

Posted by Hunter H. | May 22, 2008 2:12 PM

too many steves is correct: holding up consolidation ends up being a roundabout way for the government to exercise control over content. And at the relevant agencies (most notably the FCC), usually a deal is struck so that all the relevant interest groups, conservative or liberal, get to share in that control (e.g., conservatives get to restrict sexual content, liberals get minority voices, and so on).

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 2:13 PM

Is it a requisite to be an Atlantic blogger that you have to be completely bat-shit wrong about things %50 of the time?

Matt should just turn this into a sports blog (of course with 100000 ads for your book).

Posted by volum | May 22, 2008 2:15 PM

I don't know, maybe because all the TV outlets suck?

Posted by Asher | May 22, 2008 2:17 PM

It's also worth pointing out that consolidation of ownership of local radio and TV stations is usually the bigger problem pointed to. The Clear-Channelization of radio (did you know your music has to be focus-grouped before Clear Channel will even play it?), TV stations not owned locally tend to underfund local news coverage, etc.

Now, the internet has become an equalizing force for some, but not all, of these problems.

Also a drjmcooper points out, only 20% of the public has high speed internet.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 22, 2008 2:23 PM

then I don't think one would one want to deny that The New York Times (owned by the New York Times, Co.)

Who also own the Boston Globe. I don't think MY understands what the uproar over media consolidation is about.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 22, 2008 2:24 PM

With this post, Yglesias reveals his staggering level of ignorance about media consolidation and proves that he has his head stuck up his rear-end.

Posted by Jerry | May 22, 2008 2:27 PM

You know what, I think I was mincing words before. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is arguably the worst piece of legislation ever passed in this country.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 22, 2008 2:31 PM

There sure are a lot of people saying that Matthew is wrong without actually saying where he's wrong, or making any arguments whatsoever.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 2:31 PM

Matt,

I usually find you to be interesting and even sometimes insightful.

You are, however, periodically too superficial (even for the internet). This is one of those times. Why don't you sort of stick with things that you actually have more than a glancing knowledge of. You are simply adding to the noise on this rather more complex subject.

Posted by Peter McAllister | May 22, 2008 2:37 PM

Trust fund scumbags...

jeez, I hope your not a real doctor, drjimcooper...

Meanwhile, for those of us less inclined to throw mud along with our opinions, mine is, I have no trouble whatsoever these days finding plenty of sources for both liberal, conservative and moderate (not to mention anarchist) points of view among the many sources of media that are available to us.

Consolidation is something to be concerned about, but compare our still-vast availability of news to some of the more repressed countries in the world, and count your blessings, eh?

Posted by James Lawrence | May 22, 2008 2:39 PM

It seems to me that the elite media--the media composed of and ostensibly produced for articulate Americans--whether formally consolidated or not, will by its very nature report and analyze from an elite perspective, consciously staffing itself with those who, like Yglesias, McCardle and Sullivan (and unlike, say, Max Sawicky), have proven themselves supportive of elitist values. Independent thought is curbed further by the socialization of media types among themselves and among the American power elite--the media ownership, the politicians, the business leadership, etc. Perhaps I'm begging the question, but this sort of informal homogenization of outlook seems impossible to avoid in a country as wealthy and powerful as ours.

Posted by Mark | May 22, 2008 2:40 PM

By the way, it is a scandal that only 20% of our populace has high-speed internet. And as it turns out, that is also in part due to a lot regulatory capture.

So, rather than accepting that 20% and then further regulating content to try to give the remaining 80% the content various special interest groups think they should get, how about we do something about that 20% number instead?

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 2:41 PM

"You are, however, periodically too superficial (even for the internet). This is one of those times."

Folks,

Matthew is not "superficial", or "ignorant". He knows exactly what he's doing. And Matthew is an anti-progressive asshole. Always has been, always will be.

He doesn't share your goals. He doesn't tell what he knows to be the truth.

He aspires to be the next generation of Marty Peretz, which ought to let you know what you're dealing with here.

Posted by Petey | May 22, 2008 2:45 PM

I should say, a country as wealthy, powerful and well-ordered as ours

Posted by Mark | May 22, 2008 2:45 PM

There sure are a lot of people saying that Matthew is wrong without actually saying where he's wrong, or making any arguments whatsoever.

I've actually noticed quite a bit of that in the last week or so on this blog. My guess is it has something to do with the current "HRC vs. Obama" war--commenters seem to be posting their tired, mindless bloviations on that subject, then sticking around for additional pompous gainsaying on other topics.

Posted by James Gary | May 22, 2008 2:47 PM

He aspires to be the next generation of Marty Peretz, which ought to let you know what you're dealing with here.

Are you saying that he's looking for a rich heiress to marry? I thought he already had a trust fund.

Posted by peep | May 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Please read some Bagdikian and McChesney before you follow up on this post.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Seriously, does anyone want to argue that the news media as a whole really is more consolidated than 20 years ago, or 30? Or are we just going to call each assholes?

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Yes, Matthew Yglesias, there is PBS.

Now, if you can explain to me how John Malone's ownership of the PBS NewsHour, or the financial support of the NewsHour by the likes of Chevron makes the NewsHour not part of the problem, go right ahead. Jim Lehrer knows who butters his bread.

The problem of an advertising-supported, corporate right-wing Media is as obvious as Tim Russert, Joe Klein and WMD in Iraq. Megan McArdle's existence does not make it all better and nothing to worry about.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Jeez, take a chill pill, half the people in this thread.

Posted by Chris O. | May 22, 2008 2:55 PM

Comments like those of Petey, which follow the typical personal-insult line instead of reasonable discourse, are one form of media I could do about.

It's easy to call people names, Petey. Try some discourse above the 3rd grade level, and see if maybe people start actually listening to your point of view?

Meanwhile, whether you agree or not with Andrew, it's a blog. Weblog, get it? As in, personal opinion.

What's wrong with being civil in disagreeing?

Petey and those inclined to attack people and call them names should go out and hit the gym or run a mile or something. Such comments are tiresome, and childish. And do nothing to improve the dialogue.

Posted by James Lawrence | May 22, 2008 2:56 PM

The Telecommunication Act of 1996 was the worst piece of legislation of the past 50 years. (Apart from the 2002 AUMF.)

That's really not true. The 96 Act represented a good set of compromises covering a lot of complex subject areas. It took many years of hard, dedicated work by the telecom lobbies, the FCC, and the DC Circuit to utterly destroy all of those compromises.

Posted by J.B. | May 22, 2008 2:57 PM

I meant to say that the existence of Instapundit, Drudge and Megan McArdle does not make it all better.

I did not intend to put on Megan's narrow little shoulders alone.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Matthew, I mean, not Andrew.

Posted by James Lawrence | May 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Yes, and "advertising-supported" media is obviously a problem. If only we could go back to the glory days of.... oh, right, we've NEVER had a non-advertising-supported media.

In fact, I think that Matt is doubly right here - not only is media LESS consolidated than it was in the pre-CNN days, when most people had precisely four options - the big 3 networks, and their single local paper - but I would argue that that de-consolidation is a major factor in the crappiness of today's MSM. Back in the monopoly days, a network could afford to prioritize quality journalism over ratings, because they had an unassailable business model. Now, they can claim, right or wrong, disingenously or not, that they're FORCED into their crappy, tabloidy, circus-style coverage because of the demands of the marketplace.

Now, mind you, I actually don't know what I'm talking about here. Would anyone care to correct (note that I didn't say "contradict") me?

Posted by OhioBoy | May 22, 2008 3:05 PM

"But if you ignore newspapers in favor of a single-minded focus on television, then you'll find that things are, indeed, pretty consolidated but they're a good deal less consolidated than they were when NBC, ABC, and CBS were the only players in town. "

True, but the local affiliates were much less likely to be owned by the national network.

Posted by Njorl | May 22, 2008 3:10 PM

It took many years of hard, dedicated work by the telecom lobbies, the FCC, and the DC Circuit to utterly destroy all of those compromises.

Less than 12? How is that effective legislation?

12 years is being extremely generous, by the way. And I would argue the most important feature was that it allowed immediate monopolization of all media outlets. Not sure what the compromise involved there was.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 22, 2008 3:10 PM

It DOESN'T MATTER is you can gain access to information if you are RULED by a government pandering to 60 million of the most fucking stupid, uninformed, ignorant people on the planet.

Why the hell do you think Albert Einstein left Nazi Germany? Do you think he should have instead tried to improve the quality of Brownshirt newspapers and the Nazi educational system?

Roughly 2 percent of our population control most of the national wealth. We get the news media, the educational system and the government that they want us to have. It's that simple.

Posted by Don Williams | May 22, 2008 3:13 PM

The liberal opposition to media consolidation has always struck me as puzzling.

The idea is that the media sucks, on which we all agree. The "liberal opposition to media consolidation" is based on the notion that there's a reason the media sucks: the business environment went from being cut-throat competitive to acquisitive to monopolistic.

Now, it may be "puzzling" to point out some kind of close association between the suckitude of the media and its consolidation. I don't really have a close causal story to tell either, but I do have a really good HBO "gritty urban drama" that gestured in the direction of the ill effects of the corporatization of the media and other institutions. You may have seen it...

Posted by Marshall | May 22, 2008 3:25 PM

i think matt's wrong about this one.

the local markets really suffer when the same company can own a tv station and mulitple radio stations.
they're not gonna improve one station at the cost of another, they're better off keeping them all mediocre. letting a broadcast owner also have a newspaper or two simply takes the possibility
of different perspectives in news coverage away.

maybe there are more national media outlets now, but the consolidation problem is a local one.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 22, 2008 3:49 PM

yikes, you're kidding, right? you seem to mostly miss the point of what media consolidation is about. its about large companies controlling content from the top down, having increased their ability to do so by owning both local and national coverage sites which would be seen as 'competing' with one another within the same market, and regulating their content to largely agree with one another, shun points of view unfavorable to the owners, and set the bounds of what will and won't be discussed about any given issue in the media very narrowly. when the local newspaper, two TV stations, several national mags and papers and a cable network or two are all owned by the same congolmerate - you really can't see the inherent harm that's done?

why do you think politics in America is so amazingly inane, inaccurate, full of outright lies treated as facts? it is a competition to please the masters of the game with sufficiently subdued and digetsable content, not a competition to do the best job, find out the most info, or expose the public to wrongdoings by the government.

it doesn't always work in that manner, but as we saw with Bush, 9/11, terror threats, the 04 elections - when all of this machinery is lined up and utilized, it is incredibly effective. and therefore, dangerous. very dangerous.

Posted by onceler | May 22, 2008 4:19 PM

But that list of six companies doesn't include Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo

you are aware that the MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, correct?

Posted by andrew | May 22, 2008 4:22 PM

The one place where I've noticed awfulness that can be directly traced to consilidation is in broadcast radio, which is why I have XM, where, oddly, it's all owned by one company but the music has 100x the variety.

The other general awfulness of the media can be traced to a number of different things, and consolidation is just one of those reasons. All the same, though, anyone with an internet connection can find the news they're looking for these days. The biggest, most influential news organizations all suck to a certain degree, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 22, 2008 4:29 PM

In terms of reasons people might not be all that well-informed, the fact that folks are too busy to follow the news closely or otherwise disinclined to do so strikes me as a way larger factor than any alleged consolidation problem. A person with cable and an internet connection in 2008 has access to a far more diverse set of information sources than did a person in 1988 or 1968.

AND

All the same, though, anyone with an internet connection can find the news they're looking for these days. The biggest, most influential news organizations all suck to a certain degree, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Matt and Adam, I love ya both, but the problem is not so much that there aren't alternative sources for news (there are), it's that they currently lack the mainstream legitimacy to influence discourse and policy, like, *at all*. Whereas multi-billion dollar conglomerates who are now allowed to have local monopolies can very much do this.

I mean, if there hadn't been a concerted effort among mainstream media outlets to shut out all anti-war voices in the lead-up to the Iraq war, who knows how that would have played out. It certainly didn't help. It's a lot easier to drive policy by systematically ignoring dissenting opinion. And nobody benefits when it is not in journalists' interests to investigate corporate malfeasance because the offending company in question is owned by the same company that employs the journalist and that same company owns all the competing local news outlets.

Seriously, does anyone want to argue that the news media as a whole really is more consolidated than 20 years ago, or 30?

I agree that concentration of media ownership has always been a problem, but I would argue that it has been exacerbated in the past decade by the proliferation of monopolies and oligopolies allowed by the 1996 TC Act and subsequent regulatory capture of the FCC.

100 different news channels doesn't necessarily equate to genuine diversity of opinion when they're all owned by the same (very small number of) companies.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 22, 2008 5:26 PM

Matt, its been said over and over but its worth repeating. The issue isn't consolidation among the big players. Its the sucking up of all the small local players that used to be a much, much larger percentage of the media market.

Theres even a UN-commissioned study of rich countries out there that names the USA the most corporate, commercial and consolidated media market among the countries studied. And the situation is relatively recent.

One interesting piece I read some time back said that during the Vietnam war there were a much higher proportion of locally-owned radio stations, with a correspondingly larger number of vocal critics of the war than during comparable phases of the Iraq disaster. Radio and TV moves to the right under consolidated corporate ownership.

I generally enjoy your blog but this entry seems to come out of an ill-informed part of your consciousness.

Posted by farren | May 22, 2008 5:38 PM

Matt, its been said over and over but its worth repeating. The issue isn't consolidation among the big players. Its the sucking up of all the small local players that used to be a much, much larger percentage of the media market.

Theres even a UN-commissioned study of rich countries out there that names the USA the most corporate, commercial and consolidated media market among the countries studied. And the situation is relatively recent.

One interesting piece I read some time back said that during the Vietnam war there were a much higher proportion of locally-owned radio stations, with a correspondingly larger number of vocal critics of the war than during comparable phases of the Iraq disaster. Radio and TV moves to the right under consolidated corporate ownership.

I generally enjoy your blog but this entry seems to come out of an ill-informed part of your consciousness.

Posted by farren | May 22, 2008 5:40 PM

Matt, its been said over and over but its worth repeating. The issue isn't consolidation among the big players. Its the sucking up of all the small local players that used to be a much, much larger percentage of the media market.

Theres even a UN-commissioned study of rich countries out there that names the USA the most corporate, commercial and consolidated media market among the countries studied. And the situation is relatively recent.

One interesting piece I read some time back said that during the Vietnam war there were a much higher proportion of locally-owned radio stations, with a correspondingly larger number of vocal critics of the war than during comparable phases of the Iraq disaster. Radio and TV moves to the right under consolidated corporate ownership.

I generally enjoy your blog but this entry seems to come out of an ill-informed part of your consciousness.

Posted by farren | May 22, 2008 5:40 PM

As countless others have noted, the serious concerns about media consolidation have nothing to do with lack of access to multiple channels of information about national and international news, and everything to do with the increasingly centralized and corporate-controlled nature of the news that most people see.

There was once a much larger role for locally-owned media outlets to report the news independently. Now most newspapers and broadcast stations are part of corporate chains. Google, Microsoft, et al just disseminate news from the same chains. The channels of information are much broader on the user end than they used to be, but much narrower at the top.

Granted, most liberal advocacy groups do a lousy-ass job of explaining this issue, so your point is not entirely without merit.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 22, 2008 6:10 PM

The liberal opposition to media consolidation has always struck me as puzzling.

Yes, because liberals have always supported monopolies, trusts, and the consolidation of power in the hands of corporate elites.

The liberal opposition to Matthew Yglesias no longer strikes me as puzzling in any way.

Posted by Polly | May 22, 2008 6:37 PM

Matt, I know you're half-trolling, but this is amazingly sloppy thinking, even for you. Setting aside what you consider news (as opposed to news aggregation), and whether or not you put the number of "important" media companies at 6, 25, whatever, news in this country is very consolidated.

People do have choices, based mostly around the internet--after all if you exclude the internet, every other aspect of the media is much worse than it was 10 or 40 years ago. But for somebody who makes so much noise about income inequality, you seem strangely unconcerned with the class based differences in internet availability. Not everyone has the money or the time to surf the internet all day as you do. Members of the working class would be much better off if they could spend a half hour watching the news (eating dinner, say) and being moderately informed about important issues facing the country. They have no such options now. Nor can many read a decent newspaper over breakfast (local or not).

Your post also centers on a logical fallacy; the internet can prosper without television news turning to shit. ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, CNN, et al are doing fine. So the question is: is maximizing corperate profits more important than diversified competition (and therefore superior news and a better informed electorate)?

There is nothing surprising that liberals value the health of our democracy more than corperate profits. Times like these make me wish you actually were a liberal instead of an authoritarian centrist motivated by capricious whims and a bizzare boot licking fetish.

Posted by Client #11 | May 22, 2008 11:45 PM

"if you exclude the internet, every other aspect of the media is much worse than it was 10 or 40 years ago"

Well, 10 years ago we were at the peak of a bubble in the advertising economy, so maybe the non-internet media was better. But 40 years ago? TV news is way better now. There's more crap, but there's tons more substance. And modern newspapers are more accurate, more professional, more comprehensive than they were in the 60s. They cover breaking news on the their websites in ways that would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. They may not be more interesting to read than newspapers were in this alleged golden age, but I don't think that's the argument you're making.

Posted by too many steves | May 23, 2008 1:29 AM

Too many steves you've spoken to quality but not diversity. Reporting accurately on the restricted range of topics your infotainment programmers consider newsworthy is not as valuable as having a diverse range of views reported, albeit with variable quality.

And post-9/11, the American corporate media was just shameful. Those of us who live in South Africa, the UK, New Zealand, Germany, France et al were comparing our local media and the media of other non-US countries to the output from CNN, Fox et al and shaking our heads in amazements. There was this complete disconnect, like the big players in the USA were reporting out of their own bubble universe on a whole host of issues.

In fact, reporters like Christina Amampour later came right out and admitted that the very consolidated, profit-focused US media was basically cowed into forsaking their duty to inform (she specifically named CNN) by a fear of losing audience due to nationalistic fervor. Thats a kind of dynamic that comes into play much more when you have very large players with huge amounts of profit at stake.

And while we're on the topic of Amampour, a respected veteran journalist, its worth noting that, during the Israeli raid on Arafat's compound a few years back, she voice-reported on CNN that she could not confirm the allegation that the Israeli military were using civilians as human shields. A UN representative standing to her left and a reporter from the french paper Figaro standing on her right soon after came out and both said she was flat out lying. Quality journalism? I think not.

There are a lot of good, principled journalists in the USA, but it all comes down to market share. Name one American newspaper with the investigative, adversarial and advocacy-based depth and character of, say the UK Guardian or its South African offspring, the Weekly Mail and Guardian - and has a similar share of the media market in its host country. You can't, because there isn't one. Which is why the perception amongst my many friends scattered around the globe is that Americans who rely on the networks for their news are substantially less well-informed about non-local affairs than the citizens of most other wealthy nations.

Posted by farren | May 23, 2008 3:25 AM

Re farren's comment "In fact, reporters like Christina Amampour later came right out and admitted that the very consolidated, profit-focused US media was basically cowed into forsaking their duty to inform (she specifically named CNN) by a fear of losing audience due to nationalistic fervor."
------------
The US News Media doesn't just fair to inform -- it engages in outright deceit. It had records in its own archives --from interviews with Bin Laden in 1997-1998 -- that explained why Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were declaring war on the USA.

But Bush could hardly tell the American people after Sept 11 that the US Government's decades-long whoring for Big Oil and the Israel Lobby had led to the deaths of 3000 Americans. So he put out his Big Lie -- "they hate us for our Freedom" -- and the US News media went along.

There's nothing "nationalistic" about it -- it's a betrayal of this country. Because we can't get the help of the Islamic World in suppressing Al Qaeda extremists when we don't restrain out own extremists who prey on the Middle East.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 9:15 AM

The problem is that when the news is as ratings-driven and commodified as it is in the USA, it becomes infotainment. Don's statement above fairly appraises my impressions.

Honestly, you had to be sitting on the other side of the Atlantic in the 2-3 years after 9/11, looking in on the mess that was mainstream US media. The contrast between our own, plain-speaking media (and I speak for many nations here) laying it all out and the very obviously walking-on-eggshells US media obfuscating, ommitting and reporting the fantasies of powerful interest groups as if they were fact, astonished a great many people around the world.

Posted by Farren | May 23, 2008 11:09 AM