Why do a mere half dozen media corporations "control" all information?

This is obviously a loaded question.

I am in protracted debate with an intelligent non-Objectivist. In order to both get me to think and possibly to provide a target for him to aim at, he asked me this question -- and I wanted to spout out pre-fabricated "Objectivist" talking-points (which also explained the monopoly of newspapers). Due to my valuing the integrity of the dialectic process, as well as the notion of successful (rather than merely "rapid") communication, I refrained.

What's the medium-length explanation for the apparent "media monopoly" in the U.S.?

Ed

p.s. He mentioned that there was a Telecommunications Act which was either started, or ended, in 1993. It made it so that you could not own all the broadcasts on one wavelength (or range of wavelengths). I take this to mean that you could own a broadcast on AM radio as well as one on FM radio, but not several broadcasts on each one.

Post 1

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 6:15am

When you think about it, his assumption is mistaken. A half dozen media corporations don't "control" all information. One could spend days, weeks, or months gathering information from sources outside of the MSM. That's how stories like Climategate got started.

There are thousands of bloggers and Podcasters out there reporting on issues the MSM doesn't even touch. It's a matter of consumer choice, not media power.

Independent documentary film makers are fascinating. "Indoctrinate U" comes immediately to mind. Pajama TV is growing by leaps and bounds. YouTube is a media miracle.

What your friend must recognize is that his mind must be exercised by him. It can't be kicked started by forces he hopes are trustworthy.

Post 2

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 10:23am

Hi Ed,

There is evidence of an oligopoly over media marketshare, and perhaps your pal is suggesting that media money correlates with media influence or control. There's a wiki on the consolidation of media ownership, which does briefly explain how the 1996 Telecommunications Act further deregulated the media market, thus allowing further consolidation of media ownership. Just the facts.

Jordan

Post 3

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 10:27am

All good points, Teresa.

My friend knows that he doesn't have a good argument. He put the question out there as intellectual bait, not intellectual firepower. His underlying point was that there is "something wrong" with the current structure of corporation, or incorporation, in America.

I asked him if it's possible for him to conceive that it may have always been the fault of government, not corporations. That the only meaningful "wrongs" to be found will be found when corporations get in bed with a statist government, in order to gain a coercive monopoly (something which cannot be achieved in a free market).

He said that the justification of progressive taxation is the political axiom: "No taxation without representation." He said that rich folks get "represented" more (because of buying lobbyists, etc) and that this morally justifies higher tax brackets. I correctly identified that his argument falsely presumes, from the outset, the morality of a welfare state -- where folks get goodies from Uncle Sam; and that the reason he isn't right is not because of his logic, but because of his acceptance of this false premise.

He said he couldn't make it clear, but that even with minarchy there'd be outstanding ethical problems with corporations, or incorporation. He couldn't convince me and our debate then ended (for the time being).

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 10:32am

Thanks, Jordan.

That history will be helpful to me (in my debate).

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 5:24am