The New Media Monopoly

A review of the Non-Fiction book, The New Media Monopoly

The "media"-the generalized group of communications systems that include radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, books, and the internet-carries a nationwide criticism for being dishonest, sensational, and "soft". Politicians, the media's harshest critics, routinely point out that they're just looking for a good story, or that the news is maliciously seeking to discredit honest people.

Ben Bagdikian, author of The New Media Monopoly, points out that this isn't true. In the latest update of 1983's The Media Monopoly, The New Media Monopoly explores our government's relationship with conservative media conglomerations that collectively own nearly all newspapers, radio and TV stations, publishing houses, and magazines. The only politicians that show the slightest disdain for the media aren't getting large "donations" for their campaigns.

In 1983, most major media outlets were controlled by 50 major conglomerates. Twenty years later, the number has dwindled to five. Essentially, five companies or mergers own the super majority of our nation's media. The companies convinced politicians to excuse antitrust laws and anti-monopoly guidelines to allow companies to control all radio, TV, or newspapers, or a combination of two forms. By doing this, they have more power than the government in the nation's knowledge. These five companies control (and consequentially hide, disguise, or change) news: Time Warner, the largest; Bertelsmann; (Fox) News Corporation; The Walt Disney Company; and Viacom.

Bagdikian shows that these conglomerations have been able to use their assets-money and power-to swallow independent radio stations or newspapers or publishers to exponentially increase profits while decreasing actual news reporting. Ben Bagdikian is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and through his book, it seems that his experience in journalism has made him bitter. Although he gives no personal counts of his life in journalism, and even though he doesn't directly insult Neuharth, Murdoch, Richard Berlin, Bagdikian manages to give anyone who opposes the conglomerate leaders a silver shine** Be that as it may, he gives a clear picture of the mindset of the corporations: news is strictly business, and real reporting is always superceded by advertising revenue.

The problem with Bagdikian is that he assumes government should heavily regulate media to protect the people from misreporting and underreporting, which are direct causes (as he points out) of Big Business working hand-in-hand with small government. The only weak point in his book is his lack of direct solution, and it really isn't even his responsibility to come up with one. However, Bagdikian infers that "over time" if the young, political-savvy next generation joins with the experienced, older generation, our country will reform its policies to resist these conglomerates. It's just not that simple.

And yes, the Big Five ruin local autonomy, but aside from a few isolated incidents, there has been no resistance. What President Nixon did by signing the Newspaper Preservation Act was not to help separate voices stay financially stable in a community; he signed it because he feared that proponents of the Act would hurt his image in the coming election if he did not sign it. These groups, (212), instead made it easier for themselves to eliminate the competition and help other competitors when it became mutually beneficial.

Bagdikian likens low-income housing problems to the media's hesitation to report news of homelessness inaccurately. "In other developed countries, subsidized housing for low-income families is considered a necessity, as is universal health care and other standard social programs in which private entrepreneurs prefer not to deal." (110) Our government isn't responsible for the well-being of everyone in the country. It may sound insensitive, but to try to help everyone is impossible. We cannot raise the bottom to the top, nor can we place everyone on an equal playing-field. The mere idea of such is almost communist. People aren't created equal and no government can make them equal. To do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people ("deontology"), the country should focus on the middle-class. Bagdikian blew the analogy far out of proportion.

The author uses this book, it seems, for two purposes: shed light on the injustice of Media, and spiel his liberal views. As easy as it is to despise President Bush for out-and-out deceiving the American people about WMD's and terrorism, it is unfair to the misleading to claim "President Bush...announced that he (sic) would go to war against Iraq" (76), or to claim that "[America had] total control of Iraq" (79). Still, he goes on to show that because of his policy, and the lack of respective journalism these conglomerates promote, America had a skewed view of the war that wouldn't be clear until it was too late.

This is a must-read for anyone who aspires to be a journalist, as well as for anyone in the field now, regardless of political bias or affiliation. The reality is scary, and almost disheartening, but it is necessary for all journalists to know the business they are in. Bagdikian shows the horrible truths-and the hopeful future-for journalism in America.