Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Mega Media Control 90% of Content?

Posted by samzenpus on from the biggest-piece-of-the-pie dept.

smitty777 writes "FastCo has an intriguing article on the vast control of our media by the mega corporations. In the article, Cliff Kuang disputes such claims by the the Frugal Dad that the revenue for the Big Six was over $275.9 billion, and that these companies are in cahoots to control our viewing. Just how much do these companies control?"

21 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. "Cahoots", not "cohorts" by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and that these companies are in cohorts to control our viewing

    ... too bad they're not in cahoots to help improve the use of the English language.

    1. Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts" by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't understand -- the companies are in cohorts which makes sense in context of "the fugal dad" -- clearly a reference to a father playing the flugelhorn with his cohorts. It's very high-level stuff here. When slashdot hires editors someday the puns will be even more brilliant.

      --

      The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

    2. Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.

      Too hard? Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a solution, rather than just whine.

      For your reference, Public radio stations (at least mine) are approximately 30% compromised by corporations, 8% by the state government, 2% by the federal government, and 60% by the listening public.

      To paraphrase Asimov, to think that corporate media and public radio are equally compromised is to be more wrong than if you'd think just one of them was compromised.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  2. No he doesn't by esocid · · Score: 4, Informative

    He disputes that there is some big agenda. He admits that a few companies have consolidated almost all media outlets, but like most people, doesn't think there's some agenda to pour out crappy media. Those companies do it just fine independently.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:No he doesn't by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. There's no agenda to put out crappy media, but the vast consolidation gives them an oligopoly. With only five competetitors, and all of them producing dreck, there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

      In the end it'll bite them in the ass; the RIAA companies are already obsolete, and as the price of video equipment comes down and the quality goes up, the same will happen to the movie/TV industry.

      Meanwhile, has anybody noticed how more pervasive advertising is than it was before all the consolidation? Three minutes of content followed by four minutes of commercials. It's insane and obscene. I've never seen as much advertising in my whole life as I have in the last ten years. And these people complain they can't make any money? Gomme a break!

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:No he doesn't by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much. They all play and or show what is most profitable. Thing is that what is most profitable is usually not what is best.
      The other issue are the cable companies. I live in a town of over 200,000 people. We can got only a single network OTA we get about 10 other stations that are religious and or none english but only one network. The reason is that the cable companies are pulling in the network stations from bigger markets near by. Before cable the other stations in my area would have been snapped up to be affiliates. Now the networks see no reason to do that. They get just as many viewers but from fewer stations.
      It isn't some great evil plot other than a plot to make as much money as possible.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:No he doesn't by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the end it'll bite them in the ass; the RIAA companies are already obsolete

      For one thing, notable record labels provide promotion on commercial FM radio to reach people without smartphones capable of using Internet radio. Not every town has a college radio station that plays all genres. For another thing, even if the RIAA is obsolete, that doesn't mean NMPA, Harry Fox, ASCAP, BMI, and other trade associations of music publishers are obsolete.

      as the price of video equipment comes down and the quality goes up, the same will happen to the movie/TV industry.

      Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting. Furthermore, a movie needs a soundtrack, and licensing diegetic music for use in movies set after 1922 can exceed and has exceeded (e.g. Clerks) the rest of the cost of the film put together.

    4. Re:No he doesn't by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

      Robert Rodriguez, Shane Carruth and hundreds of others would like to have a word with you.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:No he doesn't by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With only five competetitors, and all of them producing dreck, there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

      You make it sound as bad as domestic car companies. Or banks. Or fast food "restaurants". Hmm. I think we're on to a pattern here...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:No he doesn't by eclectus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The quote from Jobs pretty much sums it up well.

      "When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." - Steve Jobs, Interview in WIRED magazine (February 1996)

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    7. Re:No he doesn't by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting. "

      I do. Actors that get $2.2mill per movie are going away. I see a LOT of indie films that are better than hollywood flicks made for far less and the actors not getting paid obscene amounts of money.

      Padre Nuestro was made with cheap acting and cheap writing and directing.
      Brokeback Mountain was made with cheap acting and cheap writing and directing.
      Requiem for a Dream, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc... all for examples of RECENT films made without paying insane money to writes, directors and Actors.

      In fact many of the Best films in history were low budget and not outrageous cost.

      In fact Robert Rodriguez makes some of the absolute best films ever for less than the catering bill for many of the Hollywood "block busters"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:No he doesn't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The message of consumerism was far stronger and less diluted then than it is now.

      Perhaps you should take a look at what your grandkids and their friends are watching. I have trouble believing that you could push the consumerism message much stronger than this crap:

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_girl
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_the_city
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN (no, really, this is not just about sports)

      Today's methods of advertising and convincing people to buy things are less overt than they were in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but they are far more effective. Popular TV shows, and especially shows whose target audience is the 13-24 age, are designed to cultivate a desire to buy things -- clothes, soft drinks, video games, fast food, music, etc. The whole point of MTV, from its inception, was to be a 24/7 advertisement to teenagers, and there has been an effort to maximize the amount of advertising that can be squeezed into every minute.

      Today's message is this: buy things. Period. You are not supposed to be a participant in a capitalist system, exchanging your skills and goods for some other person's, you are just supposed to buy things that other people made.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:No he doesn't by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

      Not to mention the cost for a commercial MPEG license, required for anything you film with that HD camera.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  3. Fugal? by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fugal should be Frugal and should not link to an advertisement for a Dell laptop coupon.

  4. This doesnt surprise anyone, does it? by james_van · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's think about how business works - if there are 10 companies doing a particular thing, at any given time, 1 or more will decide that they want to do more of the particular thing. They will then use leverage/bribery/corporate espionage/collusion/etc to acquire 1 or more of the others. Over time, this will continue until the original 10 are consolidated to the lowest number possible to avoid anti-trust/monopoly actions. And, during all of this time, they will continue to produce whatever thing that the general public will most readily consume. This usually entails things of medium to low quality (high quality is expensive and, in the case of tangible products, has a low replacement rate), dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator and mass marketed with loud, brightly colored advertising. This has been the way of things for many years, this will be the way of things for many years to come. There are a few different models that have managed to squeak by briefly, but theyre rare and often not much better.

  5. turn it off by anonieuweling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You control that TV.
    You can turn it off.
    Online news can be so refreshing.

  6. Misleading title by marcosdumay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title is misleading, and so is the article. The problem is that (what 90% of people see) is different from (90% of what people see).

    To answer the question (why is it a question? The article states as a fact), yes big media controls 90% of what is actualy distributed as old style media. That is different from saying that it owns 90% of the content, and much nearer to saying that a huge proportion of the people will only see what big media shows them.

    That is still a problem, but a different problem.

    --
    Rethinking email
  7. Numbers never lie... But they do mislead. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Simple obvious fact one: The larger company will have a larger market share.
    Simple obvious fact two: The smaller company will have less market share.

    So if some companies are bigger then they will have more Market Share and control then the others.

    So if the top 6 companies (assume they are all equal) own 90% share then each one only has 15% market share. Which is big but no means a monopoly.

    Percentages are a way of summarizing real data. However by grouping and summarizing the summary. And clustering data in a particular way you can prove anything you want.

    Think the 99%ers vs. the 53%ers they both choose different measurements and summarize and group values differently to prove their point.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Re:turn it off, all of it by Cragen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I could, I would turn it all off. (Being a developer, it's a bit hard.) I got sent overseas 30 years ago for a year. (Pre-Internet! lol) We usually got all non-ridiculous news in 3 - 4 days. So, I kicked my news habit. (There was no English TV either, so I also quite accidentally kicked my TV habit.) So, really, how much does this "news" really affect your life? No much, really. Have a nice day. Cheers!

  9. Trumped-up charges of plagiarism by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, many of us don't like the MSM, and are now getting our news raw and unfiltered.

    Provided they have the time to sit in front of a computer desk. A lot of people have trouble giving up the MSM for video because they don't want to buy another PC for the HDTV or worse yet both buy a PC and replace the SDTV in the living room with an HDTV. Other people have trouble giving up the MSM for music because only smartphones can play Internet radio in the car or on the bus, and they aren't willing to pay for smartphone service.

    I don't care that the MSM controls 90% of the content, because it is the same old crappy content they've always controlled. With the internet, there is a whole new world of content waiting to be discovered.

    Until the MSM starts suing Internet artists on trumped-up charges of plagiarism.

    The 90% of the people can't really appreciate the finer nuanced artistic works, let them have the MSM.

    Are you sure that we'd want that? If 90 percent have the MSM, then 90 percent are letting the MSM tell them for whom to vote and on which issues to choose a candidate. For example, which MSM source has thoroughly covered opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act?

  10. Re:But They Control 0%... by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually they can. They can have mandatory prescreening of all comments and prevent the first post from being posted.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.