That is an opinion piece. Why did it convince you of anything? Yes, there has been a lot of consolidation of media businesses, as there has been consolidation in about every other industry. This is not axiomatically a bad thing. The impetus was not a desire to lie on their backs and have their tummies rubbed by big advertisers, but the need to diversify due to the decline of newspaper readership. The Tribune Corp. is a perfect example. Readership of the Chicago Tribune, their original business, has not only been in decline for decades, as has the readership of every other paper (the ones that survive), the demographics were becoming more and more horrifying to advertisers. I was involved with a task force the Trib put together in the early 1990s and one of the findings was that the "average" Tribune reader was a 49 year old woman. Nothing against 49 year old women, I know some nice ones <g>, but that isn't the target demo for many advertisers. Hence the need to diversity. The Tribune Corp. now owns newspapers in other cities (L.A. Times, Newsday, some papers in Florida) as well as TV stations, radio stations, and "new media" ventures. And they're still having a tough time. If they are conspiring with advertisers, they aren't doing a very good job of it.


>For years this has been a major concern:
>
>http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp
>
>
>
>>>>>... The difference between the state controlled media and the corporate media is diminishing daily - they just have different agenda, the M.O. is pretty much the same. And yes, there are truly free media, which are truly powerless, being limited in reach to only those who are looking for them on the web.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe the state and the media are both controlled, both by the same entities, maybe not to the same extent. Of course, to really "know" this, you'd have to be at the very top of those entities. Even then, I have no doubt it will be impossible to disclose all the relevant facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>The state and the mdeia are not controlled by the same forces, even if it seems that way sometimes. That is an old world idea. One of the things that burns me up about the now ritualized media-bashing (some of it deserved) is that we don't know how good we have it. The media have the right to print and broadcast everything they consider news. In many countries that could get you killed, literally.
>>
>>While actually printing (certain) news in some countries can get you killed (or your presses shut down permanently), I think you're confusing the still hallowed and extant "freedom of the press" with the actual practises of the press these days.
>>
>>Indeed the media has the "right" to print whatever they like as long as it isn't slanderous. But they have, by-and-large, chosen to set it aside in favour of "business objectives". Though it hasn't deemd it necessary to inform its users of that little tidbit.
>>I'm surprised you haven't seen that yourself.
>>Look at the corporate cave-in when a reporter last year (who was willing to hold ground) was told to reveal their source (the Plame affair, I think). Look at the stories that are revealed only months after the fact because the government "asked" that they be withheld. Look at how big advertisers are not delved into too deeply when something newsworthy may have occurred.
>>The media today is 90%+ corporate-owned, and corporate ownership means self-preservation, which in turn means keep controversy to a minimum.
>>To give the illusion of controversy they choose targets that can have little impact on corporate well-being and the bottom line. There are plenty of those to make the stuff still look like "news", but it's more gossip and opinion now than news.
>>
>>So don't be too POed at those who bash the media. They've seen it for what it really is - entertainment disguised as "news".