Do you believe corporate media conglomeration to have a positive or negative affect

[Uncle Joe]

on democracy?

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.[2][3]

Globally, large media conglomerates include Bertelsmann, National Amusements (Viacom Inc. and CBS Corporation), Sony Corporation, News Corp, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T Inc., Fox Corporation, Hearst Communications, MGM Holdings Inc., Grupo Globo (South America) and Lagardère Group.[4][5][6]

As of 2018, the largest media conglomerates in terms of revenue rank Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T, CBS Corporation and Viacom per Forbes.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Positive
	0 (0%)
	Negative
	6 (100%)
	Other, please explain if you choose this option.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Way WAY negative!

Exhibit A: Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Political_views

Political views
Sinclair's stations have been known for featuring news content and programming that promote conservative political positions, and have been involved in various controversies surrounding politically-motivated programming decisions, such as news coverage and specials during the lead-ups to elections that were in support of the Republican Party. A 2019 study by Emory University political scientists Gregory J. Martin and Josh McCrain in the American Political Science Review found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market."

The Washington Post noted that WJLA-TV's news content began to exhibit a conservative slant following Sinclair's acquisition of the station, while the company also produces pieces from a Washington bureau that similarly exhibit a conservative viewpoint. Sinclair executive David Smith met with Trump during the 2016 election year, in which he told the future president, "We are here to deliver your message." It was part of a pitch to have reporters embedded in the Trump campaign.

In 2004, Sinclair's political slant was scrutinized by critics when it was publicized that nearly all of Sinclair's recent campaign contributions were to the Republican Party. In particular, the Center for Public Integrity showed concern that the Republican slant of Sinclair's news programming, along with Mark Hyman's past history of government lobbying (such as for the FCC to loosen rules regarding concentration of media ownership—a factor that has assisted in the company's growth), made its stations provide "anything but fair and balanced news programming." Hyman disputed these allegations by stating that its newscasts were "pretty balanced" and that "the reason why some on the left have characterized us as conservative is that we run stories that others in the media spike."

In April 2017, Sinclair announced it had hired Boris Epshteyn, who was briefly the White House assistant communications director for surrogate operations for the Trump administration, and a senior advisor of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, as chief political analyst. All Sinclair stations are required to air Ephsteyn's commentary nine times per week.

At times, Sinclair has disciplined hosts who have stepped over the line regarding propriety; for example, its host Jamie Allman, from station KDNL in St. Louis, resigned and his show was canceled after he said of Parkland student-turned-activist David Hogg that he was "getting ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg's ass."

Must-run segments


Former news anchor Dan Rather wrote: "News anchors looking into camera and reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, words meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it, isn’t journalism. It’s propaganda. It’s Orwellian. A slippery slope to how despots wrest power, silence dissent, and oppress the masses."

Sinclair often mandates its stations to air specific reports, segments, and editorials, referred to as "must-runs". The practice has been criticized by some of Sinclair's stations' news staff due to the viewpoints they propagate; in 1996, after CEO David Smith was arrested in a prostitution sting, he ordered Sinclair's Baltimore station WBFF to produce reports on a local drug counseling program as part of his community service sentence. The order was criticized by WBFF reporter LuAnne Canipe. Following the September 11 attacks, Sinclair ordered its stations to read editorials in support of President George W. Bush's response to the attack. The Baltimore Sun reported that WBFF staff internally objected to the editorial, as they felt that the endorsement would "undermine public faith in their political objectivity". The station, however, complied with the mandate.

Newsroom employees of KOMO-TV in Seattle told The New York Times they felt the national pieces were low quality, and were too politically skewed for the city's progressive audience. One employee admitted they had tried to reduce their prominence by deliberately scheduling them during lesser-viewed portions of newscasts such as around commercial breaks. However, in March 2018, KOMO aired a must-run segment during prime time about some Americans' belief in the existence of a deep state in the federal government, a concept Trump has blamed for undermining his presidency.

In July 2017, the HBO news comedy program Last Week Tonight devoted a segment to discussing Sinclair, where host John Oliver presented clips of various anchors using an identical script describing the FBI as having a "personal vendetta" against Michael Flynn, clips of Mark Hyman editorials (in which he compared multiculturalism and political correctness to a cancer epidemic, and stated that marriage was a solution to domestic abuse), and joked that the "Terrorism Alert Desk" segments defined terrorism as "anything a Muslim does". Oliver remarked that he "did not know it was possible to dip below the journalistic standards of Breitbart", and felt that it was inappropriate for local newscasts to advance political positions.

The must-run segments usually only apply to those stations that have their own news department. For Sinclair stations where the newscast is operated by an external newsroom, the contracts generally forbid Sinclair from interfering with editorial control.

Nightline reading of the names
In April 2004, ABC broadcast a special episode of Nightline where host Ted Koppel listed the names of soldiers killed in the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Sinclair ordered its seven ABC affiliates not to air the episode; the company claimed the broadcast "[appeared] to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq", and undermined a then-ongoing effort by its Washington bureau to report on positive, "untold" stories from Iraq under occupation that were being ignored by mainstream media outlets. ABC stated that the segment was meant to be "an expression of respect which seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

Stolen Honor documentary
Later in October 2004, just two weeks prior to the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that all 62 of Sinclair's stations would preempt prime time programming to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary critical of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism. The film was produced by Carlton Sherwood, a former associate of Tom Ridge, and accused Kerry of prolonging the Vietnam War because of his anti-war activism. The organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry organization in the 2004 election year, was cross-promoting the film as part of a $1.4 million advertising campaign. In response, the Democratic National Committee filed a legal motion with the Federal Election Commission stating that it is inappropriate for the media organization to air "partisan propaganda" in the last 10 days of an election campaign. As this controversy made the news, with a number of Sinclair advertisers pulling their ads and Sinclair stock dropping 17% in eleven days, Sinclair announced that it had never intended to air Stolen Honor in an hour slot in the first place, indicating that it might instead show clips of the video in a discussion panel format. Ultimately, Sinclair did not broadcast any such show. Following the incident, Sinclair fired its Washington bureau chief Jon Lieberman for publicly criticizing the film in The Baltimore Sun as "biased political propaganda."

Breaking Point infomercial
In November 2010, it was reported that five Fox affiliates and one ABC affiliate owned by Sinclair broadcast an infomercial critical of then-President Barack Obama, Breaking Point: 25 Minutes that will Change America, which was sponsored by the National Republican Trust Political Action Group. The infomercial painted Obama as an extremist, and claimed that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, he received some campaign money from the Hamas terrorist group, and that Obama said in a speech, "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies." The special also discusses Obama advisers Van Jones and John Holdren, as well as Obama staff Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Carol Browner and Cass Sunstein – all in an unflattering light; in one case, the special claimed that Holdren said that trees should be permitted to sue humans in court. The infomercial aired at various times during the weekend of October 30, 2010 on Sinclair-owned stations in Madison, Cape Girardeau, Lexington, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, and Winston-Salem – all in swing states vital to the 2010 elections.

2012 pre-election special
On November 5, 2012, six Sinclair stations in swing states aired a special focusing on issues surrounding the presidential election occurring the next day, such as the Libyan civil war and health care reform; the special consisted of a series of segments which were presented by the local anchors at each station. While scheduling of the special was at the discretion of each station, Columbus, Ohio ABC affiliate WSYX pre-empted both ABC World News and Nightline to air it. The special was met with controversy for showing a bias against Obama and focusing little on Republican candidate Mitt Romney, as opposed to showcasing both candidates equally. A Sinclair staff member disputed these claims, stating that "no one is disputing the facts of the stories that aired in the special," and that its decision on which markets to air the special was influenced by their "news value" and resonation with the public.

Coverage during the 2016 presidential election campaign
On December 16, 2016, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of then-President-elect Donald Trump, stated that it had reached deals with Sinclair to give the company extended access to the Trump campaign, in exchange for airing, without further commentary, interviews with the Republican Party candidate on its stations, which Kushner said had a better reach than cable networks such as CNN. Sinclair VP of news Scott Livingston stated that the company wanted to "give all candidates an opportunity to voice their position and share their position with our viewers", as part of an effort towards "tracking the truth and telling the truth" and allowing Trump to "clearly state his position on the key issues". He also stated that Sinclair had made similar offers to the Hillary Clinton campaign (Clinton did not accept offers to do interviews with Sinclair, according to Livingston, though her running mate, Tim Kaine, did). A spokesperson for the Trump campaign stated that the deal did not involve monetary compensation, and that it had attempted to make similar deals with other local station groups such as Hearst Television.

A December 22, 2016 Washington Post review of Sinclair's internal documents, as well as reviews of the newscasts and public affairs programming on the company's stations, revealed that more broadcast time was given to favorable or neutral coverage of Trump's campaign than to other candidates in the primary and general election campaigns of 2016. The coverage included distribution of reports favorable to Trump's campaign or challenging to Clinton's on a "must-run" basis, as well as Sinclair managers offering local reporters and anchors questions of "national importance" to use in interviews with candidates (a common company practice, according to Livingston, so that other Sinclair stations can share the content).

In May 2017, in response to Sinclair's announced intent to acquire Tribune Media, Craig Aaron, president/CEO of media advocacy group Free Press, accused Sinclair of currying favor with the Trump administration through the interview arrangement with Trump, the group's February hiring of former Trump campaign aide Boris Epshteyn as a political analyst, and executive chair David Smith's meetings with then-FCC commissioner Ajit Pai prior to his appointment as the agency's chair in exchange for deregulating media ownership rules to allow the company to expand its broadcasting portfolio.

2018 journalistic responsibility promos
In March 2018, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter obtained an internal memorandum sent by Sinclair, which dictated that its stations must produce and broadcast an "anchor-delivered journalistic responsibility message" using a mandated script. The promos contain language decrying “biased and false news”, and accusing unnamed mainstream media figures of bias. Stelter states that the script is written to sound like it's the opinion of the local anchors, despite the text being in fact a mandate from corporate management. At least 66 Sinclair-owned stations produced their own version of the message, with the first being aired on March 23, 2018. Sinclair-owned WMSN-TV refused to air the message (although its news is produced by Morgan Murphy Media-owned WISC-TV).

The promos began to receive mainstream media attention after the sports blog Deadspin, as well as ThinkProgress, posted video compilations featuring all of the promos being played simultaneously. The promos have been criticized as in regard to the greater political context of "fake news" in the media for media bashing, comparing it to the rhetoric of Donald Trump in regard to these topics. Sinclair maintains that its "must-runs" are standard procedure often covering a wide variety of issues such as news updates regarding terrorism and other public matters the company has an opinion on while remaining "committed to reporting the facts". After the compilations went viral, Trump responded to the promos on April 2, 2018, defending the company as being "far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke."

The instructions for the mandated promos tell an anchor to state:

I'm extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [proper news brand name of local station] produces. But I'm concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think'. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy… We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.

On April 2, 2018, Sinclair Broadcast Group released a statement on their website in response to what it called "unfounded media criticism." The statement cited a Monmouth University poll that found large majorities of Americans believe that traditional news media outlets report fake news. Sinclair maintains that the promos "served no political agenda." Sinclair responded by posting a video on its website that attacked CNN for "dishonesty and hypocrisy" in their coverage of the Sinclair must-run promo; Sinclair equated Stelter's warnings about "fake news" as similar to Sinclair's warnings in its must-run promo.

Several outlets called for an advertiser boycott of Sinclair-owned stations. A report in Advertising Age magazine suggested that a boycott would not be easy, since it involves users first identifying the station as a Sinclair station, and then figuring out which advertisers are putting commercials on that station, and then discouraging those advertisers.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Thanks for the addition Dennis Donovan

[Dennis Donovan]

7. Media conglomeration is, IMO, the most dangerous aspect of the 1996 Telecom act...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment.

One of the most controversial titles was Title 3 ("Cable Services&quot , which allowed for media cross-ownership. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the goal of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business – to let any communications business compete in any market against any other." The legislation's primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets. However, the law's regulatory policies have been questioned, including the effects of dualistic re-regulation of the communications market.

</snip>

[Uncle Joe]

8. I hate it but I must agree with you David.

The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996[23] and 6 in 2005.[24] An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.[25] This decline in owners and increase in stations has reportedly had the effect of Radio homogenization, where programming has become similar across formats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Peace to you.

[lapucelle]

2. I think the real danger is bias confirming niche media, mainly on the internet,

but also on talk radio and cable outlets like Fox News.

I don't trust politicians like Trump who bypass journalists to promote alternative fact narratives masquerading as news.

[dlk]

3. Corporations Exist to Make Profits for Shareholders

This often conflicts with accurate reporting of the facts and slants the news.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. We have seen this before...

https://www.biography.com/media-figure/william-randolph-hearst

By the 1920s, one in every four Americans read a Hearst newspaper. William Randolph Hearst’s media empire had grown to include 20 daily and 11 Sunday papers in 13 cities. He controlled the King Features syndicate and the International News Service, as well as six magazines, including Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping and Harper's Bazaar. He also ventured into motion pictures with a newsreel and a film company. He and his empire were at their zenith.

The difference now is it's no longer charismatic individuals running the show, but faceless managers and boards.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Precisely TreasonousBastard, but some would argue corporate ownership makes no difference

to how Media outlets cover the news.

Of course logic and common sense dictate otherwise.

[ehrnst]

19. Yes, I've seen that argument before as well. Very recently, in fact.

That "corporate" ownership of a publication suddenly doesn't really matter if an article in that publication caters to one's biases...despite logic and common sense:



Then one week later in defense of content from that very same publication, with that very same owner:

[Uncle Joe]

20. Well at least you included the title of my post this time

kudos to you for that.

I have never condemned every journalist that works for the corporate media, there are many fine ones that do good work.

I pull from every news source I can find with less than a handful of exceptions, if I believe the article has merit and/or is well balanced.

I have my biases just as you and everyone else does.

I do criticize the incestuous relationship between the 5-6 monopolies that control 90% of everything the American People see, hear and read and the adverse effects it has on coverage or non-coverage of critical issues affecting the American People and I will continue to do so.

All reporters and pundits know who cuts their paychecks and it doesn't take a phone call from corporate ownership to in general influence their relatively narrow frames.

I will also pull from those same sources if I deem the article to standout or have merit.

You have yet to defend or criticize Albritton.

[ehrnst]

26. Even more strawmen, in addition to the three fallacies from the original thread...

As I've explained countless times, I don't defend strawmen that you create, set up and attack.



Peace to you and yours;

[Uncle Joe]

31. Your "fallacies," "strawmen," attempts at personalizing this and transparent evasion at answering

simple questions in regards to the subject of corporate media conglomerate ownership's influence on coverage or non-coverage is nothing but a repeated fold in itself.



Peace to you and yours.

[ehrnst]

34. No, they're the usual fallacies.

And we have the white flag. You're getting better at figuring out when you're done.

[Uncle Joe]

36. We can do this all day if you wish,

I appreciate you kicking the thread.

[ehrnst]

37. Is that the story now...

Peace to you and yours.



(You're welcome for the kick!)

[Uncle Joe]

40. Thanks again.

[ehrnst]

41. You're very welcome again!

Peace to you and yours...

[Caliman73]

5. Consolidation of almost anything is a negative.

Information is supposedly the key to informed decision making. If the media is consolidated into the hands of a small group of companies whose goal it is to make money, you can be assured that any information that gets in the way of them making more money will not see the light of day.

Corporations are obligated to make money for shareholders (despite what idiot Jamie Dimon says). They support what will make them the most money period. Truth, lies, half truths, spin, it really doesn't matter.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I agree Caliman.

[ehrnst]

11. Just terrible!

Link to tweet

Trump claims media to blame for 'anger' after bombs sent to CNN, Dems

When Trump says ‘fake news,’ this is what supporters say they hear


Trump again calls media 'enemy of the people'


'Disgusting news': Donald Trump whips up crowd anger as he vilifies media

That corporate media....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=245084

[Uncle Joe]

14. Couldn't bring yourself to vote eh?

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2019, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

[ehrnst]

17. Couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge your own use of said media for citation?

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2019, 08:00 AM - Edit history (3)

As for the poll, I'm not fully confident of the intent and premise of the question, based on previous statements/positions that were not clear, or changed weekly, and inconsistent definitions applied to "corporate" owned media.



I feel that media conglomeration is definitely not a good thing, and my own 'countless posts' here on DU confirm that, however I don't agree with you that any media source that doesn't confirm your bias is "toeing the line of their corporate masters," nor does a publication calling itself "radical" eliminate misogyny, anti-semitism, homophobia and racism from it's editorial staff and content, any more than a media source calling itself "fair and balanced" make it so.

There are orgs on both the left and right that cater to those with the binary worldview that needs absolutes - 'black or white,' 'pure or utterly corrupt,' 'ethical or market driven,' 'manifesto or shill' - and real journalism doesn't do that. Real research doesn't do that. Real analysis doesn't do that.

There are good and bad journalists - there are good journalists who make mistakes and do bad reporting and research, and let their biases guide a piece that is not an opinion piece. Ideally a good editor steps in and catches that.

The belief that one never, ever needs to change their mind on anything, that dissent is corrupt and suspect, that bias = fact, doesn't allow one to understand what good research or journalism is.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Got false equivalency?

[ehrnst]

23. Nope. You run out?

[Kid Berwyn]

12. Where once we had thousands of points of view...

...independent newspapers, magazines, film studios, radio and television stations, today there are six mass media giants which account for about 95% of content created. Ben Bagdikian chronicled the history. They all are for-profit businesses, putting the money ahead of democracy every damn time, America’s Corporate McPravda.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Yes he did.

[mathematic]

15. Corporate media didn't make your neighbors racist shitheads n/t

[Uncle Joe]

16. Really?

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2019, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Fox News panel erupts after contributor calls out network’s role in radicalizing racists

Fox News contributor sparked a clash after pointing out the role the conservative network plays in promoting racist extremism.

Panelists on “Outnumbered” were discussing the weekend mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, and debating President Donald Trump’s culpability, when contributor Jessica Tarlov said the president and his favorite network both shoulder some blame.

(snip)

“The pipe bomber is being sentenced today,” Tarlov said. “His lawyer has been talking in court and has said he was indoctrinated by things he was seeing in the press, that he wanted to go after President Trump’s enemies.”

Kennedy fired back to defend her employer.

(snip)

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/fox-news-panel-erupts-after-contributor-calls-out-networks-role-in-radicalizing-racists_partner/

[ehrnst]

18. Quoting a FoxNews host to make your point.

I guess you're objecting to the poster's premise that there there was racism prior to "corporate media?" After all, the KKK had their own "alternative" media when "corporate media" didn't want to promote their particular views of what was really wrong with our culture.

There is a difference between "causing" racism, and "making money exploiting it," and reinforcing ideas that were there.

[Uncle Joe]

21. No one is born a racist, they are shaped by their culture

and the corporate media conglomerates are most assuredly part of our culture.

Of course we had racism throughout our nation's history and no doubt other nations had/have as well.

[ehrnst]

24. Got a strawman?

That person didn't say that "corporate conglomerate media doesn't shape our culture."

They said this:

[Uncle Joe]

25. So you believe FOX "News" hasn't worked to spread racism?

[ehrnst]

27. Yet another strawman. You find a sale?

You are predictable, I'll give you that.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Logic dictates either you believe FOX "News" has worked to spread racism or it hasn't.

It's not a difficult question despite your attempts at personalizing this to avoid answering it.

If you believe they have and do work to spread racism, that they are part of our national culture and that culture influences or grows racism then the corporate media; which FOX is certainly a part of has made at least some of our neighbors "racist shitheads."

[ehrnst]

30. So you agree that's not what the person you replied to said.

Isn't about time for the usual "I'm done here. Peace to you. " fold, and push away from the table as though one had won the entire pot but was going to leave it for everyone as a magnanimous gesture?

In anticipation:

Peace to you and yours.

[Uncle Joe]

32. I agree that holding a debate with anyone unwilling to actually answer fundamental questions

is a waste of time.

Peace to you and yours.

P.S. I always liked Little Joe.

[ehrnst]

33. And we have the fold, and push back from the table.

You're learning!

[Uncle Joe]

35. Thanks for that, sorry I can't say the same.

[ehrnst]

38. Clearly not quickly or thoroughly enough.

Peace to you and yours.



(You're welcome for the kick. I'm enjoying the commentary that I don't think you are.)

I understand that strawmen are available in on Amazon now.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Thanks again.

[ehrnst]

42. You're welcome again!

Peace to you and yours.



Tag UR it - here's a chance to increase the "countless number of posts" you talked about.

[stonecutter357]

28. i don't believe in a corporate media conglomeration ...

[Uncle Joe]

43. Who Owns the Media?

Like all reliable watchdogs, the media are expected to bark, but when its many-faceted voice is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about its willingness to keep barking arise.

The trend of media conglomeration has been steady. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the American media, including magazines, books, music, news feeds, newspapers, movies, radio and television. By 1992 that number had dropped by half. By 2000, six corporations had ownership of most media, and today five dominate the industry: Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany and Viacom. With markets branching rapidly into international territories, these few companies are increasingly responsible for deciding what information is shared around the world.

There are also major news organizations not owned by the “big five.” The New York Times is owned by the publicly-held New York Times Corporation, The Washington Post is owned by the publicly-held Washington Post Company and The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times are both owned by the Tribune Company. Hearst Publications owns 12 newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as magazines, television stations and cable and interactive media.

But even those publications are subject to the conglomerate machine, and many see the “corporatizing” of media as an alarming trend. Ben Bagdikian, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley and author of The New Media Monopoly, describes the five media giants as a “cartel” that wields enough influence to change U.S. politics and define social values.

Internet Ownership

(snip)

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/mediaownership.html