Riveong 1

Lexi Riveong
Mr. Rogers
English IV
14 October 2015
Media Ownership Concentration
One would never believe that a large company such as Disney would have any mission
other than providing family entertainment, but large corporations are often swayed by their own
corporate agenda. Media ownership concentration focuses on the issue of media oligopolies
dominating television, radio, and other media platforms. One of the main concerns is that several
large media companies own the majority of the media market and have the power to control what
the public learns and views, determine by which bias the information is given, and influence the
receiving audiences opinion by withholding certain sides of the issue. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for regulating corporation ownership and
overseeing the media and communications markets by creating Acts with safeguarding policies.
Two Acts the FCC created to regulate recent technological advances are the Communications Act
of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the Telecommunications Act of 1996
deregulated previous legislation and has allowed media companies to create and expand with less
government supervision than ever before. These Acts were created by the FCC to ensure that the
marketplace for media companies was fair, but oligopolies in all markets have restricted media
market competition for the past several decades. The Media Regulation Act of 2015 bill should
become a law because it fixes the deregulatory, outdated factors of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, it allows for a competitive economic market, and it protects the citizens right of the first
amendment.

Riveong 2

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated several previous media policies and is
outdated when compared to the booming media industry of the twenty first century. This Act,
created in 1996, influenced the existing television, radio, and internet networks, but was not
created for the boom of electronics in the 2000s. Now, an outdated piece of legislature is guiding
a market that did not exist when the Act was made and is why amending specific sections of the
Act is necessary. One piece in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Media Regulation
Act of 2015 would amend is section 202: Broadcasting Ownership, which sets the rules for how
many television stations media companies can own, how much of the national audience they can
reach, and how to legally own companies in television, radio, or any combination of
communications and broadcasting markets. In regards to television, section 202 stated that they
would change television ownership limitations, By eliminating the restrictions on the number of
television stations that a person or entity may directly or indirectly own, operate, or control, or
have interest in nationwide (Telecommunications Act of 1996). As an effect of deregulating
all restrictions on the television market, already dominate companies will continue to buy smaller
corporations and conglomerate until they control and decide what citizens can watch or learn.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not account for existing markets, a 2004 study by
Ben Bagdikian showcased the media market oligopolies - composed of five global companies
such as The Walt Disney Company and Time Warner - and found that they had progressed from
dominating single markets to several markets. He stated, Today, none of the dominant media
companies bother with dominance merely in a single medium. Their strategy has been to have a
major holding in all the media, from newspapers to movie studios (Bagdikian). In effect, these
companies have more technological and communication power and influence than any dynasty,
dictatorship, or leader in history and in turn can use it to influence people in a way never possible

Riveong 3

before. In addition to a small number of companies dominating several markets at once, the
receiving audience has heavily increased over a short period of time. An article from the
California Law Review shared, In 1980 there were about 19.2 million household cable
subscribers receiving twenty nationally distributed, non-broadcast program networks, but by
2003 more than 90 million U.S. [subscribers receiving] 388 nationally distributed, non-broadcast
program networks, (Shelanski). The 1996 Act did not account for the tremendous increase in
market size and created its policies based on existing companies, which in effect leaves certain
sections of the Act useless to the overwhelmingly large, new market and audience. By fixing
certain sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Media Regulation Act of 2015 will
help create more opportunities for the smaller companies.
The Media Regulation Act of 2015 allows for a competitive economic market by
ensuring that all companies have a chance to participate and compete for profit as regulations on
ownership requirements and market restrictions would occur. The 1996 Act was based off of a
laissez-faire model but did not account for the current market, and while a competitive market is
completely democratic, there is a line between economic success and how the laissez-faire
approach has restricted citizens rights such as freedom of press. A 1980s study showed that,
ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively had 92 % of nightly TV viewership, AT&T controlled 80% of
local telephone services and almost 100% of the long distance market, and IBM accounted for
77% of the computer market (Noam). While these statistics may have slightly altered, it shows
how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had failed to ensure a competitive market since the
markets were already dominated by companies that had the power to choose what nearly the
entire nation watched, how they communicated, and what they saw online. This is an issue as the
current system pushes major companies to be more interested in profit maximization instead of

Riveong 4

pursuing goals which stimulates the idea of money over truth. An article about the economics of
media bias states that, Media outlets are increasingly owned by widely held public corporations
in contrast to family-owned or narrowly held corporations (Sutter). When companies are
publicly owned, they have people investing money into the companys stocks, so the companies
often seek to please their stockholders and ensure an increase in their profit. In comparison,
family-owned companies do not bend to any stockholders opinions and focus on what they
produce. Lastly, public corporations are currently focusing on horizontal integration, which is
when a firm attempts to control all of the output in one field. This benefits companies by,
[Allowing firms] a bigger share of the market [which] permits them to have lower overhead and
to have more bargaining power with suppliers Second, as a firm gets a larger share of a
specific market, it gains more control over the prices it can charge for it products (McChesney).
In effect, these companies try to reduce output so that they can charge higher rates for bigger
profits while simultaneously cutting out competition. When using this method across all the
outlets the large companies monopolize, it prohibits a competitive economy by creating an
atmosphere inhospitable to small companies that cannot afford to overprice and under produce.
By adding restrictions on media company ownership to allow a competitive market to open up,
the Media Regulation Act of 2015 will ensure the safety of the first amendment.
Media ownership concentration opposition stems from a fear that concentration in the
media restricts everyday citizens from being able to voice their opinions and in turn, jeopardizes
their right to the first amendment. With the Media Regulation Act of 2015, regulations would be
enacted to keep the market competitive, but allow for all voices in the United States to be heard
because although people believe that they are equal, certain groups are being denied a voice. In
regards to a fair, public market, the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality states that,

Riveong 5

Despite the fact that Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans
combine to constitute a full third of the American population, these minority groups only
represent 4.6% of the ownership of all television stations and 7.24 % of the ownership of all
radio stations (Allen). The first amendment allows for the freedom of speech, but the minority
groups that often suffer from low income and racial discrimination are often denied a platform,
free of bias from the larger networks, to voice their opinions. In regards to the power of the press
Edwin Baker compares the fourth estate, or media, to the power of government. He shares,
The Constitution delineates three separate branches, the system of separation of
powers. [It is] a structural means to reduce the risk of abuses of power in government.
So too should a country structure the fourth estate. The widest possible dispersal of media
power reduces the risk of the abuse of communicative power in choosing or controlling
the government (Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters).
Baker relates the power of media to the power of government, something people should be
careful of because just as the United States government has check and balances, the media,
which relays almost all government and world news and information needs to be regulated and
checked for the protection and the greater good of the people. Finally to buttress the support for
protecting all citizens right to the first amendment, the FCC itself once stated,
A proper objective is the maximum diversity of ownership We are of the view that 60
different licensees are more desirable than 50, and even that 51 are more desirable than
50 It might be the 51st license that would become the communication channel for a
solution to a severe social crisis (Media Structure, Ownership Policy, and the First
Amendment).

Riveong 6

With this statement, the FCC is proving that media ownership diversity provides the United
States with safety and increases the likelihood of at least one forum figuring out the solution to
an issue plaguing society. Although many people believe that the media should be regulated for
public protection, other people hold a strong opposing position.
Two of the largest arguments against media ownership concentration question how media
ownership concentration is measured and how media ownership influences performance. Many
people believe that with the developing markets, the consolidation level has decreased but
studies have mixed views on the issue. In the Florida Law Review it is revealed that media
concentration is determined by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and, If looked at in
small, industry-specific pieces, there is indisputable consolidation in some media segments
But... if the media is considered a single industry, there can be little disagreement that there is
more competition than ever, (Media Concentration: Giving Up On Democracy). Since the
television, radio, and telephone markets produce different products and serve different purposes,
they cannot be put into a single industry and in turn, are highly concentrated which disproves the
questioning of how media concentration is measured and how that affects the outcome of
concentration. In an article by Mark Cooper, he too addresses media concentration from many
companys point of view. He shares that the root of their argument stems from the idea that
competition decentralizes power and added to the limited power of the government, people can
still shape their own lives and beliefs regardless of how large a company is (Cooper). While
companies may try to support this argument, they forget the facts showing the conglomeration
increase over the past few decades and that conglomeration has diminished the market, except
for a small group, to compete in. Another argument from opposition challenges how or if media
ownership changes the outflow of information. They question whether media bias exists and how

Riveong 7

concentration will change the media. Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist, commented on
media companies influence by stating,
The media [has] a double relation to democracy. On the one hand the emergence of a
global information society is a powerful democratising force. On the other hand,
television and the other media tend to destroy the very public space of dialogue they open
up, through a relentless trivialising and personalising, of political issues. Moreover, the
growth of giant multinational media corporations means that unelected business tycoons
can hold enormous power (Giddens).
This shows how media companies have a direct hand regarding the ways people receive
information, and since large business tycoons want to gain profit they have to gain popularity,
which they do by spinning and personalizing issues to capture the audience.Another article also
wrote about media consolidation and its influence. It stated, A common method for assessing
media bias, in both popular and academic literature, consists of comparing observed media
content to the researchers conception of unbiased content (Rossman). They argue over if
media bias can be measured and while this might raise some questions they can be reminded that
people have been taught in school since they were kids that to write an unbiased essay or paper,
one has to state the facts without adding in their personal opinion. To measure media bias, all one
has to do is report whether the news organization is reporting the facts and their viewpoint or just
the facts which disproves the argument of an unmeasurable media bias. Although people may
argue that media ownership concentration is not an issue, the evidence shows that it is a problem
that will grow as technological advances continue and it should be controlled before it gets
worse.

Riveong 8

To protect the rights of citizens, allow for a thriving competitive economic market, and
correct problems in the outdated Telecommunications Act of 1996 many changes need to occur,
and the Media Regulation Act of 2015 is capable of fixing these problems. This is not just an
issue of the dispersion of money and power; it affects American citizens public voice,
democracy, and economic success as a nation. This problem cannot be fixed in a day, and may
continue to evolve as media markets grow, but people can help fix the known problems and help
prevent future occurrences by passing the Media Regulation Act of 2015.

Works Cited
Allen, Jason. Maurer School of Law: Indiana University. Indiana University, 2013. Web. 16
September 2015.
Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly. Massachusett: Beacon Press. 2004. Print.
Baker, Edwin. Media Concentration: Giving Up On Democracy. Florida: University of Florida.
December 2002. Print.
Baker, Edwin. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 2007. Print.
Baker, Edwin. Media Structure, Ownership Policy, and the First Amendment. California:
University of Southern California. n.d. Print.

Riveong 9

Cooper, Mark. Stanford Law School. Stanford University. Stanford University, N.D. Web. 17
September 2015.
Giddens, Anthony. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. Great Britain:
Profile Books. 1999. Print.
McChesney, Robert. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times.
Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 1999. Print.
Noam, Eli. Media Ownership and Concentration in America. New York: Oxford University
Press Inc., 2009. Print.
Rossman, Gabriel. Working Paper Series. Princeton University. Princeton University, 2011.
Web. 16 September 2015.
Shelanski, Howard. California Law Review. UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley, March 2006. Web. 16
September 2015.
Sutter, Daniel. Cato Journal. University of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma, 2001. Web. 22
September 2015.
Telecommunications Act of 1996. FC. Federal Communications Commission. Federal
Communications Commission, n.d. Web. 17 October 2015.