Compaine forcefully argues that the diversity of sources has much expanded (such as the total number of radio

stations, the rise of public broadcasting which is equivalent to a major network, and new services such as satellite digital radio and Internet radio, especially using wireless protocols), and the control of audience markets by major media has much decreased (as measured by network television ratings). Indeed, some argue that the more media outlets there are, the more fragmented the audience becomes, the more likely it is that niche (such as minority) content and ownership can succeed.

However, although the number and variety of channels and content seems to remove scarcity as a basis for regulating media, it also creates an overwhelming media smog, with complex levels of bias and accuracy, possibly much less variety in voices than outlets, and less control available to the individual (Aufderheide). The range and complexity of our choices require, and concentration allows, media to both funnel and filter what is available to us.

But there are other, broader, more philosophical and ideological arguments for or against media concentration. Bagdikian (1983) was an early voice of concern about the concentration of power, information and culture in media conglomerates, especially when news media are incorporated into vertically integrated organizations that are necessarily motivated (and legally obliged) by market and profit concerns. This then has severe implications for biases and pressures on news content, and on the entire political process. (Media Ownership Research and Regulation by Ronald E. Rice, 2008)

Media Organizations Rather than referring to a single media industry, it is perhaps preferable to speak of plurality, such is a diversity of media organizations. For example, we can identify distinct sectors of media connected to different formats, such as the music industry, the television industry, the newspaper industry and the various subsectors within each. Such horizontal distinctions, however, are becoming more blurry as a result of processes of media convergence. We can also note that, within each sector, there are different stages of process of production and distribution, with companies often specializing in one stage or another. Within the film industry, for example, vertical differentiation can be illustrated by the difference between studios, concerned with the development and production of content, and cinemas, which make that content available to consumers. It is also important to distinguish between profitmaking and non-profitmaking media organizations. The latter can range from small-scale voluntary or charitable organizations, such as community radio stations, to all-powerful state-controlled media used by authoritarian governments to distribute propaganda and maintain power within countries such as the former Soviet Union or contemporary North Korea. The most prominent non-profit media organizations in many developed countries, however, are often public service broadcasters, such as UKs British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which is funded by a license fee and charged by government with the specific goal of enriching society through the production of trustworthy, informative and high-quality content. Such organizations are crucial to history of mass media and remain influential in some countries, but in more recent years have found themselves increasingly isolated within a media world dominated by corporations whose primary purpose is the pursuit of profit and satisfaction of shareholders. As Michael Tracey points out, while public media organizations acquire money to make programs, commercial institutions make programmes to acquire money (1998: 18). Commercial Ownership Although individual companies vary in their size and influence, media industries invariably are oligopolies, which means that their markets are overwhelmingly dominated by a small number of powerful companies. Concentration of ownership has been a key theme throughout the history of mass media. For example, after an early period dominated by small-scale, independent publications, newspapers become overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations run by so-called newspaper barons. Through a series of takeovers, for example, William Hearst established control over a vast portfolio of titles across the twentieth-century USA, with The San Francisco Examiner, The New York Journal and The Washington Times among them. Meanwhile, the UK newspaper market at the time was dominated by three socalled barons Viscount Northcliff and his brother Viscount Rothermere, who developed The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror, and Baron Beaverbrook, who was responsible for the rise of The Daily Express.

Robert McChesney argues that the drive towards expansion and consolidation in the media industry has become even more concentrated in recent times, making it difficult for small or medium-sized firms to survive.. (Media, Culture and Society: An Introduction, Paul Hodkinson, 2011)

The Media and the State In all democratic countries, the state, recognizing the social relevance of media, intervenes in various ways. The intention is to ensure that the media industry may grow, compete, and distribute its products; that entrepreneurial activities take place in the publics interest and with respect for pluralism and independence of information; and that access to media and freedom of information are guaranteed. These objectives should constantly be compared against entrepreneurial and social evolution. The tranformations taking place demands constant modification of public interventions concerning ownership and market concentration, the origin and variety of content, forms of access and the protection and support of the industry. Considering the ongoing concentration process, the state should update its regulation instruments in two areas in particular. The first one concerns the ownership of media and its influence on content, since the concentration of ownership can lead to abuses in the financial and political fields. The other is market concentration, which can limit pluralism of information, of viewpoints, of cultural types and expressions. In the transformation of the media landscape, there is also a third area of public intervention to consider, namely the forms of direct and indirect support for the media industry (audiovisual, daily newspapers, periodicals, book publishing etc.), which in many, mainly European, countries help and guide the development of national enterprises. One example is the activity of the European Union as regards both regulation and support of the development of the European media industry. From 1989-90 on, both the directive Television Without Borders and Program Media have had to be updated on various occasions in order to respond to changes taking place in individual member states as well as on an international scale. A fourth type of public intervention aims at improving conditions of media access, which, in several countries, particularly concern the periodic press and book publishing, audiovisual media and, most of all, distribution networks and reception equipment. The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Janet Wasko, Graham Murdok, Helena Sousa, 2011

A distinction may be drawn between ownership of media and control over its content. The extent to which, and the precise point at which, ownership of a media organization will translate into influence over the content of its products has been the subject of analysis, debate, and many divided opinions (GAH, 1994). In some cases, regulations create a measure of separation between ownership and editorial control. The content of (particularly broadcast) media may be subject to direct and detailed regulatory prescriptions concerning range and quality, which sorts of input must be included and what steps must be taken to avoid political bias (Gibbons, 1998: 96-7). Alternatively, permission to own certain media products may involve a specific undertaking not to interfere with editorial matters. Whatever regulatory measures are in place, the opportunities for media owners to assert an indirect influence over the content and the agenda of products they own seem so comprehensive as to defy any absolute guarantees of separation. An owners influence may manifest itself in the choice of key personnel, or in strategic decisions about which resources to reduce or invest more in, or in arrangements for sourcing or distributing content. Not all owners wish to exert an influence over the content of their media and, for those that do, the primary motivation may simply be commercial rather than political. Nonetheless, the reason why the diversity of ownership is important for pluralism is because media ownership can translate into media power (Meier and Trapel, 1998: 39). Since it is difficult to monitor the intentions of media owners, or to fully regulate their conduct in respect of editorial matters, the single most effective way of ensuring a healthy diversity of voices in the media is to prevent media power from being monopolized e.i. by ensuring that the supply of media involves a range of autonomous and independent organizations. Plentiful evidence is available that, in fact, media concentrations do sometimes result in overrepresentation of those forms of output favored by dominant media owners. In various editions of The Media Monopoly, Bagdikian has revealed how some of the largest US media owners have used their outlets to promote their own values and interests. Similar tendencies can be found right across Europe. As far as the UK is concerned, some owners of national newspapers have clearly used their titles to further their own political or commercial aims at the expense of balance and responsible journalism (Curran and Seaton, 1997: 72-7). Of course, not all UK newspaper proprietors seek to exert editorial control; for example, the Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust which guarantees its editorial independence. However, previous studies have chronicled the tendency of at least some owners e.g. Victor Matthews (owner of Express titles from 1977 to 1985), Robert Maxwell (owner of the Mirror titles from 1984 until 1991) and Rupert Murdoch (current owner of the Sun, the News of the World and Times titles) to intervene in editorial decisions in such a way as to dictate and standardize the political line of their newspapers. Editorial interference by owners has frequently been indirect e.g. through the selection of key personnel, or through the establishment of a culture of obedience and self-censorship as well as direct i.e. through literally rewriting editorial leaders. Research carried out in relation to other European countries such as France, Germany and Italy confirms that the practice of direct and indirect editorial interference by media owners, with detrimental consequences for media diversity, is by no means confined to the newspaper industry nor to UK media

proprietors. For example, the tendency of Robert Hersant (owner of the second largest press company in France and.. (Media Ownership, Gillian Doyle, 2002)

When the Press Fails by W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence and Steven Livingston, University of Chicago Press, 2007 The short story here is that, the press has grown too close to the sources of power in the nation, making it largely the communication mechanism of the government, not the people. The state of affairs is not intentional, and would be denied vigoriously, by most members of the press corps, often see themselves as embattled, frequently fighting officials for small bits of information distinguish their stories from the others. Reporting that steers its course so close ly to the needs of officialdom results in stunningly homogeneous outcomes across the majority of mainstream media outlets. This is an odd situation in what may well be the freest press system in the world. The notion of the press as a public watchdog has long been idealized in the lore of journalism, and is still alive and in occasional burst of reportorial independence. Yet the practical definition and sure application of such standards have been pushed out daily consideration by relentless pressure from the business side of the news media and the tendency of members of the elite press to conflate power with political reality. These trends are at their most alarming when those in government, business or other powerful social institutions are bent on deception in order to exercise their will. At these moments, the decisions made by news organizations will showcase official versions of events rather than challenging them, can undermine public involvement, discourage opponents within government from stepping forward, and more generally, fail to set a higher standard of public discourse that public officials will be obliged to respect.

The Boston Globe (a subsidiary of the New York Times) and the Washington Post are offering ecommerce goods and services; and Letterbed notes that its troubling that none of the newspaper portals feels that quality journalism is at the center of its strategy.. because journalism doesnt help you sell things. (Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, 2002, Pantheon books newyork)