Source: The Nation
'When media conglomerates merge, they do not provide better service or better democracy,' writes Nichols.
(Image by (Graphic: Free Press)) Details DMCA
When it comes to media, bigger is not better. And when it comes to the control of the infrastructure of how we communicate now, the trend toward extreme bigness -- as illustrated by Comcast's plan to buy Time Warner Cable and create an unprecedented cable combine -- is accelerating at a dangerous pace.
In the aftermath of a federal court decision striking down net neutrality protections that were developed to maintain an open and freewheeling discourse on the Internet, and with journalism threatened at every turn by cuts and closures, the idea of merging Comcast and Time Warner poses a threat that ought to be met with official scrutiny and grassroots opposition.
The point of the free-press protection that is outlined in the First Amendment is not to free billionaire media moguls and speculators to make more money. The point is to have a variety of voices, with multiple entry points for multiple points of view and a communications infrastructure that fosters debate, dissent and democratic discourse.
When media conglomerates merge, they do not provide better service or better democracy. They create the sort of monopolies and duopolies that constrain America's promise. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right when he decried "concentration of economic power in the few" and warned that "that business monopoly in America paralyzes the system of free enterprise on which it is grafted, and is as fatal to those who manipulate it as to the people who suffer beneath its impositions."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).