1. 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. Contemporary research
demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many
media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by
a very small number of firms.
Globally, large media conglomerates include Viacom, CBS
Corporation, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony
Corporation of America, NBCUniversal, Vivendi, Televisa, The
Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo
and Lagardère Group.
As of 2010, The Walt Disney Company is the largest media
conglomerate in the US, with News Corporation, Time Warner
and Viacom ranking second, third and fourth respectively.
In nations described as authoritarian by most international
think-tanks and NGOs like Human Rights Watch (China, Cuba,
Russia), media ownership is generally something very close to
the complete state control over information in direct or indirect
ways (see Gazprom Media).
Mergers
Media mergers are a result of one media related company
buying another company for control of their resources in order

2. to increase revenues and viewership. As information and
entertainment become a major part of our culture, media
companies have been creating ways to become more efficient
in reaching viewers and turning a profit. Successful media
companies usually buy out other companies to make them
more powerful, profitable, and able to reach a larger viewing
audience. Media Mergers have become more prevalent in
recent years, which has people wondering about the negative
effects that could be caused by media ownership becoming
more concentrated. Such negative effects that could come into
play are lack of competition and diversity as well as biased
political views.
Media oligopoly
An oligopoly is when a few firms dominate a market.[9] When
the larger scale media companies buy out the more smaller-
scaled or local companies they become more powerful within
the market. As they continue to eliminate their business
competition through buyouts or forcing them out (because
they lack the resources or finances) the companies left
dominate the media industry and create a media oligopoly.
Elimination of net neutrality
Net neutrality is also at stake when media mergers are
occurring. Net neutrality involves a lack of restrictions on
content on the internet, however, with big businesses

3. supporting campaigns financially they tend to have influence
over political issues, which can translate into their mediums.
These big businesses that also have control over internet usage
or the airwaves could possibly make the content available
biased from their political stand point or they could restrict
usage for conflicting political views, therefore eliminating Net
Neutrality.
Debates and issues
Concentration of media ownership is very frequently seen as a
problem of contemporary media and society. When media
ownership is concentrated in one or more of the ways
mentioned above, a number of undesirable consequences
follow, including the following:
Commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media is
primarily loyal to sponsors, i.e. advertisers and government
rather than to the public interest.
Only a few companies representing the interests of a minority
elite control the public airwaves
Healthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower
innovation and increased prices.
Diversity of viewpoints
It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media
consolidation and its effect upon the diversity of information

4. reaching a particular market. Critics of consolidation raise the
issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local
media market can be fully accountable and dependable in
serving the public interest.
Freedom of the press and editorial independence
On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories
refused or edited beyond recognition. An example would be
the repeated refusal of networks to air "ads" from anti-war
advocates to liberal groups like MoveOn.org, or religious groups
like the United Church of Christ, regardless of factual basis.
Journalists and their reports may be directly sponsored by
parties who are the subject of their journalism leading to
reports which actually favor the sponsor, have that appearance,
or are simply a repetition of the sponsors opinion.
Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market
choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the
public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some
crucial issues that may affect them.
Concern among academia rests in the notion that the purpose
of the first amendment to the US constitution was to
encourage a free press as political agitator evidenced by the
famous quote from US President Thomas Jefferson, "The only
security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion
cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The

5. agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to
keep the waters pure." [4]. Freedom of the press has long been
combated by large media companies, but their objections have
just as long been dismissed by the supreme courts.
Deregulation
One explanation for the cause of the concentration of media
ownership is a shift to neoliberal deregulation policies, which is
a market-driven approach. Deregulation effectively removes
governmental barriers to allow for the commercial exploitation
of media. Motivation for media firms to merge includes
increased profit-margins, reduced risk and maintaining a
competitive edge. In contrast to this, those who support
deregulation have argued that cultural trade barriers and
regulations harm consumers and domestic support in the form
of subsidies hinders countries to develop their own strong
media firms. The opening of borders is more beneficial to
countries than maintaining protectionist regulations.
Critics of media deregulation and the resulting concentration of
ownership fear that such trends will only continue to reduce
the diversity of information provided, as well as to reduce the
accountability of information providers to the public. The
ultimate consequence of consolidation, critics argue, is a poorly
informed public, restricted to a reduced array of media options

6. that offer only information that does not harm the media
oligopoly's growing range of interests.
For those critics, media deregulation is a dangerous trend,
facilitating an increase in concentration of media ownership,
and subsequently reducing the overall quality and diversity of
information communicated through major media channels.
Increased concentration of media ownership can lead to the
censorship of a wide range of critical thought.
Other
Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible
enough to serve local communities in case of emergency. This
happened in Minot, North Dakota, in 2002, after a train filled
with anhydrous ammonia derailed (see Minot train derailment).
None of the leading radio stations in Minot carried information
on the derailment or evacuation procedures, largely because
they were all owned by Clear Channel Communications and
received automated feeds from the corporate headquarters in
San Antonio, Texas. 1600 people were injured and one died
unreliable source?]
Determinants of media pluralism

7. Size and wealth of the market
“Within any free market economy, the level of resources
available for the provision of media will be constrained
principally by the size and wealth of that economy, and the
propensity of its inhabitants to consume media.” [Gillian Doyle;
2002:15] Those countries that have a relatively large market,
like the United Kingdom, France or Spain have more financial
background to support diversity of output and have the ability
to keep more media companies in the market (as they are there
to make profit). More diverse output and fragmented
ownership will, obviously, support pluralism. In contrast, small
markets like Ireland or Hungary suffer from the absence of the
diversity of output given in countries with bigger markets. It
means that “support for the media through direct payment”
and “levels of consumers expenditure”, furthermore “the
availability of advertising support” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] are
less in these countries, due to the low number of audience.
Overall, the size and wealth of the market determine the
diversity of both media output and media ownership.
Diversity of suppliers/owners
From the previous paragraph can be assumed that size/wealth
of the market have a very strong relation to the diversity of
supplier. If the first is not given (wealthy market) then it is

8. difficult to achieve fragmented supplier system. Diversity of
suppliers refers to those heterogeneous independent
organizations that are involved in media production and to the
common ownership as well. The more various suppliers there
are, the better for pluralism is. However, “the more powerful
individual suppliers become, the greater the potential threat to
pluralism.”
Consolidation of resources
The consolidation of cost functions and cost-sharing. Cost-
sharing is a common practice in monomedia and cross media.
For example, “for multi-product television or radio
broadcasters, the more homogeneity possible between
different services held in common ownership (or the more
elements within a programme schedule which can be shared
between ’different’ stations), the greater the opportunity to
reap economies.” [18][verification needed] Though the main
concern of pluralism is that different organization under
different ownership may buy the same e.g. news stories from
the same news-supplier agency. In the UK, the biggest news-
supplier is The Press Association (PA). Here is a quoted text
from PA web site: “The Press Association supplies services to
every national and regional daily newspaper, major
broadcasters, online publishers and a wide range of commercial

9. organisations.” Overall, in a system where all different media
organizations gather their stories from the same source, then
we can’t really call that system pluralist. That is where diversity
of output comes in.