You seem to hear it everyday: "Consolidation is good. Profit is good. Bigger is better."
How exactly does the public benefit from a consolidated media landscape? Does big media take the public service component of their work seriously?
Take Clear Channel Communications, Inc., for example. With over 1,100 radio stations, 41 television stations, and many other outlets (like billboards), they reach over 154 million people--or 75% of the 18 year-old and over demographic. With those kinds of numbers, they've got to be a great company.
Unless you oppose them, of course. But really, you'd think Clear Channel would be much more efficient when it comes to dirty tricks--after all, anyone will tell you that efficiency is the hallmark of consolidation.
We bet you've heard of Wikipedia. Lately, Wikipedia has been in the news because various corporations (and governments) have been surreptitiously editing entries on the Wikipedia site--essentially trying to turn the Wikipedia site into something that looks like a company press release, or a good piece of propaganda.
Unfortunately for Clear Channel, folks are watching what they are up to. Clear Channel Communications was caught using one of their own computers to accuse a Senate candidate of plagiarism. Why would a big media company do such a thing? Is it possible that the Senate candidate in question dared to question the wisdom of media consolidation?
How many independent radio stations are left in the High Country? Aisling Broadcasting owns the five local radio stations around Boone. Not exactly a competitive market anymore. Clear Channel would be proud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment