GOOD NEWS FOR THE MEDIA OLIGARCHY
If you follow the news, you're probably aware that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently relaxed rules concerning media concentration. Now, giant media conglomerates can own an increasingly larger percentage of the nation's media. No-regulation-no-matter-what ideologues applauded the decision by the Republican-controlled commission, despite overwhelming public comment against the relaxation of rules.

I tend to prefer other ways of solving problems than regulation. As a general rule, I think government intervention should be the last solution only because it's such a blunt instrument. However, I believe the news media is an exception. Obviously the CONTENT of the news media should not be regulated, except for libel, slander, etc. But there should be a fair diversity of views in the news media.

This is not an purely aesthetic question. Rather, it is an issue fundamental to health of the republic. Our democratic system relies on citizens who know what's going on and are motivated to participate in improving the country and society. I also believe in the concept of informed consent. That government should generally not micromanage the lives of individuals; give them the information and let them make their own decisions like adults. However, the concept of informed consent is useless without the "informed" half of the equation.

Everything we do both as citizens in a basically free country and as consumers in a basically free market is dependent upon access to information.

"But the new changes will allow an unprecedented diversity of consumer choice," insist the critics. Not necessarily. If we go from 70 channels owned by 5 different corporations to 1000 channels owned by 4 different corporations, is that really an expansion of choice? McDonald's can expand its menu to include 400 different items but it's still McDonald's. If you MSNBC gives you Vice-President Cheney, CNBC gives you Condoleeza Rice and NBC gives you Secretary of War Rumsfeld, is that three fundamentally different choices or three different versions of vanilla?

Do not be confused. Competition is almost always good for the consumer. De-regulation is usually irrelevant to the consumer. De-regulation does not necessarily lead to increased competition. One only needs to know basic history for this. For most of the 19th century, there was next to no regulation of business and industry. The natural tendency of business is monopoly. Monopoly is bad for the consumer. Anti-trust laws were put in place PRECISELY in response to the monopolistic tendencies of big business which harmed the consumer. Sometimes de-regulation is good for competition, other times it's bad for competition. It's not an automatic link.

I work for one of the big media corporations that will benefit from the FCC's changes. In addition to working for them, I also own stock in them. So as a shareholder, I suppose I should be happy that the changes will strengthen my company's position within the small media oligarchy. We can buy out smaller independent papers and television stations and, if we want, make sure they tow our corporate line. Fewer independent voices means more predictable, more sterile "debates."

The often screechy argument about if the media is liberal or conservative is totally missing the point. The media oligarchy is part of the corporate establishment. The New York Times is liberal, but liberal establishment; that distinction is important. The NYT ran virulent editorials not against Ralph Nader's positions but against his mere candidacy; Ralph Nader is as anti-establishment as they come. The Washington Times is conservative, but conservative establishment. Do you think someone with non-establishment positions would ever get a regular column in the WT? Corporations, by their natural instinct, insist upon that which is safe. Sometimes things need to be shaken up.

Sure, the NYT will also have their token "conservative" columnists and the WT their token "liberals" just so they can hold them up as facile "proof" of their fairness. But no one is going to be fooled by any of this. Besides, the true bias of the news media is not in the columns but in the news. Not in HOW the news is reported, but in WHAT news is reported and what isn't. How they decide what gets reported in the first place is far more dubious. And that's where the media concentration has its most nefarious effect.