creasing concentration inefficient or illegal. There are important efficien-
cies to be gained by the mergers of large media interests; important gains in
coverage have also been realized. And while the conspiracy theories are
many and practically unending in scope, we need not believe media con-
spirators are behind this radical change. The government has loosened its
restrictions on concentration, sometimes for good economic reasons; tech-
nologies of transmission have changed to the great benefit of all; and the
consequence has been an extraordinary concentration in media produc-
tion.[7-43]

But whatever the reason, the results are staggering. And they extend be-
yond the mere structure of the market. They affect its character as well. The
resulting mix of media is strikingly homogenous. The companies that make
up the handful of international conglomerates are cookie-cutter variations
of one another. Some are slightly larger in music than in film; others are
slightly more American in ownership and content. But if you had to char-
acterize the differences in philosophy or attitude among these different
media conglomerates, it would be extremely hard (unlike, for example, the
situation with newspapers in Britain): there are no clear philosophical or
ideological differences among them.[7-44]

Many have quite rightly worried that this control by a few who are not
very different from each other will have a significant effect on the kind of
news that is reported. Andrew Kreig tells a compelling story of the effect of
chain management on an American newspaper, driving the respected _Hart-_
_ford_Courant_ to more excessive, sensationalistic reporting.[7-45] The paper he
describes is not dissimilar from many others. There are many stories about
corporate owners influencing the news within their organizations -- steering
the news away from stories that reflect negatively upon those corporate own-
ers.[7-46] Congressman Newt Gingrich expressly recommended as much in
1997, when he told the Georgia Chamber of Commerce that business lead-
ers and advertisers "ought to take more direct command of the news-
room."[7-47]

Even if we ignore this most blatant form of bias, if the media are owned
by a handful of companies, each basically holding the very same ideals, how
much diversity can we expect in the production of media content? How
critical can we believe these media will be? How committed to testing the
status quo is this form of organization -- itself so dependent upon the status
quo -- likely to be?[7-48]

You don't need to be a radical to be worried about this trend. Even the
most committed pro-market ideologues could at least hope for a broader

[[118]]

p117 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p118w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p119

v?