Media consolidation and the free market

It's funny: I've been reading articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the major newsweeklies about how the FCC's decision to relax some media ownership rules -primarily the part allowing companies to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market -will hurt American journalism by making it "too corporate."

What's funny about this is that the corporations that own these publications are generally in favor of the FCC's decision but don't even have enough influence with their employees to make them stop editorializing against the issue. This is just my second-favorite irony of the anti-Big Media brouhaha.

Now I should be clear: I don't think all media consolidation is a good thing for society or for the businesses involved. For example, I think it's a real tragedy that only a handful of cities have more than one newspaper these days.

Newspaper rivalries are one of the great bastions of free speech and fun journalism.

Competition makes both outlets better, and the lack of newspaper competition in many cities leaves the public poorer. Worse, it makes life more difficult for the heroic salespeople who sell this column, which makes me poorer. But, even though it would be great for me and America if there were more newspapers, I can't imagine favoring a government program to make more newspapers.

In other words, the federal government can't always make the free market do the right thing, even when we know what the right thing is, which is rare.

Many libertarians and free-market conservatives are so in love with the free market they seem to think anything it produces is better than what it replaced. Too many wonderful restaurants, bakeries and other downtown businesses have been replaced with schlock for me to believe that. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that free enterprise will result in "bad" things, as I see them.

But that's the nature of freedom. And this is what liberals so often seem not to understand. Apparently, they believe that economic freedom is somehow less legitimate than artistic freedom. First Amendment absolutists think it's outrageous whenever a strip club is banned, but the same people have no problem with keeping Wal-Mart or McDonald's out of their town or banning cigarette advertising.

Every time a politician proposes requiring stiffer ratings for music or video games or movies, Hollywood liberals freak out, saying government should stay out of it. Fair enough. But why are they now freaking out when the government is removing itself just a bit more from the business of regulating the journalism business?

Maybe it's because I see free enterprise as just another form of freedom; I don't ask myself if it's bad or good if certain businesses become too big, so long as they don't become monopolies and consumers have more choices. And, so far, the free market - because of, or in spite of, consolidation - has created far more choices for consumers.

When I was a kid, three networks in New York City determined the national TV news agenda for the whole country. Today, we have three cable news networks - not counting the financial and non-English-speaking networks.

Yes, some newspapers have gone out of business (even though that has more to do with too few people reading), but technology now allows us to buy The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal thousands of miles from these newspapers' bureaus. And the Internet allows us to read the Times of London and Le Monde (if you can parlez that devilish tongue).

Sure, the consolidation of the radio industry has lead to homogenization. But that homogenization has led to the explosion of Internet radio. Presumably the "nationalization" of local news outlets will not erase the demand for local news overnight. Demand still governs supply in a free society.

Time and again I hear opponents of media consolidation insist that this trend is only good for the corporations not consumers. Well, if that's true, why do so many shareholders at Time Warner want to ditch AOL? Maybe it's because consolidation isn't always a good idea for the bottom line of corporations either.

Oh, I almost forgot my favorite irony of this whole ruckus. You know where I hear critics of Big Media the most often? On C-Span: a network entirely supported by - you guessed it - Big Media. And what's really funny: They always preface their comments by saying, "Thank God for C-Span."

The local news markets in most small cities and towns are already cornered.
In towns where there are only one newspaper it is better than a monopoly and in most cases the newspaper in that position gets what it wants from the government simply because they control the total print media for that area.
If you live in one of these towns check on it. You never really hear of the corruption from within government plus the owner or editor of the paper has total control of what goes in and out and they usually get anything from the local government that want as hush money.
Where there is no competition truth is stiffled.
I live in such a town.
But regardless, one must always realize who has control of the situation and they take care of themselves first and foremost, just like government officials.
The United States is just as corrupt if not more so than any nation in the world the only difference is our government is not quite as brutal yet but it is headed that way.

What that sentence translates to is free markets are not always good because what the majority wants does not always please Jonah.

McDonalds replaced "Charlies Diner" becuase McDonalds gave me what I wanted ... a meal served in 30 seconds. It still took 15 minutes to get your food at Charlies, so I stopped going to Charlies. Apparently Jonah likes free enterprise except where his stomach is concerned.

Walmart had the same thing as 'Bill's Hardware' but it costs less. I liked Bill, but I wanted a cheaper price more than I wanted Bill's advice about how to do a home fix it job.

The truth is Wal Mart reduced what I spent on general merchandise items and let me spend them on luxuries. Bill and Charlie had to find better work. But for Jonah to say that becuase he liked eating at "Mary's Greasy Spoon" when most of us did not, only proves Jonah has spent too much time contemplating his ample tummy.

Ah, I think Jonah merely said the market may not always derive the best result. He would agree, I think, that the market is the best place to let things be decided; but the market may not be the best derivative force for all things.

Back in the 19teens, a cough medicine manufacturer substituted an ingredient into its product that killed people, but it was tastier, I suppose. That inspired teh FDA... Regards

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that free enterprise will result in "bad" things, as I see them.

I think he preemptively conceded that point when he said, "I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that free enterprise will result in "bad" things, as I see them."

I generally prefer small, local, and esoteric to big, corporate, and homogenized. But in a free market, I'm under no delusion that that's going to happen. The masses are perfectly happy with McDonalds and Walmart. Such is life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.