Increased competition from media deregulation and mergers

"The widest possible dissemination of information from disparate and hostile sources is essential to the public's welfare." That's what U.S. Supreme Justice Hugo Black said in 1945 when he blocked the merger of the Associated Press and other publishing companies. At the time, efforts to prevent media consolidation were well supported and valued, actively reinforcing the First Amendment. In the 1880s, the Reagan administration introduced a new view of deregulation into the conversation. The Telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 drastically changed the long-standing stance on deregulation of media consolidation.

The act allowed virtually unlimited acquisition of ownership of corporations and media companies, leading to the start of a capitalist merger frenzy. In the early 1980s, the vast majority of media in the United States was owned by fewer than 50 companies. Today, only six companies hold more than 90% of the entire US media market. This trend is not only in the US but also seen globally. The diversity and hostile sources of information highlighted by Justice Hugo Black have long been rare. Relatively small independent publishers have no chance of publishing and gaining a market presence in the face of intense competition from businesses that are constantly acquiring in pursuit of economies of scale.

The Cost of Media Corporatization The purpose of journalism is to provide the public with the information they need to make the best decisions about their livelihoods, society and government. While each medium offers unique insights and viewpoints, the integration of corporate media and businesses enforces consistency of information and suppresses viewpoints that do not fit within stated areas of interest. The monopoly of the oligarchy reinforces ideological alignment and twist, and what is more dangerous is the suppression of critical thought and information so carefully that it goes unnoticed by anyone. The multitude of uniquely branded publishers, radio stations and music labels creates a deceptive illusion of diversity for the masses. In fact, there are countless media groups and news information in the market, but there are very few different opinions. Choice is an illusion, and fabricated diversity is really just another form of censorship.

Good journalism gives voice to the marginalized, exposes injustice and holds those in power accountable. However, when the media is run by corporate leaders rather than journalists, the pursuit of objectivity and truth is often not a priority. For too long, pillars of high-quality journalism such as investigative journalism, which plays an important role in driving major social change, have often been shunned as cost-effective. Client relationships dictate what is published, turning the medium into a convenient tool for the pursuit of specialized interests. Publishers have effectively become puppets of their respective owners, unable to provide services and rights to the masses as a "fourth class". The lifting of media regulation has also to a certain extent promoted the commercial use of the media industry, completely subverting the democratic role and value of journalism. Journalist integrity is no longer a journalistic virtue, and journalists are being forced to abandon their belief in their role as "actors" against injustice.