Home > Social Sciences Group > Discussion Board

Should we be concerned about media convergence / concentration?

I can't answer you with a yes or no here, because it's a matter of opinion.  But here's the argument for why media convergence is a bad thing.

In a democracy, the media needs to function as a "watchdog," scrutinizing what the government does to make sure the government is working in the best interests of the people.  The media also needs to be able to bring to light problems that face us so that we, the people, can try to fix those issues.

Some political scientists think that media concentration is a problem because it is too likely to lead to a one-sided media.  The thinking is that if only a few people/companies control all the media, all we will hear about are the things that those people think are problems.  If that happens, we will only get one side of the story, as it were.

It's a matter of opinion if this is happening, but that is the theory behind worrying about this trend.  Of the links I've provided, the first one argues that media concentration is a problem, the second argues that it isn't.

I think that the question lends itself to an adjacent one:  How do we not let the implications of convergence impact us too greatly?  As business interests filter into the news medium, I think individuals have to ensure that they still hold journalists and news coverage to the standard as the "fourth check" of the government.  This might even involve pitting one convergent interest into another, but the reality has to come back to the idea that, as citizens, we hold the power and the ability to control what we accept.  Vigilance is a critical element in offsetting the potential dangers of convergence.

I do see media convergence as a threat to news coverage and to the formulating of public opinion in a free society. Those who own news outlets have tremendous power because they pay the bills, as it were. I doubt that any of them can be so "pure" in nature that they would support a news organization that worked against their own political philosophies or bottom line. A monopoly in the press, it seems to me, would be as stifling as a monopoly in any other market, and ultimately far more dangerous.

I don’t believe that we need to be overly concerned with it. Media is evolving at an exponential rate and different outlets and media serve as checks and balances against each other. The function of the press (media) in a democracy such as the United States is to act as a check against the power of the government. For this reason the media was termed the Fourth Estate by the French. It is only logical that in a free market, media outlets will compete against each other, not just for scoops, but to be esteemed as the best and most accurate source of information.