I'm as against monopolization as the next guy, but...
6 companies having a major presence in the market actually seems like a lot. How many have a major presence in the mobile OS market? Carrier market? Browser market? Soft drink market? None of those hit 6.
Similarly, that there even are 140 other movie studios to compare to is amazing. There's nowhere near 140 mobile OSes, or carriers, or browsers. Maybe 140 soft drink brands, but not that anyone has access to in one area.
"Control" is so vague it could mean anything. Do these 232 media executives review every show, every article? I don't think so. An article is written, goes to an editor, maybe approved by a middle manager, and then hits the presses. Reddit and my local paper have the same owner if you go high enough on the chain, but there is certainly no connection or common message between the two. In general, I think executives care about profits, not message.
90% media market share does not mean the same thing as 90% of what Americans consider important. You can try to defend the connection if you like, but you can't just assert it without evidence or argument.
Even so, correlation does not imply causation. Maybe Americans would care about the same things regardless how many companies controlled the media. Maybe the reason these companies are so successful is that they're telling Americans what they already want to hear.
There is just way too much to the issue to say that because 6 companies control 90% of the media market we're all trapped in some common viewpoint.
It only works because many people choose to never venture outside what they are hand-fed. The "90%" cited only comprise about 3% of my actual consumption. You can get variety if you're willing to poke around a bit, and it's usually cheaper -- if big media scares you, help the small outlets you use and love become more profitable. Otherwise, please give the "OMG someone do something!" routine a rest.
The Sun has a far higher circulation than the WSJ, yet in the info-graphic the circle is much smaller. Unless the circle size is meant to represent the size of the continent. I could have sworn Iberia was in Europe, though.
In short, this is why I hate almost all info-graphics.
6 companies having a major presence in the market actually seems like a lot. How many have a major presence in the mobile OS market? Carrier market? Browser market? Soft drink market? None of those hit 6.
Similarly, that there even are 140 other movie studios to compare to is amazing. There's nowhere near 140 mobile OSes, or carriers, or browsers. Maybe 140 soft drink brands, but not that anyone has access to in one area.
"Control" is so vague it could mean anything. Do these 232 media executives review every show, every article? I don't think so. An article is written, goes to an editor, maybe approved by a middle manager, and then hits the presses. Reddit and my local paper have the same owner if you go high enough on the chain, but there is certainly no connection or common message between the two. In general, I think executives care about profits, not message.
90% media market share does not mean the same thing as 90% of what Americans consider important. You can try to defend the connection if you like, but you can't just assert it without evidence or argument.
Even so, correlation does not imply causation. Maybe Americans would care about the same things regardless how many companies controlled the media. Maybe the reason these companies are so successful is that they're telling Americans what they already want to hear.
There is just way too much to the issue to say that because 6 companies control 90% of the media market we're all trapped in some common viewpoint.
Finally, go to the original source please: http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infograp...