At the heart of the question is an argument about democracy and about rights. For a democracy to succeed, the public needs sufficient information to make informed judgments on the important issues of the day. We cannot, for example, produce the greatest good for the greatest number if we do not have accurate data about a policy and its possible effects. That right constitutes the foundation of almost every journalistic code of ethics. For the public to have adequate information for decision making, all sides of a story must be aired.
Critics argue that concentration reduces the number of issues raised and the number of voices heard.
Those voices that do get through, opponents continue, are too often subject to conflicts of interest that slant their presentation of the news. Big corporations provide citizens more volume, choice, quality, and objectivity in the news than ever before. The Case Against Media Concentration To serve the public's right to know, competition must exist in the marketplace of ideas. That belief is at the heart of the case against media concentration. Diverse media ownership can create the robust and unconstrained debate that allows the best ideas to prevail.