In contrast, products that reflect the values of media owners won't sell unless they serve a market better than their competitors. Concentration has had no negative effect on the comprehensiveness of the news or on its intelligence. In fact, the contraction of ownership in media has coincided with general improvement in the quality of U.S. news media. Most academic assessments, even those by Bagdikian, acknowledge the depth, objectivity, and relevance of news has generally improved in the 20th century, even as ownership became concentrated. Although other factors such as the rising education level of reporters and editors have had some impact on that quality, at the very least, corporate bigness did not halt the trend.
Some people argue that concentration is actually responsible for at least part of the improvement.
Large corporations may also protect journalistic integrity, helping ensure that the public will get all sides of the story. The conglomerate has its eye on the bottom line, not on the sensitivities of local constituencies. This profit-maximizing motivation may actually shield reporters and editors from the pressures that once plagued those who worked for a news medium owned by a family in the community. Such families often pushed journalists to favor their friends or political allies - conflicts of interest in the news business are not unique to conglomerates. It's what the owner chooses to do.