The Case For Media Concentration Proponents of large media corporations argue that the public gets more of what it needs to know today, in an environment of concentrated ownership, than it did 50 years ago when ownership was more diverse. In fact, rather than reducing competition in the marketplace of ideas, bigness has actually fostered it in several cases. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for example, now compete with local newspapers nationwide because they have the capital to exploit satellite technology. CNN has brought a new source of news into every broadcast area. Surely public access to necessary information is improved by the entry of these giants into the local mix.
Small companies lack the capital to launch satellites and string entire cities with cable.
If the communications revolution is to spread information around the world, corporations with global reach are needed. When Michael Eisner, Walt Disney chairperson, announced his company's merger with ABC, he described how the combined resources of the two companies would allow them to provide programming services for China and India. I am totally optimistic that one and one will add up to four here. Each outlet reflects the demands of the market it serves. In contrast, products that reflect the values of media owners won't sell unless they serve a market better than their competitors.