Sibi, Juli Ann Rosette M.

BAMC IV
An Analytical Paper: New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian

Comm 141

New media monopoly

When a person has a hold over information, in his or her hands is an immense amount of power. For
years, media has held this power in their hands.
They filter through the information, as such is their gatekeeping function, and disseminate
information they believe, through an editorial process, is the most important news for the day. The
process has been like this for years and the search for information and digging deeper for more has
created a noble picture of the journalist.
One can only look at images of Joseph Pulitzer and even Edward Murrow, and feel utmost respect for
them. Both men, living in different timesone at the golden age of print[1], one at the beginnings of
broadcasthave given journalists a picture of what its like to use the power bestowed upon them by
the public into good hands.
Murrow was often referred to as the most distinguished figure in broadcast journalism[2] for aside
from covering World War II, he developed many techniques in delivering broadcast news, and his
fervor in delivering important news such as government abuses and corporate greed made him more
known. He influenced much of public opinion, and Murrow has ultimately helped in the discussion on
policy making through his broadcasts.
The days of Pulitzer and Murrow were often seen by many as the Golden Days of Journalismwhen
the profession was seen as a noble one, one of truth, integrity, and one that fulfilled its role as a
public service.
The decline of this golden age began as competition grew between media outlets, it became harder
for them survive. The business side of the media outlet could not handle the terse territory that comes
with challenging the powers that be which is how Murrow often referred his corporate sponsors.
Media outlets were often seen as perfect investments as they helped control public opinion (hence
political sponsors were also common through corporate profiles) and are also the perfect way to
advertise new products, events and whatnot, making it a lucrative business as well. However, media
outlets became a challenge to maintain when journalists themselves called out their sponsorsboth
political and corporate. Sponsors would back out in penultimate moments and would greatly affect
the performance of a news outlet to the point that they began having numerous layoffs.
But this was only the beginning. Media became a tougher environment to work in with the
development of new technology. There grew audience fragmentation[3], in which people were
divided into the growing sources of news information. Newspapers, TV outlets, radio programs, the
Internet, filmthere were so many outlets for information, that the audiences were divided to the
point that it was hard to make money in any media outlet.

It was in this kind of environment that media conglomeration began, and Ben Bagdikian often called
it as a monopoly of sorts in his book New Media Monopoly[4]. An example that Bagdikian repeated
often is the AOL Time Warner Company, which is a merger of three companies American Online,
Time Magazine by Henry Luce, and Warner Media. These three companies have merged in different
periods of time, but have merged for one reasonto reach out to more people that have divided due
to fragmentation, and have control over their perspectives and views by presenting to them similar
materials.
Bagdikian goes all the way and connects all five different major media American companiesTime
Warner, Walt Disney, Murdochs News Corporation, Viacom, and Bertelsmannand almost like a
conspiracy, ties them all together in a way that they may be different companies, but they behave
similarly and disseminate the same information. Bagdikian even goes on and theorizes that some of
them have the same members in their board even if it is illegal. Bagdikian bases his theory of new
media monopoly on the ties between five major media outlets that own more than a thousand media
outlets all over the United States, and all over the world as well. This gives five media companies the
power to control information and monopolize the way people think on a global scale.
Challenges brought by new media monopoly
First, new media monopoly gives the false image of democracy. In the year 1983, fifty corporations
controlled U.S. media. People had a choice, although fifty corporations are already too few
corporations to offer healthy competition in a country as huge as the United States. The number
immediately compacted in four years, from 50 corporations down to 29 corporations. In the year 2004,
29 corporations had turned into 5 huge media mega conglomerates mentioned earlier that have a
global scale. [5]
This means that five corporations control public opinion all over the world. Five corporations control
advertising, book publishing, news wire agencies, television shows and many more that have
international scope. Five corporations control what people see on television, what people read on the
newspaper, and these five corporations have the power to shape the way people think, without people
actually realizing that someone is trying to control the way they view the world.
This gives people a false image of democracy and freedom because one might think that they have a
choice to filter out the things they need to know and not know, but in the end, they are only reading
things other people want them to know.
And if media monopolies have this kind of power, it becomes very prone to political corruption and it
ends up playing a huge role in the persistence of political dynasties and the existence of huge
political families that even if they have a terrible track record in public administration, they are still
voted into office.
Vote-hungry politicians look to media monopolies for support. That is because these monopolies have
a huge reach as they have solved their issues on audience fragmentation, and media empire owners
such as Rupert Murdoch back these vote-hungry politicians so that they create policies that benefit
their empires. This has created a small circle of benefits that dont ever trickle down to the
marginalized and the disenfranchised in the world. Corruption persists because of this monopoly, and

the media that is supposed to be the bastion of integrity that will fight such a monopoly has become
part of a now systemic problem.
Bagdikian says that: American media companies indulge in mutual aid, and share investments in the same
media products. They jointly conform to the periodic ratings that presume to show what kinds of programs
have fractionally larger audiences, after which the competitors then imitate the winners and take slightly
varying shares of the total profits. One of the results of this constricted competitions is that the thousands
of media outlets carry highly duplicative content.
Basically what Bagdikian says is that even if these media empires arent really sitting in one room
sharing information with one another, they almost copy one another when the other is successful. Say
a superhero movie becomes a blockbuster hit for Media Empire AMedia Empires B and C will then
try to copy such superhero formulas, therefore giving us the same book with a different cover. And if
this is whats happening in our media, then we are basically receiving the same information over and
over again.
The very idea is frightening, and the very idea is a threat to media self-regulation, and is a threat to
press freedom in totality, and this threat exists all over the world, and not just in the United States of
America.
Threat to media self-regulation
First, let us return to the definition of media self-regulation. Media self-regulation is defined by Miklos
Haraszti as a joint endeavor by media professionals to set up voluntary editorial guidelines and abide
by them in a learning process open to the public.[6]
The existence of a new media monopoly is a threat to one major aspect of media self-regulation, and
that is the idea that the public can interact and is closer to the media.
Bagdikian said that this monopoly and control over information creates an impasse. People have
become resigned to the assumption that what the major media tells them is the norm and is
unchangeable. This makes the people passive; this makes people feel that they are unable to change
anything about the media. Instead of double-checking on the media, the public becomes resigned to
just believe the media, or if they do not, they feel that it is impossible to change the media anyway,
because of the deep-rooted and systemic problems it has.
Threat to press freedom
New media monopoly creates a threat against press freedom because individual journalists are being
constrained by their corporate owners or sponsors. A journalist may have the most noble of intentions,
but in the wrong media company, noble intentions are often put to naught.
Although there are many true-to-life examples about this, I would find it difficult to cite it without
assuming too much, hence I will be using an example that I found in the television show called The
Newsroom, which I feel is a fitting example of how new media monopoly threatens press freedom.

In the Newsroom[7] , there exists a fictional broadcast company called Atlantis World Media. It is said
to have the Koch brothers as one of their corporate sponsors, and Rupert Murdoch is also said to have
a stake in their company. Both the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch are also mentioned to have
stakes in other media companies as well, which makes their environment the perfect reflection of
Bagdikians new media monopoly.
AWM has a news channel called Atlantis Cable News and it features one of AWMs highest-rated
shows called News Night. This is anchored by Will McAvoy, one of New York Citys famous
prosecutors turned news anchor. However, Will, with his sparkling resume as a prosecutor, often
dissects his sources on air, and does not bother that the stories he is reporting are outwardly
criticizing sponsors that help the show exist in the first place.
In one episode, Will exposed the political agenda the Koch brothers are involved in. After the expos,
Will was called up to the owner of AWMs office, and was threatened with suspension, if he did not
stop reporting about the Koch brothers. The idea of the Koch brothers does not bother Will too much;
but seeing that there are more things he needs to report, and more things he feels the public should
know, Will stops reporting about the Koch brothers.
The public began demanding more about the Koch brothers, but Will, threatened by the loss of his job
and the people he can help with his job in the future, refuses to report about it any further. People
started calling out their news channel for it, but AWM doesnt respond to this, although Will is
personally challenged by the experience, because he believes that reporting about what the Koch
brothers have been doing with future senate candidates. The call soon dies out, and AWM continues
on protecting its sponsors.
Here, we see how corporate owners control media outlets, and how because media outlets refuse to
listen to the public because of their corporate owners, media self-regulation then fails to operate
effectively.
New media monopoly in the Philippines
New media monopoly has already made its way in the Philippines, outside the confines of the United
States and other Westernized countries. One might say that media monopoly was most evident in the
pre-Marcos era. Ferdinand Marcos was rumored to have said that monopoly in the media was the
reason why he shut the media down in the first place.[8] Although it was wrong to answer monopoly
with a dictatorship, there was some kind of truth to his statement. The Lopezs were one of the
biggest oligarchs of the pre-Marcos eraowning a newspaper, several utility companies, plus a vast
economic empire based in hacienda agriculture. Marcos may have curtailed such oligarchy back in his
day, but in todays world, the Lopezs are back in power and are one of the highest-earners in the
media and entertainment business.
ABS-CBN Corporation, owned by the Lopez Holdings Corporation, is one of the largest entertainment
and media conglomerates in the Philippines. It owns and operates two national television networks,
ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN Sports + Action, two regional radio networks, Radio Patrol and M.O.R. for Life!,
and 12 cable channels including ABS-CBN News Channel, Balls, Cinema One, DYAB Teleradyo, DXAB
Teleradyo Davao, and DZMM Teleradyo, Knowledge Channel, Myx, O Shopping and more cable

channels. They have a talent development agency through Star Magic, have a print publishing
company in the name of ABS-CBN Publishing, have music production and publishing through Star
Music, have film television production and distribution through Star Cinema, and they even deal in
telecommunication services like SkyCable. [9]
One of the clearest ways one can see how media monopoly works in the Philippines is how Manilacentric our media is. During the Manila Hostage crisis, almost every ABS-CBN media outlet covered
the hostage crisis. All everyone was hearing on August 23, 2010 was about the hostage crisis. The
crisis coverage took up prime air time, when ABS-CBNs teleseryes are often aired. Local news
coverage all over the country was taken over by the coverage of the hostage crisislittle did they
know about a successful New Peoples Army (NPA) ambush in Catarman, Samar in which policemen
were brutally murdered after they were investigating a shootout. [10] News about the Catarman
shootout only came out a few days after the Hostage Crisis coverage, showing the Manila-centric
coverage of ABS-CBN, and how ABS-CBN managed to monopolize local airwaves in favor for news
happening in Metro Manila.
It does not end there as well. Because ABS-CBN is often viewed as a main player in the entertainment
industry, competitors would not want to lag behind with newsso rival stations covered the hostage
crisis as well. There was a monopoly on the news with that one issue, when so many other events
were occurring on the same day as well.
Remedies of new media monopoly
Bagdikian often cites the new media alternative as a remedy to the monopoly. He cites that skills in
new technology have been used for creative, progressive works that are open and surprisingly
successful.
A perfect example I believe, of this remedy taking effect in the Philippines is the rise of online
campaigns that have effectively raised awareness about many social issues. One issue Id like to focus
on would be the #StopLumadKillings one. Till this day, there is little to no coverage of the attack on
lumad Filipinos on mainstream mediameanwhile, alternative media such as Rappler is taking the
lead on the fight to stop lumad killings.
Rappler was one of the first media outlets to break the news online. In a timeline by Tonyo Cruz[11] ,
he reported that it was the online media that came out with the news that lumad leaders were killed
in an encounter with government forces after they fought eviction from their own lands.
After which, some mainstream media came and covered, but hardly gave it the coverage it deserved.
Meanwhile, alternative media covered the issue as it develops. Mainstream media only picked up
some of the issues that Rappler and many other bloggers such as Tonyo Cruz posted.
Rappler is a relatively young medium based online. It has garnered much attention for it is one of the
few online platforms that serve as more than just a mirror site for newsit is interactive and allows
many of its readers to feel that their emotions and thoughts play a huge role in the formation and
curation of the news.

Because Rappler and other online bloggers dont rely too much on corporate sponsors and whatnot,
they often have the power to deviate from what mainstream media covers. Bagdikian often refers to
the online community as youthful Internet journalists and anthologists that have bypassed the
traditional standard media. He believes that because the online community is not tied to the huge
media companies, they are more independent and have more freedom to cover the stories they want
to without being limited by their sponsors, their advertisers, and especially not to political sponsors.
This makes them a break in the monopolya remedy, a cure that can definitely change the way media
views the way they form the news, and the way people view the media.
Sources:
[1] Joseph Pulitzer. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Pulitzer
[2] Edward Murrow. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/edward-r-murrow-this-reporter/513/
[3] Audience fragmentation.
[4] Bagdikian, B. New Media Monopoly.
[5] Webster, J. Audience Fragmentation in the Age of Digital
Media.http://webster.soc.northwestern.edu/pubs/Webster%20&%20Ksiazek%20Audience%20Fragmentation%20
_(in%20press%20JOC)l.pdf
[6] Haraszti, M. Media self-regulation. http://www.osce.org/fom/31497?download
=true
[7] Mundy, A. HBOs The Newsroom Takes Aim at Koch Brothers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/24/hbos-newsroom-takes-aim-at-koch-brothers/
[8] Country Studies: Proclamation 1081 and Martial Law. http://countrystudies.us/philippines/28.htm
[9] ABS-CBN Annual Report. http://www.pds.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Disclosure-No.-554-2015Annual-Report-for-Fiscal-Year-Ended-December-31-2014-SEC-FORM-17-A.pdf
[10] Desecada, M. 8 police officers killed by rebels in Northern Samar ambush. The Philippine Star.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/604696/8-police-officers-killed-rebels-northern-samar-ambush
[11] Cruz, T. #StopLumadKillings: What You Need To Know. http://tonyocruz.com/?p=4805