Student responds to claim of apparent media monopoly
Robert Cowan
Issue date: 9/9/05 Section: Opinion
|
Mark Stock is one of these media fatalists, as he proved in his recent Bulletin opinion (Media Monopoly Stifles Coverage, Gonzaga Bulletin, Sept. 2). These media doomsayers, though, seem to ignore blatant, empirical fact: The media market is thriving with competition, a competition that is good both for media distributors as well as concerned citizens.
Jonathan Dingel offered an excellent opinion on the topic in this very newspaper no less than a year ago (Crying Wolf: Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Media?, Gonzaga Bulletin, Oct. 1, 2004). Dingel offered as evidence the Herfindahl-Hirschamnn Index, a measure of monopoly in business. The media market scores a measly 268 on the scale, where 10,000 represents a total monopoly. Dingel quotes Ben Compaine in saying, "Any industry with 60 or more major players (who frequently change positions, appear out of nowhere, and disappear altogether) seems the very definition of a strong, competitive market."
The question remains, though, is a market in media and news distribution good for concerned citizens? If democracy, freedom, and choice are good things, then yes, a media market must be good. To quote Dingel again, "market competition is the most democratic way to offer television content - viewers vote with their remotes." Basic cable television offers no fewer than eight dedicated news channels and over 20 other stations with news programs alone. Today, we find an abundance of independent reporters in the thousands of dedicated news blogs we find online, which, by the way, operate in a totally unregulated market. In short, news outlets are in no short supply.
There are times, of course, when news becomes "infotainment," but concerned viewers will choose a different broadcast over these fluffy substitutes for news. By virtue of the simple fact that news outlets rely on consumers, we can be sure that poor reporters will eventually disappear. If Stock or any other media fatalist finds what they are watching "infotainment," the fault lies clearly with them; there are another 50 television stations, 5,000 newspapers, or several million blogs available from which to choose.
The media market, like any market, must respond to the tastes of the consumer. If we, as concerned citizens, continue to demand quality, truthful media, there will emerge some efficient provider. Strict governmental regulation of the airwaves that Stock claims he owns (although I can see no proof of ownership) will serve not only to stop the conglomerates he fears from further expansion, it will thwart all independent news providers, those providers that Gross cannot seem to find, from entering the market as well. Only by deregulating airwaves do we allow companies to live or die by the demands of the consumers for which they provide, that is, we force them to either be quality news distributors or to shut off their transmitters.
Perhaps A.J. Liebling said it best: "the profit system . . . guarantees that there will always be a certain amount of dissidence. The American press has never been monolithic, like that of an authoritarian state. One reason is that there is always money to be made in journalism by standing up for the underdog."
Or maybe Dingel's states it better: "[Now] is a great time to be an American consumer, as we have access to a greater variety of news, information, opinion, and culture than ever before. Those who say otherwise are crying wolf."
Robert Cowan is a senior at Gonzaga.