Amedia conglomerate,media company,media group, ormedia institution is acompany that owns numerous companies involved inmass media enterprises, such asmusic,television,radio,publishing,motion pictures,video games,amusement parks, or theInternet. Despite ownership over several companies and diverse mediums, by definition, media conglomerates only maintain holdings over media and not other enterprises.[1]
While cross-industry corporate conglomeration began to dominate the market in the mid-twentieth century, with the success of companies likeLing-Temco-Vought, some media companies first began integration in the 1920s.[2] In 1924, TheChicago Tribune bough the WDAP radio station and changed its name toWGN (AM), marking an early example of vertical integration to form a conglomeration.[3] In 1948, the Tribune beganWGN-TV, a broadcasting affiliate that operated out of the newspaper's headquarters, further integrating the conglomerate into numerous enterprises within the media industry.[4]
Widespread global commercialization within the media industry did not begin until the 1980s. Deregulation efforts from the U.S. government and rapid developments in communication encouraged mass media companies to take their domestic enterprises internationally.[5] The subsequent development of conglomerates in international markets has been steady and faster than domestic markets. For example, in 2024,Walt Disney Studios, one of the largest conglomerates in the world, grew its revenue by 9.31% in Asia and 7.83% in Europe, while it grew by just over 1% in the United States.[6]
Media conglomerates, like other conglomerates, are typically formed through the process ofMergers and acquisitions, which allow for a company to absorb another entity either by taking control of its assets or consolidating the two. The conglomerate boom of the 1960s jumpstarted the trend, low interest rates on loans made leveraged buyouts relatively easy for large companies.[7] Since interest rates were so low, parent companies could easily absorbsubsidiaries as long as profits from the new entity were greater than the loan interest rates for the acquisition.[8]
Aconglomerate is a large company composed of a number of companies (subsidiaries) engaged in generally unrelated businesses. While each subsidiary typically operates autonomously, the conglomeration process guarantees that it will be financially dependent upon the parent company.[9] In the case of media conglomerates, this criteria also applies, but all subsidiaries operate within the single sector media industry or adjacent industries.
Some media conglomerates use their access in multiple areas to share various kinds of content such as: news, video and music, between users.[10] The media sector's tendency to consolidate has caused formerly diversified companies to appear less diverse to prospective investors in comparison with similar companies that are traded publicly and privately. Therefore, the termmedia group may also be applied, however, it has not yet replaced the more traditional term.[11]
Critics have accused the large media conglomerates of dominating the media and using unfair practices. During a protest in November 2007, critics such asJesse Jackson spoke out against consolidation of the media.[12] This can be seen in thenews industry, where corporations refuse to publicize information that would be harmful to their interests. Because some corporations do not publish any material that criticizes them or their interests, media conglomerates have been criticized for limiting free speech or not protecting free speech.[13] These practices are also suspected of contributing to the merging of entertainment and news (sensationalism[14]) at the expense of the coverage of serious issues. They are also accused of being a leading force behind the standardization ofculture (seeglobalization,[13]Americanization) and are frequently criticized by groups that perceive news organizations as beingbiased towardspecial interests of the owners.[13]
Because there are fewer independent media, there is less diversity in news and entertainment and therefore less competition. This can result in the reduction of different points of view as well as vocalization about different issues.[15] There is also a lack of ethnic and gender diversity as a majority of those in media are white, middle-class men.[16][17][18] There is a concern that their views are being shared disproportionately more than other groups, such as women and ethnic minorities.[19] Women and minorities also have less ownership of media.[19] Women have less than 7 percent of TV and radio licenses, and minorities have around 7 percent of radio licenses and 3 percent of TV licenses.[20]
In 1984, fifty independent media companies owned the majority of media interests within the United States. By 2011, 90% of the United States's media was controlled by six media conglomerates: GE/Comcast (NBC, Universal), News Corp (Fox News,Wall Street Journal,New York Post), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar), Viacom (MTV, BET, Paramount Pictures), Time Warner (CNN, HBO, Warner Bros.), and CBS (Showtime, NFL.com).[22][23]
In 1941, theFederal Communications Commission enacted a duopoly policy, preventing the ownership of two or more stations by the same parent company within specific boundaries.[24] The current form of this policiy prohibts mergers between the four largest companies in the broadcast television industry.[25] Up until 1975, several laws that restricted channel ownership within radio and television were enacted in order to maintain unbiased and diverse media. However under the Reagan administration, Congress and theFederal Communications Commission, then led by FCC ChairmanMark S. Fowler, began a concerted deregulation over the years 1981 and 1985, increasing the number of television stations a single entity can own increased from seven to 12.[26] In a 1987 article, The New York Times claimed that Fowler transformed "broadcasting licenses, once rigorously monitored by the F.C.C." to "commodities traded on the open market."[27] Now, there is no upper limit imposed on the FCC regarding a single entity's ownership of multiple stations, as long as the net audience reach of the conglomerate is not greater than 39% of U.S. households.[25]
The industry continued to deregulate with enactment of theTelecommunications Act of 1996. Signed by PresidentBill Clinton on 8 February 1996, it was considered by the FCC to be the "first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years".[28] In the radio industry, the 40-station ownership cap was lifted, leading to an unprecedented amount of consolidation. Since this period,IHeartMedia grew from 40 stations to 870 stations worldwide, whileViacom grew to owning 180 stations across 41 markets after a merger with CBS in May 2000.[29][30]
As media consolidation grew, some in the nation began to speculate how it might negatively impact society at large. In the case ofMinot, North Dakota,[31] the concerns regarding media consolidation is realized. On 18 January 2002, a train containing hazardous chemicals derailed in the middle of the night, exposing countless Minot residents to toxic waste. Upon trying to get out an emergency broadcast, the Minot police were unable to reach anyone. They were instead forwarded to the same automated message, as all the broadcast stations in Minot were single-handedly owned byIHeartMedia.[32]
^abcStoll, Mary Lyn (June 2006). "Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate".Journal of Business Ethics.66 (2–3):253–260.doi:10.1007/s10551-005-5590-2.S2CID153666046.
^Kenix, Linda Jean. "Independent Websites Not So Different from Group-Owned".Newspaper Research Journal.35 (2).
