Graph of corporations controlling the media 1989-2008
corporations.org — In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media
iching- 124 diggs
- digg it
- iching, on 01/18/2008, -1/+22Something happened in my title: it should read 1983-2004
- dotlizard, on 01/18/2008, -0/+16i know some people who get most if not all of their news from MSM, and it shocks me what they are not aware of. you spend enough time on digg, you start thinking things are common knowledge that just ... aren't. at all. because the control really is held this tightly. 5? jeez. you know, people may bitch about digg here & there, but when it comes down to it, social news and the internet are kind of our last hope, with these megacorps running everything else.
- rpi22, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10BREAKING: FOX NEWS BUYS DIGG
- jggr, on 01/19/2008, -0/+4BREAKING: DIGG readership falls to all time low. DIGG goes bankrupt. Users start new site called GGID. GGID becomes biggest site on the internet. Saves the world.
- SRSco, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1I've yet to see any major story broken by new media. They might take a story that was in the MSM and beat it till it becomes a dead horse, but they don't break it. Most credible news stories that become popular on Digg are TAKEN from the MSM. Everything else is just Ron Paul or liberal propaganda, rumors, shoddy news analysis done by amateurs who know ***** about *****, conspiracy theories, sensationalist ***** etc. (aka stuff with very little credibility.)
It IS a little disturbing that so few companies own so much in the media, but digg, blogs and other social news sites are hardly the saviors you think they are.- accountstube, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2wrong
- rpi22, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10BREAKING: FOX NEWS BUYS DIGG
- notque, on 01/18/2008, -0/+13They are the ones pushing the propaganda.
- Barman, on 01/19/2008, -3/+5This isn't a free market (obviously). It's when corporations get their hands into government that they become powerful. That's why you need a strong gov't when you have free markets, and clearly our government is a bunch of pansies that can't get things done.
- DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5Do you realize what you said was absolutely contradictory?
A strong government when you have free markets....
Think about that for a second....
A strong government controlling the economy would NOT be a free market!- fixty, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Corporations don't want anyone ruling over* them telling them what they can't do. That's why I posit that "Free Market" is really just newspeak for "Corporate Anarchy" - bear with me here 'cause "anarchy" is such a loaded term for most people: but I say this because corporations don't want to be constrained by rulers (government) or their rules (regulations, laws). Because for corporations to continue to grow past the point at which their growth is no longer benign to the public interest they must necessarily take action to remove the public's power to influence their behavior. That's why I think corporations are the anarchists we should fear, not punk kids with bandannas and spray paint cans.
(* "anarkhos" means "without a ruler") - DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Well, in a real free market the term /corporation/ probably wouldn't even exist, they're government institutions.
I see no reason why you should fear businesses, they're here to help you, for the most part.
We do not need to limit freedom, even something that you might not be a favor of, economic freedom.
- fixty, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Corporations don't want anyone ruling over* them telling them what they can't do. That's why I posit that "Free Market" is really just newspeak for "Corporate Anarchy" - bear with me here 'cause "anarchy" is such a loaded term for most people: but I say this because corporations don't want to be constrained by rulers (government) or their rules (regulations, laws). Because for corporations to continue to grow past the point at which their growth is no longer benign to the public interest they must necessarily take action to remove the public's power to influence their behavior. That's why I think corporations are the anarchists we should fear, not punk kids with bandannas and spray paint cans.
- Barman, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2I guess I didn't clarify well... I didn't say "Strong" control as in control. I meant a "strong" government that could resist the influence of corporations through lobbyists. A strong defense against corruption, at the same time keeping its influence out of free markets
- DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I've never heard of anybody refer to a 'strong' government the way you described it to me.
- DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5Do you realize what you said was absolutely contradictory?
- DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -9/+1Old news, and really unimportant. Buried.
- jopjop, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4Old news, true. But still decidedly important.
- DucoNihilum, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1What makes this important?
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -3/+6This is important. this is a clear indication of a corporate fascist propaganda machine taking over the country.
- SRSco, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1OMG are you a part of the Bohemian Club worshipping Molech and heralding in the New World Order?
- fixty, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Nice red herring.
- SRSco, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1OMG are you a part of the Bohemian Club worshipping Molech and heralding in the New World Order?
- pintomp3, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3and the quality of journalism seems to follow the same lines. we can thank reagan for starting this trend of media deregulation and clinton for taking it further. without an informed public, democracy is useless. there are certain areas where the for profit model does not work. journalism is one of them.
- jopjop, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Dugg, but probably in vain...
- Emused, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1As is plainly evident , this graph is ½ of one side of a funnel shape.As common sense dictates, the funnel shape is the easiest way to dispense §hi† down the throats of the masses.
- georgemason01, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Graph is useless without a list of company names.
- SRSco, on 01/19/2008, -0/+71) Time Warner
2) Disney
3) News Corp.
4) Bertelsmann (which just owns stuff like BMG and Random House...doesn't really own any news outlets)
5) Viacom
FTA: http://www.corporations.org/media/
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
You can read the first chapter of Bagdikian's book right here: http://www.beacon.org/client/pdfs/6187_ch1.pdf- georgemason01, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Thanks, would have been nice if that article had been submitted rather than the graph alone.
- SRSco, on 01/19/2008, -0/+71) Time Warner
- colonelbuckshot, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1All hail the internet.
- dukeeeey, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5No wonder the average joe on the street is so god damn ***** clueless.
- DroogInPhoenix, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1When I majored in film and tv in 1991, I did a report on the Media Monopoly book.... It is very scary and well worth picking up at amazon or the library. You will see just how much influence they have.
- T0csci, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0Dose any one know the names of the original 50 corporations? Thanks
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by