Media Monsters

   Corporate media are getting fewer and bigger, expanding their broadcast holdings even as newspapers struggle to maintain profitability. Fewer firms can lead to fewer voices dominating more channels to the public ear.
   News items:
-- The Tribune Co. is set to buy 19 TV stations for an estimated $2.7 billion, further consolidating the broadcast industry as it trims or sheds its newspaper operations.
-- Gannet has doubled its ownership of TV stations as its flagship newspaper, USA Today, tries to deal with changes in the industry.
-- News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch firm that owns Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Harper Collins, The Times and The Sunday Times of London as well as several Australian publishing outlets, is moving to consolidate its operations and ownership of 21st Century Fox, Fox Broadcasting, the Fox New Channel, Sky News (a United Kingdom TV firm), the National Geographic Channel, plus other broadcast and production properties.
-- Increasingly, separate TV broadcasters in the same city share camera crews and reporters.

   Reporters and editors have always filtered what constitutes news, clearing the clutter and exposing the propaganda as they bring information to the public. But as newspapers trim their operations and TV stations expand theirs -- emphasizing the colorful, the scandalous, the gory and the salacious -- thought-provoking articles and essays in print may become an endangered species as corporate owners push their agendas.
   This is not to say that newspapers never had agendas -- they did, and they do, political and otherwise. But there was diversity.
   The question now becomes whether there is diversity among broadcasters, who increasingly dominate the media landscape.
   One easy answer is no, there isn't enough media diversity. True, it can be said that Fox broadcasts from the Right, MSNBC broadcasts from the Left, and CNN and the major networks present from the Middle. But how much diversity is enough? The sub-text of that question implies that there are not enough channels broadcasting viewpoints that agree with the questioner.

   In a larger sense, however, there is diversity of a type that would give 19th Century media titans nightmares. The Internet, with its many forms of social media, allows for anyone with access to a computer to send video, viewpoints and opinions worldwide.
   It was social media that picked up the video feed from the Texas statehouse and made an otherwise obscure state senator, Wendy Davis, an overnight celebrity. With her 11-hour filibuster, watched by millions, Davis stopped an effort to close every abortion clinic in the state.
   Gov. Rick Perry, in an effort to revive the shutdown bill, has called the Legislature back, to a special session.

   Something to watch for: The Texas State Legislature may pull the plug on video feeds of its activities, since that was what brought so much embarrassment and opposition to the conservative bill, and so much instant support for the filibustering Sen. Davis.
   But to the point: Traditional print and broadcast media may be cutting back on its news coverage, and its influence may be changing, but New Media and crowd-sourcing are moving in.
   By limiting coverage of events to those where camera crews can get in, broadcasters cede some journalistic control to politicians and those who sponsor the events. At the same time, hand-held video recording devices carried by so many people means speakers can no longer be sure their remarks are "off the record," and won't find their way to broadcast studios.

   In short, if you're near other people and you don't want to see it broadcast or in print, don't say it.