As a dad (and blogger) I’m concerned with the integrity of the news and entertainment my family and I consume every day. Who really produces, owns and airs the shows my kids are glued to every evening and which companies select the stories I read with such loyalty each morning? I’ve always advocated for critical consumption, and what could be more important than an awareness of the sources of our families’ daily info and entertainment diets? And today, most of our media is controlled by one of six companies. Check out Frugaldad’s infographic on the state of media consolidation in the U.S.:
Feel free to embed this graphic on your site
Feel free to embed this graphic on your site
Update: Thanks to Mike for the heads up about the AOL/Time Warner error. The graphic has been fixed.
Jason, I work for one of the “Big 6″ and I share your concern. The answer is to teach your kids to put TV in the proper perspective. Always consider your sources. Like BB King says, “Nobody loves me but mama, and she may be jivin too.” It’s entertainment, and nothing more. As for the source of your news, look at it critically, just as you would if someone on the street told you something. You wouldn’t take that as gospel, so don’t take what CNN or Fox says as gospel. Read more than one outlet. That’s something not a lot of people do, they hear something and accept it. It may be difficult since (according to the infographic) 90% of the media is controlled by six companies, but it’s not impossible. Bottom line, in my opinion, be just as critical about what you put in your family’s brain as you do their bellies.
I definitely agree with you Chas; it’s very important to not only kids but the majority of citizens to keep media in the proper perspective and to also inform others about potential bias, dramatizations, and etc.
And when the atmosphere gets too polluted to breathe properly, the answer will be “Just buy your family gas masks”. Super! An answer for everything! What about regulation? No no, that’s never an answer.
The entire point of regulation is to make sure this type of media consolidation doesn’t occur. Media consolidation is inherently undemocratic.
Jason, Thanks so much for being a voice of reason. One day I sat down and estimated how much I had spent on cable TV in my life time- the last 30 years. Somewhere between $22-$24000 dollars. That’s THOUSANDS. JUST on cable. Investing that would have yielded a 6 fold increase. Regrets abound ! Today I can yell “I am cable FREE !” Sure I dont get the variety with cable but get excellent picture with a $100 HD antennae. Sure my kids miss the trendy- yet mindless reality shows (Have you ever seen “Dance Moms” ?)- but I know that I am doing them a favor not allowing their minds to be polluted by the “big 6 media cartel” in your recent infographic. People have to get mad- and yell I am not going to play their game anymore !!!!!! They’ll be free when they do !
Thanks for the infographic; it shows the reality that is difficult to get across in words. The FCC has been a vehicle for this consolidation. Many connections. Finding independent news is getting more and more difficult.
I’m really digging these infographics you are making. I’m a little confused about something on this one though. It says that AOL is a notable property of Time Warner but AOL bought Time Warner in 2001? Wouldn’t that make Time Warner a property of AOL? Maybe I’m reading it wrong.
I agree, the infographic is great but perhaps is required to simplify things for purposes of the image clarity? Probably because most of the subentities are actually under Time Warner’s umbrella, though technically itself is under AOL. I’m not sure but I feel similarly about Comcast and GE – Comcast I thought was a seperate entity which purchased NBCU from GE, not a subentity.
“In 2000 AOL and Time Warner merged under the name AOL Time Warner. The merger was not fruitful and on May 28, 2009, Time Warner announced that it would spin off AOL into a separate public company. The spinoff occurred on December 9, 2009, ending the eight-year relationship between the two companies.”
Comcast and GE are two separate companies.
They jointly own NBC Universal Media LLC
Comcast owns 51%
GE owns 49%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal#Sale_to_Comcast
Media Consolidation is a significant contributor to the state of American politics and the (lack of) public discourse. As with many arenas, the FCC as a government entity has been taken over by the very corporate interests it was set up to regulate. Yet another example of what the Occupy movement is protesting.
Seek independent media**, stop watching TV (you and your children will benefit), write your Representatives.
**I own an internet radio station that used to broadcast on FM, until the signal was sold out from under us as part of a consolidation effort.
Thank you for sharing this amazing graphic. It’s a great illustration of how very few companies control what we hear, see and read. As individuals, we need to become more critical thinkers, evaluate various sources and support independent networks.
I’m not sure if this is correct but The Atlantic is not owned by any of the big six. plus they have some interesting articles too
Comcast puchased NBC from GE. Comcast is not owned by GE, it is a publicly traded company (CMCSA trading in NASDAC)
Since when does GE own Comcast? That’s not an accurate way to portray Comcast’s purchase of NBC from GE. Comcast is eventually planning to take all of NBC (not just a majority stake) from GE.
awesome. I just sent this to the director of Artemis Eternal. they are the kings of getting people involved in media issues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXOwWC48PM
“The infographic isn’t quite correct. Comcast owns a majority stake in NBCUniversal, with GE owning the rest.” ~ A friend
Figured I’d pass it on ^_^
Minor mistake: 232 executives serving 277 million people means that each executive “controls the information diet” of 1.194.000 people, slightly more than the 850.000 mentioned in the graphic. Which of course only adds to the significance of the graphic.
I was just about to comment the exact same thing!
Thanks!
I didn’t have my calculator out
Just remember Viacom and CBS are 2 corporations but owned by the same guy, Summer Redstone
GE doesn’t own Comcast
Thanks! Posted on my blog and to Facebook and Twitter.
I’ve been squinting and trying to cross my eyes, but I can’t make out the stereographic imagery. What is it? I am guessing 3D Godzilla or some other media monster. Perhaps 3D Rupert Murdoch stomping on the planet?
Nice idea, but the infographic is full of factual errors. How do you expect for this to be taken seriously when even basic calculations on the graph are wrong.
1. Time Warner and AOL split a long time ago. When the merger happened Time Warner paid for AOL (AOL never owned Time Warner) and after the separation AOL and Huff Post merged (so Huff Post was never under Time Warner) – you need to correct both your facts, and your numbers on that chart.
2. Comcast is not owned by GE. Comcast is buying NBC Universal from GE and the deal takes several years to complete.
3. 232 media execs for 277 million americans comes down to 1.19 Million americans per executive. If this basic calculation is so obviously wrong, how do you expect people to believe the rest of the data.
These are just the ones I noticed at first glance. Rule # 1 of journalism – make sure you get your facts and math straight.
On a separate note, check the correlation of single proprietors vs publicly owned companies on your chart. You may notice media companies that are owned by a single proprietor (vs a public company) have a distinct political skew that follows the owner’s agenda.
Add another one:
The Sun and The Wall Street Journal are definitely not the top newspapers in Europe or North America. According to the World Association of Newspapers http://www.wan-press.org/article2825.html the largest one in Europe is the German Bild and the largest in North America is USA Today.
Also, the Australian is also not the top newspaper in Australia, when you get one fact so obviously wrong without some basic research, it brings into question the rest of the articles authenticity. Sorry but this seems like a cheap grab for attention but no basis.
the response by frugalady touched on the errors but stated tht single props vs publ cos have a distinct political skew from the owners agenda,
the public companies’ agenda, are not completely owned by their shareholders but by political and financially motivated leanings.
news reporting aside, the bias from each of these companies is pretty well geared to the US industrial complex of power and greed.
Anything broadcast might do to the contrary is seen as temporary and usually a means to the endgame.
Kill your t.v. and use your library card. Thank you!
Isn’t the premise of this graphic that 90% of media companies produce 90% of the content that is read, watched or listened to? Is this the case? It’s certainly not in my case but I’m willing to believe it may be for the population on average. However, without that data, it’s kind of hard to know whether things are as dire as you make them sound or not.
Let’s remember every time we think of this please let look at former Pres. Bill Clinton. You sign some huge bill during including the TeleCommunication Act
Ingesting what most media today is offering is like going to a Baskin Robbins for ice cream. You have a lot of flavors to choose from but it is still the same base ingredients delivered by one interest.
I would not be so quick to exclude NPR or independents like Washington Post either. They may not be entirely compromised but they do have editorial positions and journalists that sing out of the same corporatist song books.
Great Graphic! I would love to see this info available in text form. The reason for this is in order to easily cite this as a reference. The second is so that I can easily access the reference section and verify facts for myself.
thanks
Interesting that four of the six definitely lean left…
you clearly missed the entire point of this. they are all a part of the same system. Dont trust any of them and research yourself.
Follow the money is one of my rants. Linked this to my Facebook account. Gregory Bateson, Cultural Anthropologiest and student of beliefs said “The more maps of the terraine, the closer to the truth.” Sadly, we are not getting mostly two ranting view. So many of my friends from either side only read or listen to what supports their views.
That should read now and not not in the last paragraph. My aging brain.
Hello, I love your info graphics (I really do) but I’ve got a small concern about the top newspapers in the World. For Australia and the US the graphic might be right, but Europe is far to diverse to allow one top newspaper. Outside the UK and Ireland, the SUN does not have any real relevance. Maybe one corporation owns all the top ones in the different countries, but the language barrier alone stops big newspapers at the borders.
The media is an essential part of society and undoubtedly shapes everything we see, hear and understand. Lots of people talk about how the media doesn’t influence them but it invariably does.
I’m relatively sure Sony should be there somewhere.
(Ugh. A comment form with labels that disappear when the field has focus.)
Great research and presentation. Strange, faded pastel color scheme for such serious data.
It would also be interesting to know to what extent ‘big media six’ (as well as other alleged ‘top brands’ in US) are owned by foreign dollars…
In other words, if BM = 90%, and OWS = 99%, (given BM is a subset of the 1%), then since 99% > 90%, there is room for hope, so thanks for the wake up call.
Informed citizens need to consume broader sources of information for decision making purposes, as the qualitative and bias factors in the 90% will lead to less innovative thinking, and a more probable realization of some version of a Bradbury-Vonnegut-Asimov future state of automatons in a death spiral of resource consumption behaviors that may look a lot like those lemmings….
We do not need to regulate this. What we need is to deregulate and return to competition and a free-market in order to create more companies so that the big boys do not win. Milton Friedman has been saying this for decades.
That is a profoundly incorrect statement regarding the properties of free market economies.
Um, where to begin?
How would deregulation encourage competition in this scenario? Similar to automotive manufacturing perhaps?
And who exactly is going to create a competitive organization that will rival any one of these six in size, influence, or audience? A reasonable conclusion would be that unchecked free markets have created such significant barriers to entry in this industry that no one company will be created anytime soon that would survive the aggression of its competitors. And, if you do create such a company are you telling us that you would turn down a billion dollar offer from any one of these six to snatch you up?
I was excited to see this infographic and would have linked to it except for a glaring error – GE does NOT own Comcast! Comcast owns a 51% (controlling) interest in NBC Universal. GE still owns 49% – but (I repeat) does NOT own Comcast. I hope you will correct and re-post.
Eddie, we DO need to regulate this. Look at the graphics: there are tons of other companies out there, but they’re being squashed by the big 6. The free market led us to this place; it was because the FCC stopped breaking up monopolies and oligopolies that this happened. Market failure is a real thing, and the free market is not a magic wand that can we can use to wave away all our problems. Stop thinking that it is please.
Comcast is not a monopoly in NYC – although NYC is carved up into distinct coverage areas (for example I can only get cablevision; across the street it’s only Time Warner; Verizon Fios will be available as diret competition eventually but comcast isn’t available anywhere in Brooklyn as far as I know) we have cablevision, verizon, comcast, and time warner in NYC.
Disney no longer owns Miramax.
Also, it seems that CBS no longer has a stake in NFL.com.
Also, anyone find it odd that Sony is omitted from the big six, considering that (among other things), they’re the producers of Jeopardy (CBS is just the distributor).
And finally, GE and Comcast are technically two separate who both happen to co-own NBCUniversal.
Your facts on radio are outdated by YEARS, which leads me to worry that that may be the case with your other “facts” in this “infographic.” For instance, Clear Channel sold off all of its stations in markets 101 and smaller – roughly 400 stations – years ago, which means that they own NOTHING in Minot, ND…LOL. But let’s be clear: I’m not defending Clear Channel. I’m defending fact-checking.
This post was a big misstep on an otherwise excellent blog. I like reading your site. I can relate to it, I get some nice tips, and I get reminded of other smart shopping/money tips I already know. But (and it’s a big but), please make sure you research your research. In other words, not everything you look up on the interwebs is current. It’s also full of flat-out misinformation.
Statistics can be twisted, as well. Like the one about the song “Mrs. Robinson” getting played 6 million times in the 43 years since it was released as a single (assuming your info is current to 2011, which I’m worried it’s not). Considering all of the radio stations in this country that would play that song over 43 years, that’s not too bad, actually! Saying “that’s like listening to the song back-to-back for 32 years in a row” is just silly and meaningless. It’s those kinds of statements that breeds skepticism and doubt about the integrity of the information.
One media exec to 1.2 million people not 850k, your math is backwards.
850,000 (people) x 232 (execs) = 197,200,000 not 277 million.
A lot of people bitching in the comments about little stuff. Great graphic. Keep up the great work.
You confirm my fears that today the minds of a few are leading or misleading the many. It is very easy today with technology to ‘spin’ and manipulate data and visual to direct the minds of people. My greatest concern is the lack of basic education competence in our nation, that can easily be pursuaded by the voice of a few. Few leaders today ‘walk the talk.’
Thanks for creating such an informative graphic! I’m going to post it to my Web site.
What this graphic does not explain is how this came to be. The internet. Free news simply pushed smaller news organizations to either consolidate or go out of business. It was the only way to survive. Who wants to pay for news? Apparently, almost no one. The key point to all this is YOU DON’T HAVE TO WATCH OR READ THE 90%. There is still the 10% that isn’t owned by a large corporation.
Mike, maybe paying for news has nothing to do with this scenario.
These unnatural monopolistic mega-media-corporations don’t get their money from viewers. They get their money from advertisers, and they have found that if they shape the viewers’ thoughts to be favorable and ripe for their advertisers, then the viewers can be worth more to their advertisers.
In media and publishing, the reader/viewer’s attention is the product. The product is sold to the advertiser. Understanding that fundamental fact is the foundation to any discussion about the media
Regulations one has to be very careful what they wish for. Regulating the media could bring back the old state of American media in which there was a complete lack of discourse, where you woke up and ate breakfast with the New York Times and ate dinner with Dan Rather.
The Europeans have this problem with their media. Many may think the Europeans are more wordly than Americans, but they aren’t, they’re actually more restricted in the media they see, because their media is either very regulated by the government (free speech over there is a lot more controlled) or their media is for the most part outright run by the government. This is because they don’t trust the free-market to handle news reporting, so their idea is to put the government in charge (!!!), to make sure the news is factual, accurate, objective, and so forth. Of course, the result of this is the complete opposite, and the media tends to be very lacking in facts, inaccurate, and subjective, because the people controlling it are mostly of one political persuasion (socially democratic).
When media is regulated like this, who decides exactly what constitutes balance? For many social democrats, for example, what is a centrist position is clearly a leftwing position to someone on the Right. And what to many on the Right is being center-right is clearly right-wing to a social democrat. One can see this with our current President, Barack Obama, whom to many on the Left is a centrist, to many on the Right is a far-left European-style social democrat. Things get even more thorny when one gets into the issue of who decides what constitutes things like bias, racism, bigotry, etc…all of this makes it very difficult to maintain true balance when having a monopoly (government) on the news, as what one person may call biased or racist another person would greatly object to. Listening to the European media in the run-up to the Iraq War, one might not have even been aware that there were arguments for invading Iraq, for example. When media is controlled by people of a single political persuasion, they can end up falling into the trap of reminding the masses how they’re “supposed” to think, as opposed to introducing fresh ideas into the debate.
Now in the United States, we have a much more diverse media selection. You have everything from Fox News (right-wing) to MSNBC (left-wing), to the others (CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR—most of the television news lean left), to talk radio (most of which leans rightwing), to everything from the Washington Times and the New York Post to the New York Times and the Washington Post. You have rightwing publications and leftwing publications. On the Internet, there is great diversity, everything from Breitbart to Huffington Post and Media Matters.
Fiery polemic and intense debate on all the issues occur in all of these mediums, to a degree never before-scene in this nation’s history, and to a much greater degree than anything seen in Europe (where regulations and government presence on media are heavy).
So regarding regulations, be very careful what you wish for. Regulations were okay back when say there were only three television channels, so you had rules to mandate balance (and even then, it was a thorny issue), but nowadays, things are much different.
Kyle- the media is already regulated because the government sells off the airwaves rather than leaving the space to the free market. They make it so only huge wattage’s are legal and so they destroy all the little guys by regulating them out of existence. We need to get the FCC out of the game altogether and leave media licensing to the states and / or free market.
That’s worrisome. I can personally attest to this as I have recently been having trouble finding “independent” , as in reports only current events w/o commentary, sources for news. Recently I have especially been alarmed by obvious media “blackouts” specifically in the occupy wallstreet news and blatantly by all media vs. presidential candidate Ron Paul. Don’t infer this as political leaning. It’s just an example of a powerfull strategy that can be employed as a result of media conglomeration.
All of this is the result of FCC regulations. Consider radio for a moment… why don’t we have thousands of microbroadcast stations per state? It’s because the FCC only allows for huge 25,000 watt licenses. It’s illegal to run a small independent radio station. The truth is, radio equipment is extremely cheap (you can buy your own station with a 5 mile radius for about $1K) but the government attaches massive fees and wattage minimums to make it so only the big guys can get into the game. Everywhere you see corruption, if you look, you also see government- and the media is no exception.
One thing to think about…
This infographic seems to insinuate that some of this media money should be funneled into government programs. There were a few comparisons of the amount of money involved in something related to media compared with money spent on certain government programs.
All of this monopoly creating activity is from acts of government. If the media were a free market, there would be no consolidation.
Just like if investing were a free market, there would be no Wall Street.
So, this infographic tells an important tale (media is now very consolidated, unnaturally). But the same infographic is softly suggesting more of the cause of the problem—government.
Perhaps this infographic would spread further and help more if it were stripped of the “give us more of the cause of the problem” thinking?
you know, all i can think about when reading this…
Chomsky told us all of this decades ago.
What can we do to cause this knot to unravel?
I’m not sure that it matters who owns what and what the number actually are. In this economy WHO KNOWS what those numbers will be in a day from now. Everything is so up and down these days. And the affiliation with GE & Comcast… Who do you think makes that fancy little Comcast box that magically makes your TV talk? And the remote that makes it change with the press of a button. The fact of the matter is TV is a hypnotic death trap no matter who’s on top of the list. Its goes deeper than just that. It sends subliminal messages to our brains programming us the way the government wants us to think. We’re like little lab rats. Sad, but true.
What we see is the arts and media have consolidated to a few corporate hands so we don’t have any real competition for good art. They play it safe, produce generic art, and refuse to talk about independent artists opposed to this. We’re left with the Big 6, who do all three: make the art, distribute the art, then give themselves a great review on their review sites. The best way to break them up – is to allow them to do one of those 3 – make the art, distribute it, or review it, but not all three.
Not sure how old your info is, but there are 2 radio stations in Minot, ND that are not owned by Clear Channel.
Owned mass media does not equal media control. Especially in the complex media environment of 2012. While its important to remain aware of media consumption – to limit it to TV, cable, and traditional broadcast media is dishonest. Part if the reason broadcast production has been consolidated is due in part to the proliferation of alternate and digital media channels. (as I write this SNL is on in the background – clearly im more engaged with the web than TV)
Put it this way: in 1983 there was no Frugal Dad, or Facebook, YouTube, twitter or thousands of other content producing ‘channels’ that compete with mass media for our attention. Leaving these out of your graph assumes that its the same world as 1983 which its clearly NOT. There has never been a MORE diverse media production landscape and the existence of your website is proof of that.
Thank you for the graph and insight-but I think a major piece of the puzzle has been ommotted for dramatic effect (an unfortunate flaw often found in this otherwise wonderful new media landscape).
it is more like 5 companies considering Viacom and CBS are both majority owned by National Amusements and both are controlled by Sumner Redstone. They were split into two separate companies for stock reasons.
“Sumner Redstone, the family’s 83-year-old patriarch. He controls National Amusements, which owns 71 percent of the voting shares of CBS and Viacom.”
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5164430#ixzz1uE5Uqxa2
i guess if you choose not to decide what you think someone else will make those choices for you?
(might be a bit of a late response, my apologies)
Well done Jason, this is actually one of thee very best infographics I’ve seen … it succinctly tells the reader all the information they need to know. I didn’t realise that a small group of only 6 corporations with a total of 232 media executives ruled the media world. Thank you
I think its time for Chomsky.. Pretty good read even if you don’t want to watch his TV show.. Well that would be if he is every allowed on of course..