Talk:Media cross-ownership in the United States

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

To-do list for Media cross-ownership in the United States: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-07-21 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Citing sources : References to FCC-hosted .pdf versions of TCA1996 and CA1934 are dead links.

Firstly, let me thank Zorantb for starting this article in their sandbox. It is a great start. A few things to note and/or discuss:

• All Wikipedia articles should ideally begin with the article's title, if not in the first few words, then somewhere in the first sentence. The article title should be in bold. See
  first sentence
  .
• The article will now need
  WP:Sections
  . Any proposals of what these sections can be?
• The "big six" section looks messy. Do you think it will look better in a table? If not, how can we make it so that the prose flows better?
• The article currently has two sources. This is considered very minimal. If you look at Wikipedia's best articles, called
  Featured articles
  , you will see that every single sentence or paragraph is sourced. How can we expand this article from additional sources?
• The article needs to be wikified. Anyone willing to help?

These are a few things to think about, and for us to discuss. I look forward to your input. – SMasters (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to add... Don't be afraid to expand or add to the article.

Be bold! We can always revert anything that is not right later. And importantly, do have fun. Wikipedia is fun. If it was not, there would not be millions of us working on it. Finally, don't forget to note down what you are doing in the edit summary. That way, we can keep track of what is going on easily. – SMasters (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't panic about all the tags that have been placed on the article – this is a normal process. What we need to do now is to address each tag, and once it's done, we can remove them. GeorgeLouis is correct above, in saying that we need to remove the "we"s from the article. The prose will need to be re-worded so that the meaning remains the same. I have also set-up a to-do list above. Please go through each one, and if you fix one of the items, you can remove it and put a note here at the bottom so we know who did what. Happy editing! – SMasters (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

This is a great start! You should start working on the valuable feedback you got from your mentor. Plus, I see no academic articles on your reference list. This will soon be a problem. consider expanding your reference section while incorporating the class requirements. Please contact me if you have any troubles finding such articles. And consider signing up for lab sessions if you haven't already. They proved to be very useful for other groups so far. Elifyilmaz (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Elifyilmaz[reply]

We need add arguments "for" and "against" media cross-ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorantb (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a table for the six corporations. I also wanted to pictures of each, but need to figure out how to do that. I'll get in touch with our mentor. Anyway, we just need to write up good arguments for and against - and a nice conclusion and we'll be home free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorantb (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added pictures instead of just having the names in the tables. Zorantb (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and edited the material somewhat. Mostly pertaining to the usage of "we". I'm going to find some academic citations for the article as well. Cthomas1264 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to rename the article "Media cross-ownership in the United States" because even though it's a world-wide problem,this article doesn't talk about anything outside the US. It focusses too much on broadcasting, which is only one facet - the FCC doesn't regulate newspapers or publishing. The tone is a little odd, too - regulating "our" airwaves, etc. - should be less essay-like. How is this topic different from Concentration of media ownership which covers the same subject in different words? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Chris, I'm currently finishing up the arguments section - just have to finish McChesney's points and add one more opposition. If you can, let me finish up what I'm doing before you go and edit the articles with corrections and more citations - I might lose my train of thought if words/citations start missing. :P Thanks!

Wtshymanski, the FCC regulates broadcasting ownership - which it allowed cross-ownership between, say, radio and newspapers.

Zorantb (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished adding arguments for cross-ownership for McChesney and Compaine. I'll go over and edit any mistakes that I may have made, and try to add more citations where we need some. Either way, this is pretty close to the final version for the class.

Zorantb (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much in quotations - see Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I'll start turning some of those lengthy quotations into paraphrased lines. - Zorantb (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media cross-ownership has a long and contentious history in the United States. It continues to be one of the central media ownership regulations debated by the FCC to this day. The fact that Wikipedia did not have an article on the topic was very surprising to me, thus, the primary reason that I added it to the list of topics for students to address in our class. Do not merge the two. While they are related, there is much to be written about cross-ownership that should appear here, that does not appear yet.
In particular, I am slightly concerned that so much attention has been paid to the biggest of media conglomerates, perhaps the primary reason that this merger discussion began. Cross-ownership isn't just about big companies. This is something that I think this article should address. Jaobar (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between "media cross-ownership" and "media concentration" ? These seem to be identical concepts. Please explain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-ownership is a form of concentration, a form with a very complex and fascinating history (at least to media policy scholars). If we're just merging all similar topics together, then why have a duopoly page, or convergence pages? These all have to do with media concentration, but I would imagine that they all have their own articles because they are each unique issues that should be explored. I would encourage you to read some of the articles cited on this page for further information. A quick reading will demonstrate how the debate over cross-ownership (not necessarily concentration) has been the central focus of the FCC's recent media ownership reviews. I can also tell you that the term "concentration" is quite loaded, media companies can be cross-owned, and not represent media concentration. Would you consider a cross-owned company that owns one newspaper and one radio station an example of media concentration? Jaobar (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes - if Rupert Murdoch owns my local TV station and my local newspaper (and a lot of communities only have one local broadsheet daily), then that's media concentration. Suppose Murdoch was a militant radical fundamentalist Buddhist and refused to take any ads for grocery stores that sold meat?--Wtshymanski (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about a media conglomerate owning the two outlets in a local market, I was referring to a smaller company that happens to be involved in cross-ownership. Again cross-ownership doesn't necessarily mean concentration, see works by Compaine and others that have argued for low

Herfindahl index scores in the media industry. Jaobar (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Why isn't it considred cross-ownership and media concentration if it's even the first pair of media outlets Rupert Murdoch ( a different Rupert Murdoch, say, not the well-known Australian media tycoon) buys? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seduced into the typical Wikierror of using cheap content available from the Web as a substitute for the REAL history of media concentration in the United States. We don't care when the FCC published rule thus-and-so, what we need is a year by year account of how newspapers and broadcasters are falling into fewer and fewer hands! The FCC does what's its told to do...we need the history of the decision-makers, not the history of the rubber stamp committee. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, at some point, I think we need to possibly add info about AT&T's recent merger with Time Warner to this article. In my opinion, it's rather relevant/important. If anyone has any different opinion about this, please let me know. Mr. Brain (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the source used for this statement: "In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.[2]" It links to this page, which doesn't cite any source for it's 90% claim. This sentence should be removed or revised to have factual backing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshhsk2016 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a month since that, we need to update it. Also, I'm gonna be fixing the revenues.

Freedom4U (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for nitpicking, but some serious fixing needs to be done about the media graph on the top right hand of the article. For example, the Fox Broadcasting Company is not under the Disney umbrella. It's still under the Fox Corporation. Some media outlets need to be added to the graph, plus it also needs to be enlarged. Mr. Brain (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compaine believes that due to convergence, two or more things coming together, the media has been saved. Because of the ease of access to send the same message across multiple and different mediums, the message is more likely to be heard. He also believes that due to the higher amount of capital and funding, the media outlets are able to stay competitive because they are trying to reach more listeners or readers by using newer media.

Benjamin Compaine's main argument is that the consolidation of media outlets, across multiple ownerships, has allowed for a better quality of content. He also stated that the news is interchangeable, and as such, making the media market less concentrated than previously thought, the idea being that since the same story is being pushed across multiple different platforms, then it can only be counted as one news story from multiple sources. Compaine also believed the news is more readily available, making it far easier for individuals to access than traditional methods.

In what way is a destruction of differing plural voices, leading to a single narrative plugged by all the seemingly different outlets, beneficial; or in any way different to having a single State Media ?

I get that the US media as a whole generally believes Trump the Devil; and that GM foods should not be labelled as such; and that there is a necessity for Nuclear Power; and that the US Constitution is the pinnacle of God's Achievement, and fair play to them --- but why is only one same message on any issue coming from all sides ideal ? Claverhouse (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should'nt Roku be added in the video section or in this article somewhere atleast? Looks like it really is becoming a very big player in media and has maybe the most number of AVOD subs in US. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by