IT COULD BE, BUT IT'S NOT.
(Original unedited version. View printed version)
January 3, 2000

The mergers of Disney and ABC, Time Warner and Turner, ATT and TCI, as well as the expansion of Newscorp and Fox have not been in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

I have noticed during my career in television that included service at CBS, Viacom, Columbia Pictures, Polygram, and MGM that the greater the power of these organizations, the greater their predisposition to abuse.

I was recently contacted by the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice and did in fact speak to a number of attorneys and economists who were reviewing the acquisition by Viacom of CBS. They were not thrilled with my comments, as I perceive they were looking for examples of abuse and potential abuse that would be created by this consolidation. I am aware that there is a great interest in the independent production community concerning the concentration of media power in general terms and that the vast majority of the writers, producers, and directors realize that their opportunities as owners and entrepreneurs will diminish in future, and they will be relegated to the role of highly paid employees.

I could tell by the lack of response from "justice" when I told them that my personal concern was not about the abuses that would follow from the consolidation of Viacom and CBS or was it about "who gets the money". I was speaking as a concerned American about the continuing concentration of media power that this merger would create.

Is it a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to control the Fox Network, 15 TV stations, Fox News, Fox Sports, Fox Family Channel, 20th Century Fox, Fox Animation, Fox Searchlight, The Times, New York Post, The Times of London, Harper Collins, Weekly Standard, Mushroom Records, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and much more?

Is it a good idea for Gerald Levin to control the WB Network, HBO, TNT, TBS, CNN, CNNfn, CNNSI, Cinemax, Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, Hanna-Barbera, Castle Rock, Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, 28 other magazines, Warner Books, Little Brown, Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic, Elektra, Sire, Rhino, Atlanta Braves, Atlanta Hawks, World Champion Wrestling, Time Warner Cable, and much more?

Is it a good idea for Michael Eisner to control ABC-TV and ABC Radio, 10 TV and 30 radio stations, ESPN, Disney Channel, A&E, E!, Lifetime, Miramax, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone, Hollywood, Hyperion, ESPN Magazine, Walt Disney Records, Mammoth, Lyric Street, Parks in Florida, California, France, and Japan, Anaheim Angels, Mighty Ducks, Disney Stores, Go Network Internet Portal, and much more?

Is it a good idea for Sumner Redstone to control CBS, Infinity Radio (163 stations), 34 TV stations, UPN, MTV, TNN, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Paramount TV, Spelling, Viacom, Simon & Schuster, Famous Music Publishing, Five Paramount parks, Blockbuster Video, outdoor advertising, Red Rocket online toy store, SportsLine, and much more?

If it is not possible for an entity to own a newspaper and a radio station in the same market, why should these four giant media companies be allowed to speak with as many voices as they do in so many situations in the United States while there are so many Americans who have no voice at all. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Industry people believe that a principal issue in these mergers has been the repeal of the financial interest and syndication ruling. It could be, but it is not. People also believe that this merger will eliminate independent producers and independent production companies. It could be, but it is not. The mergers could be about writers, actors, and directors being less able to secure large compensation packages from studios and networks. It could be, but it's not. It could be about young, creative people not getting access into a controlled media system. It could, be but it's not. It could be that these media giants are "pushing people around". It could be, but it's not. In its simplest terms, it could be about "who gets the money?" It could be, but it's not.

From the beginning of television in this country, three unelected Americans, Bill Paley, David Sarnoff, and Leonard Goldenson, decided what America watched on television. They decided what news was reported, who reported it, how often it was reported, and in what time period it was reported. More importantly, they could decide what news was not reported or minimally reported. They decided what documentaries were produced, who produced them, and when they were broadcast. They decided what investigative reporting was to be done and who would do it. They also decided what investigative reporting wouldn't be done. If they opposed the war in Vietnam, their coverage reflected that opposition. If they supported Desert Storm, this was reflected in their broadcast as well.

The programs that they presented persist today as re-runs carried on cable and satellite. The same programs are used by broadcasters throughout the world and their content has been supplied to billions of people outside of the United States who consider who we are as a society based on these programs.

Prior to the mergers, there were significant numbers of theatrical and television production and distribution companies financed in a variety of ways. They are virtually all gone today. The stand-alone companies of significance are Seagram/Universal, MGM, Sony/Columbia Pictures, Pearson (a British-based media company), and Carsey-Werner. Even the powerful Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has gone silent in its criticism of network power in the media in that its most powerful members now control network outlets. Another voice has been silenced.

While this may be an unfair characterization, the media moguls of the mid 20th Century have been supplanted by the media tyrants of the 21st Century who will control the vast majority of what we see in all forms of television, what we learn about our world, what news we hear, what documentaries are made, and most importantly, have purview over our electoral process, by exposing or not exposing candidates to the electorate in a manner never envisioned by the FCC, Justice Department, or in fact by the framers of our Constitution.

Will there be a more pervasive influence in our upcoming national election than Redstone/Viacom/CBS, Levin/Time-Warner/Turner, Eisner/Disney/ABC, Murdoch/Newscorp/Fox, Welch/GE/NBC, and perhaps Malone/ATT/TCI/Liberty Media? I doubt it.

Our nation could speak with many voices, but we don't. It's scary, isn't it?

Back to Articles