why media consolidation is NOT a good thing

[Garrett Wollman]

<<On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:36:39 -0400, "Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@psu.edu> said:

> The Sinclairs of the world seem more apt to push their agendas on the
> viewers. I don't remember a Group W having a party-line agenda all of its
> stations adhered to.

I think this is in large part because they can, where a Westinghouse
could not easily do so.  That is to say: Sinclair, for all that it's a
public company, is effectively controlled by one person.  If he has an
agenda, he can use his control of the company to further that agenda
(to the extent that the law does not provide otherwise).  A large
conglomerate like Westinghouse was or GE is does not have the same
sort of freedom of action: they are expected to manage their
properties in relentless pursuit of shareholder value -- so any
corporate agenda they have is likely to be much less personal, not to
mention smoothed out to some degree by the additional layers of
management and corporate structure.

I don't see anyone here complaining about Paul La Camera's editorials
on WCVB, which IIRC were mandated by Hearst corporate (from the
pre-Argyle days).

-GAWollman