Whom Do You Anti-Trust?
Rupert Murdock, owner of countless newspapers, television stations and satellite services around the world—from his native Australia to England to China and all across America—just bought the Wall Street Journal. Media consolidation must be such a given that he has no fear of anti-trust action. The government must not be concerned about the super-concentration of news, analysis and opinion in a few corporations.
Okay, if that’s their judgment. Maybe they’re right. But, why then are the Feds staying up long sleepless nights worrying themselves sick that if Whole Foods gobbles up Wild Oats our society will be harmed? Does having too much organic brown rice controlled by one corporation limit our access to organic brown rice? Is there such a thing as too much brown rice?
I am so confused—and I do not use this as a rhetorical device. I really don’t understand our anti-trust laws. I’m not sure anyone does. What is clear is that this is not an inherently partisan issue—although any issue can be spun in a partisan manner.
In this age of mergers and acquisitions, I have no way of predicting what will get the Feds involved and what will pass as benign. Does anyone understand this? I would hate to believe that anti-trust only applies to small monopolies and once you get big enough you can corner any market by buying (or renting) enough politicians.
Comments
No, Jonathan, I can't claim I understand our antitrust laws, either. BUT, I suspect one difference in the examples you cite is that -- in the era of blogs, 800 channels, the web, satellite radio and TV -- media monopolization simply isn't the threat it was back in the day when there were far fewer media sources. The flow of rice, on the other hand, isn't as free as the flow of information, so maybe this is why the feds monitor it so closely.
Just a guess.
Posted by: Chris Weinkopf | August 1, 2007 2:28 PM