4 The Media Business and Conglomerates
By Dave Bostwick
OPENING EXAMPLE – THE BUSINESS OF ESPN
Most U.S. sports fans spend a lot of time watching ESPN. Beyond the on-air broadcasters, commentators, analysts and reporters, many other media workers contribute to what ESPN’s audiences see and hear. Writers, editors and graphic artists prepare special video packages for live games and various other shows, including SportsCenter. Camera operators and producers are crucial contributors, especially for live game coverage.
Walt Disney Company owns ESPN, and executives from Disney and ESPN have made strategic decisions about when to air certain games on which outlets, such as ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN+ and the SEC Network. Disney also owns ABC, so occasionally audiences can choose between competing broadcasts of the same big-time game offered live on ESPN and ABC, with different commentary and analysis on each network.
At some point during game broadcasts, a promotional item may suggest that viewers seek more live game info from the ESPN website or through a social media platform. And the ESPN website includes a link to an ESPN-branded gambling platform: ESPN BET.
For the most part, companies and their employees, not the U.S. government, make business decisions about the media content we consume. No governmental officials have told ESPN executives that they have to air certain games at certain times or promote specific items or actions while broadcasting a game.
MEDIA CONTROL
Let’s shift from ESPN to the broader landscape of U.S. media as a whole.
To a small degree, you could add the U.S. government to the list of gatekeepers on the opening flip card, but any direct governmental control is limited compared to most other countries. One 2024 survey of internet censorship shows the United States as one of the less-censored countries in the world, but still ranked behind Canada, Australia and several European and South American countries.
By contrast, the more restrictive countries include North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In these countries, content may be subject to government approval or created entirely by the governments themselves.
Many governments with internet infrastructure suppress criticism and protect power by banning foreign websites and platforms. As an example from 2023, Russia outlawed the independent news website Meduza, which is based in Latvia. And in 2024, Brazilian authorities banned X (formerly Twitter) and ordered Apple and Google to remove the X app from iOS and Android devices in Brazil.
In 2024, the organization Reporters Without Borders observed the concerning trend that “Press freedom around the world is being threatened by the very people who should be its guarantors – political authorities.”
The U.S. Constitution’s commitment to a free press ensures that we do not rely solely on state-controlled media outlets for our information and entertainment. The U.S. emphasis on capitalism also means that companies can make money from media products, with limited restrictions for new companies entering the marketplace.
Here’s a flip-card question to emphasize a key distinction.
That’s not to say that the U.S. government never intervenes in media matters, as you’ll read later in this chapter’s section about TikTok. Generally speaking, though, business owners have more control over media content than the U.S. government.
In the heyday of U.S. print newspapers and the printing press, a popular expression said that freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one. That concept from U.S. media history repeated itself in 2013 when Amazon founder Jeff Bezos purchased The Washington Post and in 2022 when Tesla co-founder Elon Musk acquired Twitter (which was soon rebranded as X).
Today, one could update that that expression to say that freedom of speech is guaranteed to those who own communications satellites. The New York Times’ Adam Satariano reported that Musk “is controlling this new, incredibly important area of communication in satellite internet” through hist Starlink company. According to Satariano’s podcast, in 2024 Musk and Starlink owned more than half of the 8,000 active satellites circling Earth.
MEDIA CONGLOMERATES
Some companies are so gargantuan that they own lots of other large companies. The chapter opening mentioned that the Disney conglomerate owns ESPN and ABC, for example. Please spend some time exploring the labeled web links in the following seven presentation slides, paying attention to the companies and assets owned by each media conglomerate.
Study the presentation slides by using the forward button or clicking on sections of the control bar. To enlarge any interactive presentation in this book, click on the lower-right full-screen option (arrows).
Conglomerates occasionally grow so large that the federal government intervenes. For Google in 2024, that intervention occurred when a judge ruled that Google had become a monopoly that prevented fair competition. For example, Google made deals with Apple for Google to be the default search engine for the Safari web browser on iPhones, iPads and Mac computers, thus limiting consumers’ choices for online search tools and dissuading other companies from developing new search engines.
Another case brought by the Justice Department questioned Google’s monopoly in online advertising markets. In short, as a New York Times article summarized, Google’s fate became uncertain.
ABOUT BYTEDANCE
One additional media conglomerate we should discuss is ByteDance, which is based in China.
According to a 2023 New York Times article, “many U.S. lawmakers and regulators in the United States argue that TikTok can share sensitive data about the location, personal habits and interests of Americans with the Chinese government, and that the app can be used to spread propaganda.”
The NY Times article also noted that “TikTok itself is not available in China — users there must access a different ByteDance app, which follows Chinese government directives on censorship and propaganda.”
Also in 2023, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Face the Nation that the Chinese equivalent of TikTok gives Chinese youth far more STEM-related content to shape their interests toward those careers. Conversely, in the United States, popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X and Snapchat are not required to shape their content to push younger users toward educational goals, such as promoting STEM careers.
Subsequently, in 2024, members of the U.S. Congress passed legislation, signed into law by President Biden, to ban TikTok nationwide or force ByteDance to sell TikTok. This decision relates to the earlier chapter section titled “Media Control” as the Chinese government can require Chinese companies (such as ByteDance) to share user data and run businesses in a manner that benefits the government. This is typically not the case for U.S. media companies.
In January 2024, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified during a U.S. Senate inquiry about Online Child Safety , which led to this confrontation between Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Chew.
Hawley’s style at times is confrontational, but this is not just a Republican vs. Democrat debate. In a separate Congressional proceeding, U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democrat from Texas, also expressed concerns to Chew about TikTok’s data sharing with the Chinese government.
At one point in the interaction with Senator Hawley, the TikTok CEO said, “Senator, as we know, the media doesn’t always get it right.” Given TikTok’s prominence and impact in the U.S. media landscape, this can seem ironic. Chew’s comment suggests “the media” is a singular entity that does not include TikTok.
NET NEUTRALITY
Now we’ll look at an evolving debate related to internet control and access in the United States.
Differing views about net neutrality have raged for more than two decades. Here’s a fun (but maybe opinionated) 2018 video from Burger King that tries to explain net neutrality via the Whopper.
The video is humorous and provides an interesting case study in corporate advertising for public relations advocacy. The video isn’t directly trying to sell Whoppers; instead, it tries to make viewers feel as if Burger King is on their side about the need for net neutrality.
For our purpose in this chapter, though, the video effectively frames one part of the net neutrality debate: Should media companies be allowed to control tiers of internet access and content?
As a simple example, if Media Business A pays an internet service company to prioritize speedy online connections for consumers to access streaming content from Media Business A, does this put the much smaller Media Business B at an unfair disadvantage? Media Business B may be new and unable to pay an internet service company so that consumers enjoy speedier connections.
(Or put another way, would it be OK for Netflix to pay internet service companies more money to ensure the Netflix subscribers have a faster, more reliable connection, even if that puts some of Netflix’s smaller competitors at a disadvantage?)
Let’s consider a few policy questions in the following presentation.
Study the presentation slides by using the forward button or clicking on sections of the control bar. To enlarge any interactive presentation in this book, click on the lower-right full-screen option (arrows).
One net neutrality group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, provides this definition: “Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services.”
The evolving debate has already taken several twists and turns. Net neutrality laws were repealed in 2018. However, in 2024 the Federal Communications Commission reclassified broadband as a public utility, such as water and electricity, which strengthens the government’s ability to monitor and enforce net neutrality regulations.
A key question in the net neutrality debate is whether internet access should be considered a right or a privilege.
DATA COLLECTION AND PROTECTION
We’ve briefly discussed who controls what we see, watch, read, and hear in U.S. media. Due to widespread adoption of the internet, we could add one more question. Who controls and safeguards the data that is collected as we consume and interact with mass media platforms?
Through IP addresses and other personal identifiers, it’s easy for media conglomerates to collect data for future research or sales. With artificial intelligence, some of these processes become more automated.
A programmer for Research Company A can collect data and include a privacy statement about data usage for research only. That may not prevent Data Company B from purchasing Research Company A’s data and then selling it to advertisers (now twice removed from the source) or Advertising Company C.
For example, an investigative article in Vice described how the U.S. military bought location data from ordinary apps. It featured this subheadline:
A Muslim prayer app with over 98 million downloads is one of the apps connected to a wide-ranging supply chain that sends ordinary people’s personal data to brokers, contractors, and the military.
The article noted that several app developers “did not know their users’ location data was being sent to defense contractors.”
More recently, a New York Times report chronicled how the Pentagon tried to hide that it bought Americans’ data without a warrant. The article detailed the workaround for law enforcement officials to purchase broad swaths of data rather than target individual users’ phone records.
Obtaining location data from U.S. phones normally requires a warrant, but police and intelligence agencies routinely pay companies instead for the data, effectively circumventing the courts.
CLOSING THOUGHT
You’ve read about large global media conglomerates that seek to profit from worldwide consumers. You’ve also read about some countries’ attempts to limit or control citizens’ access to outside information. Note the competing interests in the previous two sentences.
You may occasionally hear the term “walled gardens” referring to each country having its own rules for governmental control of media. In the future, large media companies may be forced to alter products, entertainment and information based on the conflicting rules in hundreds of worldwide walled gardens.
FILL IN THE BLANKS
MEDIA CONGLOMERATES
Pick two of the major conglomerates included in this chapter’s presentation about media conglomerates. As a reminder, here are your choices.
The links above and in the chapter presentation about media conglomerates will be good starting points, but you can search for additional information outside the chapter content if needed. Be sure to explore each conglomerate thoroughly. Don’t just rely on copying or rephrasing website promotional text in your responses.
TASK A – List five more prominent media outlets, companies or products that each one of your two selected conglomerates owns. Pick examples with which you are familiar or want to learn more about; don’t automatically list the first five you see on each conglomerate website.
(You will list 5 companies for each conglomerate for a total of 10 companies)
TASK B – Write at least two separate paragraphs (at least one paragraph for each conglomerate) detailing what surprised you most in your research about the two conglomerates you studied, especially related to your personal media usage. Avoid repeating PR content from the conglomerate websites if that content is used to promote how a conglomerate contributes to the health and well-being of society. Follow journalistic style with no more than three sentences per paragraph.