The mergers which have created giant communications conglomerates led by moguls such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch affect consumers both negatively and positively. The primary positive effects are the technological advances made, while the major negative effect is the commercialization of products, including entertainment, news and information. The incredible amounts of money involved in acquiring and operating huge communications media organizations make it inevitable that the decisions made by the leaders of those organizations will be based on little but economic pros and cons. This means that the aim of the giant communications organization is to sell advertising, which means in turn that the primary consideration is the number of viewers, listeners, readers, including their age and spending capacity. When profits are considered above all else, the value of the product--whether entertainment, news, or information--can only suffer. The lower the common denominator at which the media aim its product and advertising, the more watered-down is the product to appeal to the biggest audience.
In a democracy, this is particularly dangerous, for true democracy depends on a fully informed electorate. When the media are run by people who do not want to upset their audience, who do not want to drive away that audience, who want only to expand that audience, the needs of a democracy are not important.
In addition, the media conglomerate will be very unlikely to disseminate information which could be damaging to itself, its reputation, its stockholders, or its income. The larger the conglomerates due to mergers and acquisitions, the more controlled will be the information disseminated to the people. Inevitably, the people, their institutions, and democracy as a whole will suffer.
The argument of the moguls and their representatives, of course, is that the developing technology (made possible in part by the wealth of the conglomer...