6 ms·

>> Today, just six conglomerates — Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Sony, Fox, and Paramount Global (formerly known as ViacomCBS) — control 90% of what you watch, read, o

>> Today, just six conglomerates — Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Sony, Fox, and Paramount Global (formerly known as ViacomCBS) — control 90% of what you watch, read, or listen to. No google/youtube? No twitter? No facebook? Is this article from the past? Most people do not get their information from the television and so I doubt these six control most of anything.

cphoover 5y ago
Don't forget Reddit and Hacker News
woodruffw 5y ago
> Most people do not get their information from the television and so I doubt these six control most of anything. I know a lot of people who get the majority of their news either from television, or from media properties that they would see on TV, but via the Internet instead. But I understood part of the point of the article to not be solely about "news" per se, but about general produced media content. And if that's the case, then the list given makes sense to me (Facebook doesn't make TV shows, at least that I know of.)
- irrational 5y ago
  The only people that I know of that still get the majority of their news from TV is people of my parents generation, who are in their 70s. I’m in my 50s and none of my acquaintances of a similar age watch broadcast TV, or even use social media.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    In the most recent Pew survey on media habits, TV was still far and away the leading source of news. For people who prefer to use a computer, tablet or phone to read the news, the websites of traditional media companies was their preference. Nothing else even approaches the popularity of traditional news orgs. And for people who do get news from social media, Facebook is the most popular source by a large margin. So you may not know any TV watchers outside of your parents (which is also true for me), there are somehow millions and millions of TV news watchers out there.
    - lupire 5y ago
      Suppose I watch Fox News for an hour and then read Reddit for an hour (either posts, linked articles, or comments, your choice). How is that counted? I am reading 5-10x as much content on Reddit as I am seeing/hearing on TV.
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        Not sure but when asked which medium they preferred, respondents ranked all social media (including Reddit) a distant fourth. Among social media sites Reddit was 5th, behind Instagram, in terms of how many people said they used it specifically for news. This particular survey does not seem to ask about time spent. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2021/09/PJ_2021.09.20_News-and-Social-Media_TOPLINE.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/si...
      - irrational 5y ago
        What are you reading on reddit? All I read on there is subs about hobbies of mine like r/woodworking and r/baking and r/boardgames.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    I’m in my 50s and none of my acquaintances of a similar age watch broadcast TV, or even use social media. It doesn't matter if they're instead binging tv shows on streaming platforms produced by production studios owned by those 6 companies. In fact, it doesn't even matter if they are binging youtube channels or tiktok "influencers", all of which are seemingly independent, but are in fact being funded by new media studios owned by those 6 companies. Those companies control a lot more than you think. The fact that people are unaware of it is a feature of that control, not a bug.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  For general media, Netflix/Amazon? iTunes? ThePirateBay? PornHub? The number of organizations generating and/or delivering content so vast and diverse that I cannot understand how any small group could get their hands around most of anything. I watched a Doctor Who episode today (horrible, bad effects, bad acting). Which of the six owns the BBC?
  - uoaei 5y ago
    Is there some law that says you should always experience what 90% of people experience?
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    > Netflix/Amazon? iTunes? ThePirateBay? Most of the content on any of these is produced by companies on the OP's list. > PornHub I mean, it's likely that in general this kind of estimate is ignoring things that are not considered savory so porn is gonna be underrepresented for sure. It's probably not going to move the needle as much as you think though. > BBC A lot of BBC's content is produced outside this set of companies, but it's likely that some of it is at least co-produced with companies on the list, usually for the sake of international distribution. This probably counts as some degree of 'control', which doesn't necessarily imply direct ownership. Outside of the BBC, on the private British networks (and in general wrt any regional media production) this kind of co-production arrangement is really common.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Much of the media gets their "news" from other media. Take Jan 2021 for example. Remember how quickly "insurection" proliferated? Just an example, but this happens all the time. These "news" outlets are so desperate to be relevate and keep the clicks clicking (and revenue chaching'ing) that they reiterate without little or no filter. Better to parrot than to be left behind. The current system rewards parrotting more than it does discretion.
Barrin92 5y ago
Google, Youtube and Facebook aren't news producers, they aggregate and provide content in feed form. First order journalism, the people that actually point the cameras at things are largely the mentioned commercial institutions, the rest is commentary.
- propagandist 5y ago
  - People are spending all (slight hyperbole) their time on those platforms, - The news is informed by the content on the platforms The platforms control the information and they control what people see as the "news".
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    The previous poster does have a point though. A lot of the 'news' people see on Facebook and the like are simply shared from other news outlets on facebook. Facebook doesn't produce the news but it disseminates it. Because of this some countries even wanted to impose a facebook tax. Like Australia.
    - propagandist 5y ago
      Sure, but they are also the arbiter of truth now. FB tried to be purely a platform but society has asked them to "annotate" fake news or propaganda. So FB is now playing an editorial role. However we got here, it's not a great place to be in. We have massive networks that we cannot escape which are actively firewalling information.
      - harry8 5y ago
        >FB tried to be purely a platform That is /so/ much nonsense. Doesn't matter how you editorialize by controlling what people see including with a trained algorithm optimized for "engagement" that tends to be pretty similar to "outrage." The second you "promote" a wider engagement on any article or topic at the expense of another you aren't pure or anything like it. And we'd be heroically naive if we really were willing to bet our own lives on someone not "tweaking" the algo for their own beliefs along the chain somewhere. I know I would if I saw too many pro-nazi content promoted, for example and that is editorial with nothing at all "pure" about it. FB has never, ever been a "purely a platform" other than in their own PR releases. Censoring because politicians tell them to do it is a wholly different issue on top of that.
hamstergene 5y ago
They host but don’t control content via e.g. editorial policy, ideology or private interests. To push a movie to Disney+ one needs their agreement to take it. YouTube allows anyone to post anything (aside from infringing or illegal).
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> They host but don’t control content Not according to professional content creators. Every one I have ever talked to openly states that they regularly alter their content to optimize compliance with youtube algorithms. Content is controlled, promoted, diminished, monetized or eliminated by the algorithms which are the embodiment of youtube's policy decisions. If you want to actually make a living on youtube, you will care as much about what youtube thinks of your content as you do your viewers.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Not everyone is looking to make a living via YouTube.
    - lupire 5y ago
      But everyone producing ~90% of the view minutes is.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > They host but don’t control content via e.g. editorial policy, ideology or private interests. They absolutely do control content, by banning content that violates the TOS. And they do make editorial decisions in terms of what content they promote, and what is rewarded by monetization. And to be clear there isn't anything nefarious about this, nor does it cause these platforms to lose Section 230 protections (despite how often people claim it does).
disabled 5y ago
Luckily, I have a print-related disability. So... * I get access to 1,100,295 DRM-free books in several formats (including Word, EPUB, computer-narrated audio) via Bookshare.org [~$50/year] * I get access to 40,000+ professionally narrated books via the National Library Service through the Library of Congress in the US [Free] * I get access to 80,000+ volunteer narrated books via LearningAlly.org (formerly Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic) [$135/year] * I get access to hundreds of magazines and newspapers, including breaking news services, via the National Federation for the Blind NewsLine [Free] * I get reciprocity with other countries' libraries for the print-disabled around the world, which is useful as I am learning new languages. [Usually Free] This is nice because I also never have a need to go to websites that serve ads to me. Of course it's called uBlock Origin and using ProtonVPN with Anti-tracking + Ad-blocking features plus such as a Pi-Hole...but still...I have it good. More info on print-related disabilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_disability The best way to get access to all of these services is to get your doctor to sign the National Library Service application form: https://www.loc.gov/nls/enrollment-equipment/apply-for-nls-service/ https://www.loc.gov/nls/enrollment-equipment/apply-for-nls-s...
- lupire 5y ago
  Even if you aren't print disabled, tut can join a library and Archive.org and get access to similar content (in online written form).
brightball 5y ago
As of a week ago AT&T spun all of that into Warner Discovery.
qiskit 5y ago
Don't forget apple and amazon. People always forget about amazon and their media offerings tied to Prime membership. But I agree, tech monopolies are just as worrying as the media monopolies. I'd imagine the next period of consolidation will be tech + media. With the amount of cash tech companies have lying around and the market cap differential between tech and media, these media conglomerates would be absorbed without a sweat.
ajross 5y ago
> Most people do not get their information from the television Uh... yes they do. Most people in your particular subculture probably don't. I don't. But the majority of "news" consumption in the modern west happens via live television.
- lupire 5y ago
  In what age bracket?
- FpUser 5y ago
  I have relatives well into their 80s. Not a single one watches TV. Internet on computers only.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-e... >86% get their news from digital devices >68% get their news from television The death of TV news is being overstated by the above poster but it's certainly no longer the dominant form of news media. Among the younger age demographics on Hacker News I really can't imagine many people are willing to tolerate the insufferable cable news format with massive and frequent ad breaks.
ozzythecat 5y ago
I get news from all of the providers you listed, but they don’t produce the content. The actual content is from the big media companies like CNBC, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, and NY Times. These online media are content aggregators. They help socialize and propagate narratives, but they don’t produce narratives. They certainly amplify the echo chamber effect.
- kibwen 5y ago
  > big media companies like CNBC, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, and NY Times Of those, the six companies mentioned by the grandparent (Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Sony, Fox, Paramount) only own CNBC and Fox. CNN is owned by Warner Bros, WSJ is owned by News Corp (of course, the link to Fox through Murdoch is relevant), and NYT is its own company.
  - michaelf77 5y ago
    Warner Bros is owned by AT&T Fox is owned by News Corp same as WSJ So the only one not covered by the "big 6" of the original article is NYT
    - kibwen 5y ago
      AT&T divested Warner last year, and I believe Fox and News Corp are technically independent (again, the Murdoch link).
mdoms 5y ago
I doubt I have consumed single thing from any of these companies for at least a month. If I have it would have been hate-shared with me at some point.
rmbyrro 5y ago
90% of what I read comes from HN Heck, I even check HN for book recommendations. Does that count in the %? If yes, it's 98%
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Do your research about ycombinator. HN articles don't write about owners of HN so much.
root_axis 5y ago
How is it that one is controlled by the various websites they voluntarily visit?
jimmytucson 5y ago
Indeed, it must be no fewer than 9 companies!
Sophistifunk 5y ago
But the fallback these content delivery networks always use to avoid regulatory scrutiny is always to promote these traditional producers at the expense of independent voices.
Jxl180 5y ago
> No Google/YouTube Some of the most famous channels are owned and managed by Disney (formerly maker studios) and AT&T (through Fullscreen/Warner Bros)

cphoover 5y ago

Don't forget Reddit and Hacker News

woodruffw 5y ago

> Most people do not get their information from the television and so I doubt these six control most of anything. I know a lot of people who get the majority of their news either from television, or from media properties that they would see on TV, but via the Internet instead. But I understood part of the point of the article to not be solely about "news" per se, but about general produced media content. And if that's the case, then the list given makes sense to me (Facebook doesn't make TV shows, at least that I know of.)

irrational 5y ago
The only people that I know of that still get the majority of their news from TV is people of my parents generation, who are in their 70s. I’m in my 50s and none of my acquaintances of a similar age watch broadcast TV, or even use social media.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  In the most recent Pew survey on media habits, TV was still far and away the leading source of news. For people who prefer to use a computer, tablet or phone to read the news, the websites of traditional media companies was their preference. Nothing else even approaches the popularity of traditional news orgs. And for people who do get news from social media, Facebook is the most popular source by a large margin. So you may not know any TV watchers outside of your parents (which is also true for me), there are somehow millions and millions of TV news watchers out there.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Suppose I watch Fox News for an hour and then read Reddit for an hour (either posts, linked articles, or comments, your choice). How is that counted? I am reading 5-10x as much content on Reddit as I am seeing/hearing on TV.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      Not sure but when asked which medium they preferred, respondents ranked all social media (including Reddit) a distant fourth. Among social media sites Reddit was 5th, behind Instagram, in terms of how many people said they used it specifically for news. This particular survey does not seem to ask about time spent. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2021/09/PJ_2021.09.20_News-and-Social-Media_TOPLINE.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/si...
    - irrational 5y ago
      What are you reading on reddit? All I read on there is subs about hobbies of mine like r/woodworking and r/baking and r/boardgames.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  I’m in my 50s and none of my acquaintances of a similar age watch broadcast TV, or even use social media. It doesn't matter if they're instead binging tv shows on streaming platforms produced by production studios owned by those 6 companies. In fact, it doesn't even matter if they are binging youtube channels or tiktok "influencers", all of which are seemingly independent, but are in fact being funded by new media studios owned by those 6 companies. Those companies control a lot more than you think. The fact that people are unaware of it is a feature of that control, not a bug.
sandworm101 5y ago
For general media, Netflix/Amazon? iTunes? ThePirateBay? PornHub? The number of organizations generating and/or delivering content so vast and diverse that I cannot understand how any small group could get their hands around most of anything. I watched a Doctor Who episode today (horrible, bad effects, bad acting). Which of the six owns the BBC?
- uoaei 5y ago
  Is there some law that says you should always experience what 90% of people experience?
- stormbrew 5y ago
  > Netflix/Amazon? iTunes? ThePirateBay? Most of the content on any of these is produced by companies on the OP's list. > PornHub I mean, it's likely that in general this kind of estimate is ignoring things that are not considered savory so porn is gonna be underrepresented for sure. It's probably not going to move the needle as much as you think though. > BBC A lot of BBC's content is produced outside this set of companies, but it's likely that some of it is at least co-produced with companies on the list, usually for the sake of international distribution. This probably counts as some degree of 'control', which doesn't necessarily imply direct ownership. Outside of the BBC, on the private British networks (and in general wrt any regional media production) this kind of co-production arrangement is really common.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
Much of the media gets their "news" from other media. Take Jan 2021 for example. Remember how quickly "insurection" proliferated? Just an example, but this happens all the time. These "news" outlets are so desperate to be relevate and keep the clicks clicking (and revenue chaching'ing) that they reiterate without little or no filter. Better to parrot than to be left behind. The current system rewards parrotting more than it does discretion.

Barrin92 5y ago

Google, Youtube and Facebook aren't news producers, they aggregate and provide content in feed form. First order journalism, the people that actually point the cameras at things are largely the mentioned commercial institutions, the rest is commentary.

propagandist 5y ago
- People are spending all (slight hyperbole) their time on those platforms, - The news is informed by the content on the platforms The platforms control the information and they control what people see as the "news".
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  The previous poster does have a point though. A lot of the 'news' people see on Facebook and the like are simply shared from other news outlets on facebook. Facebook doesn't produce the news but it disseminates it. Because of this some countries even wanted to impose a facebook tax. Like Australia.
  - propagandist 5y ago
    Sure, but they are also the arbiter of truth now. FB tried to be purely a platform but society has asked them to "annotate" fake news or propaganda. So FB is now playing an editorial role. However we got here, it's not a great place to be in. We have massive networks that we cannot escape which are actively firewalling information.
    - harry8 5y ago
      >FB tried to be purely a platform That is /so/ much nonsense. Doesn't matter how you editorialize by controlling what people see including with a trained algorithm optimized for "engagement" that tends to be pretty similar to "outrage." The second you "promote" a wider engagement on any article or topic at the expense of another you aren't pure or anything like it. And we'd be heroically naive if we really were willing to bet our own lives on someone not "tweaking" the algo for their own beliefs along the chain somewhere. I know I would if I saw too many pro-nazi content promoted, for example and that is editorial with nothing at all "pure" about it. FB has never, ever been a "purely a platform" other than in their own PR releases. Censoring because politicians tell them to do it is a wholly different issue on top of that.

hamstergene 5y ago

They host but don’t control content via e.g. editorial policy, ideology or private interests. To push a movie to Disney+ one needs their agreement to take it. YouTube allows anyone to post anything (aside from infringing or illegal).

sandworm101 5y ago
>> They host but don’t control content Not according to professional content creators. Every one I have ever talked to openly states that they regularly alter their content to optimize compliance with youtube algorithms. Content is controlled, promoted, diminished, monetized or eliminated by the algorithms which are the embodiment of youtube's policy decisions. If you want to actually make a living on youtube, you will care as much about what youtube thinks of your content as you do your viewers.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Not everyone is looking to make a living via YouTube.
  - lupire 5y ago
    But everyone producing ~90% of the view minutes is.
Manuel_D 5y ago
> They host but don’t control content via e.g. editorial policy, ideology or private interests. They absolutely do control content, by banning content that violates the TOS. And they do make editorial decisions in terms of what content they promote, and what is rewarded by monetization. And to be clear there isn't anything nefarious about this, nor does it cause these platforms to lose Section 230 protections (despite how often people claim it does).

disabled 5y ago

Luckily, I have a print-related disability. So... * I get access to 1,100,295 DRM-free books in several formats (including Word, EPUB, computer-narrated audio) via Bookshare.org [~$50/year] * I get access to 40,000+ professionally narrated books via the National Library Service through the Library of Congress in the US [Free] * I get access to 80,000+ volunteer narrated books via LearningAlly.org (formerly Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic) [$135/year] * I get access to hundreds of magazines and newspapers, including breaking news services, via the National Federation for the Blind NewsLine [Free] * I get reciprocity with other countries' libraries for the print-disabled around the world, which is useful as I am learning new languages. [Usually Free] This is nice because I also never have a need to go to websites that serve ads to me. Of course it's called uBlock Origin and using ProtonVPN with Anti-tracking + Ad-blocking features plus such as a Pi-Hole...but still...I have it good. More info on print-related disabilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_disability The best way to get access to all of these services is to get your doctor to sign the National Library Service application form: https://www.loc.gov/nls/enrollment-equipment/apply-for-nls-service/ https://www.loc.gov/nls/enrollment-equipment/apply-for-nls-s...

lupire 5y ago
Even if you aren't print disabled, tut can join a library and Archive.org and get access to similar content (in online written form).

brightball 5y ago

As of a week ago AT&T spun all of that into Warner Discovery.

qiskit 5y ago

Don't forget apple and amazon. People always forget about amazon and their media offerings tied to Prime membership. But I agree, tech monopolies are just as worrying as the media monopolies. I'd imagine the next period of consolidation will be tech + media. With the amount of cash tech companies have lying around and the market cap differential between tech and media, these media conglomerates would be absorbed without a sweat.

ajross 5y ago

> Most people do not get their information from the television Uh... yes they do. Most people in your particular subculture probably don't. I don't. But the majority of "news" consumption in the modern west happens via live television.

lupire 5y ago
In what age bracket?
FpUser 5y ago
I have relatives well into their 80s. Not a single one watches TV. Internet on computers only.
faeriechangling 5y ago
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-e... >86% get their news from digital devices >68% get their news from television The death of TV news is being overstated by the above poster but it's certainly no longer the dominant form of news media. Among the younger age demographics on Hacker News I really can't imagine many people are willing to tolerate the insufferable cable news format with massive and frequent ad breaks.

ozzythecat 5y ago

I get news from all of the providers you listed, but they don’t produce the content. The actual content is from the big media companies like CNBC, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, and NY Times. These online media are content aggregators. They help socialize and propagate narratives, but they don’t produce narratives. They certainly amplify the echo chamber effect.

kibwen 5y ago
> big media companies like CNBC, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, and NY Times Of those, the six companies mentioned by the grandparent (Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Sony, Fox, Paramount) only own CNBC and Fox. CNN is owned by Warner Bros, WSJ is owned by News Corp (of course, the link to Fox through Murdoch is relevant), and NYT is its own company.
- michaelf77 5y ago
  Warner Bros is owned by AT&T Fox is owned by News Corp same as WSJ So the only one not covered by the "big 6" of the original article is NYT
  - kibwen 5y ago
    AT&T divested Warner last year, and I believe Fox and News Corp are technically independent (again, the Murdoch link).

mdoms 5y ago

I doubt I have consumed single thing from any of these companies for at least a month. If I have it would have been hate-shared with me at some point.

rmbyrro 5y ago

90% of what I read comes from HN Heck, I even check HN for book recommendations. Does that count in the %? If yes, it's 98%

t0bia_s 5y ago
Do your research about ycombinator. HN articles don't write about owners of HN so much.

root_axis 5y ago

How is it that one is controlled by the various websites they voluntarily visit?

jimmytucson 5y ago

Indeed, it must be no fewer than 9 companies!

Sophistifunk 5y ago

But the fallback these content delivery networks always use to avoid regulatory scrutiny is always to promote these traditional producers at the expense of independent voices.

Jxl180 5y ago

> No Google/YouTube Some of the most famous channels are owned and managed by Disney (formerly maker studios) and AT&T (through Fullscreen/Warner Bros)