In The Media Monopoly, author Ben Bagdikian explores the way in which the media functionS. His particular area of interest is the way in which the media is controlled. His exploration details various forms of information dissemination, including television, radio and print; both newspapers and magazines. His goal is multifaceted: to explore the significance of the media to us, the consumers, and to look at how the media outlets themselves function.

Bagdikian begins with the complex question of who owns any given media outlet. At the time of his research, all major US media sources were owned by 50 companies. Ironically, Bagdikian predicted that if media mergers were to continue at the then-current rate, the 50 company figure would drastically drop; his prophecy was correct, and today only six companies control most of the media outlets. The companies that control the media, therefore, have a vested interest in two things: ensuring that the parent company is never negatively reported on, and finding ways to plant positive news items about the parent company. Bagdikian details several examples in which journalists were fired and stories held simply because the subject was in some way injurious or potentially injurious to the parent company. And, says Bagdikian, some of these companies are so huge that they control innumerable assets and innumerable other, smaller, companies. The little corner bank whose management is embezzling funds could easily be owned by one of these large companies; the story will never be reported on. Bagdikian gives the example of Gulf Western, a company so huge that in addition to the media outlets it controls, it manufactures enormous numbers of household goods bought by the average consumer. Therefore, negative stories regarding Gulf Western holdings are not published, while positive stories abound.

Bagdikian moves on to explore the demise of the city newspaper. At the turn of the century, there were several daily newspapers in every major American city. Competition for the reader had the pleasant by-product of keeping the news coverage accurate and quick. But the 70's and 80's saw the demise of the independent paper as huge conglomerates such as Gannet gobbled them up. When one company owns most of the dailies in the country, the news coverage will certainly be biased toward them. The lack of competition will remove any incentive for excellent coverage as well; the paper will sink toward mediocrity.

The next issue Bagdikian discusses, progressing naturally from newspapers, is the issue of advertising. The cost of a magazine or newspaper subscription does not cover the cost of manufacturing the publication. We are not charged any fee for network television. Yet all of these endeavors are highly lucrative because of the dollars that advertisers pay for the opportunity to publicize their products. This is a problematic situation. One major problem relates to advertiser happiness: because the media is so dependent on the advertisers for their livelihood, this creates yet another layer of companies they feel forced to pander to and pacify in their news coverage. If a negative story breaks about a major advertiser, it will cost the media outlet money. And to attract advertisers, positive stories about particular companies are often run, even if they are not newsworthy. This is sharply illustrated in the story of the charlatan doctor who had a large advertising contract. When he was an advertiser, the publication in question wrote positive articles about his unproven medical techniques. It wasn't until he had cancelled his advertising that the publication wrote a story criticizing his medical practices. The truth of advertising also comes into question. Few Americans can afford luxury cars or fabulous clothing. These things, and their like, are advertised showing beautiful, smiling people. This implies that if someone were only to have enough money to buy a certain car or watch or coat, they will become young, happy and beautiful. As the person who can afford such items soon discovers, this is simply not true.

In survey after survey, Americans report that they want publications to feature more hard news. Yet with every passing year, the amount of advertising goes up and the amount of throwaway entertainment (comics, crossword puzzles) goes up but hard news continues to drop. There are more "lifestyle sections" and more inserts having to do with home and fashion, subsequently encouraging people to spend their money on these things. When a shortage of newsprint forced papers to cut their folios, they cut news—not advertising.

Bagdikian sums up with a look at what the media monopoly has done to the supposed foundations of our country. In politics, he points out, it is television commercials which win races. The average man on the street who runs for office, supposedly the hallmark of the democratic system, has no chance of winning without expensive advertising to build name recognition. And without advertising, magazines, newspapers and television news shows will not acknowledge the average-guy candidate at all. Bagdikian’s final caution is this: by creating a narrow monopoly of media owners we have also create a narrow realm of coverage.

We are dependent on the media for information on world events, and the issues that affect us. We are also dependent on the media to give us this information in the most accurate and informative way possible. Delivery of the information ought to be honest and fair. The reality is, however, that they are not. The recent situation with Elian Gonzalez is a perfect example. There should have been no question that the boy was to return to his father. International and custody laws clearly set this precedent. If this was at all in question, it ought to have been a matter for courts and immigration officials. Instead, with television cameras on the front lawn ready to splash images of screaming children across television sets, the attorney general delayed the removal of the boy from his non-custodial relatives. When at last it did occur, a photographer was waiting to snap a photo of the frightened child being carried out under armed escort. In place of fact and law, we received newspapers full of photos of a smiling Elian reunited with his father, crying Elian leaving his relatives, and Elian’s family in 80 postures of grief, happiness, anger and perplexity. In other words, a conscienceless media took the personal problems of a six-year-old boy and processed them into entertainment and sound bytes, when the issue was, ultimately, none of our business.

Bagdikian's warning is ominous. We cannot rely on the media to tell us what is really going on or to decide what is important for us to know. If we do, we will only know of the Elians and OJ Simpsons of this world and nothing of events which will ultimately influence our very lives and the survival of human society.

However, Bagdikian’s predictions are overly pessimistic on the issue of change. While he holds out little hope for people reforming the media system, I think that it may ultimately be possible to educate people in real news versus news lite. An educated reader or viewer can learn to be aware of what is valid coverage, and what is trash and ultimately to clearly demand quality. Personally, I am well aware, from the opinions of Bagdikian and others, that I need to cull carefully through the barrage of images thrown at me in order to find the little bits of truth and importance. Fortunately, with access to endless books, radio stations, magazines, programs and Internet sites, I have the resources to do so.

My optimism also stems from my experience working for a publishing company large enough to be a considerable east coast media force and yet unusually honest; when asked to choose between the rights of the public and the ego of the advertiser, the CEO’s response was simply "we publish the news." I do bear in mind, however, that most media conglomerates do not have the public’s best interests at heart. Bagdikian’s book has certainly made me take a harder look at the type of coverage certain stories receive. It has also made me question how any vehicle that relies on advertising for its revenue can ever be totally honest. I imagine that I will continue to be a conscientious reader. But until I’m joined by several million other Americans putting our collective foot down and demanding the news, I’ll probably be reading alone.