AOL CEO Steve Case and Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin synergize.
(Photo by Chris Hondros -Newsmakers)
|
The Deal Of The (New) Century
Ted Turner, Time Warner vice-chairman, has something to grin about: the intended purchase of his company by America Online will likely increase the value of his stock by a couple billion dollars. But is what's good for Ted good for the world? The deal—announced on the tenth anniversary of Time Warner's own merged beginnings (the marriage of Time and Warner)—is the biggest corporate merger ever, valued at over $165 billion. While the media seem to be braying with excitement over the news, many media critics and consumer groups are deeply concerned. Media Channel and our affiliates have been following this story closely. Does this union represent another stake in the heart of a
democracy already undermined by market forces and big business? And, if so, what can we do?
-Aliza Dichter, "AOL Time Warner" editor
|
|
Concerns For Citizens, Not Consumers
Pundits and critics may be missing the point in fretting about the AOL-Time Warner merger's impact on consumers, argues former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. Existing media giants will prevent total market monopoly by the new behemoth, new technologies will alleviate fears over lack of open access and there's no ubiquitous technology to undermine innovation, as there was in the case of Microsoft. In Reich's view, what we should be worried about—and what any government review should focus on—is the vast political and financial power this monster would wield.
From The American Prospect, February 14 2000
|
|
|
Lighten Up, Mergerphobes
No one forces you to use AOL, you don't have to read Time or swear by CNN, and it's foolish to mourn the death of journalism in big media when the patient has long ago been wheeled off to the morgue. So says Matt Welch, who thinks savvy readers and viewers know enough to turn elsewhere for their media, and those that don't care... well, don't care. From Online Journalism Review, January 23 2000
|
|
|
|
Closing The Doors
Detractors concerned about a merged AOL Time Warner's future impact on Internet
access might find exhibit A in their mailbox. According to critics, the latest
update to AOL's Internet software, version 5.0, prevents users from
accessing any other Internet service, erases or cancels existing
alternate accounts, and can crash or cripple users' computer systems.
While AOL itself contends the complaints have been minimal, a visit to
the ISP's message boards tells otherwise. Windows Magazine has
referred to the new software as the "upgrade of death."
From Freedom Forum, January 21 2000
|
|
|
|
Going Public
To kick off the site's official launch on February 3, MediaChannel invited six top media critics to consider the implications of the AOL-Time Warner megamerger, beyond the business page. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, Ken Auletta of The New Yorker, Christopher Byron of The New York Observer, Farai Chideya of Oxygen Media, NYU professor of journalism Jay Rosen and Michael Wolff of New York magazine debated the fate of critical journalism and democratic media in the shadow of the media giants.
|
|
|
|
You've Got Mail—And No Choice
With a massive consumer base and the power of some of the most popular media brands, AOL Time Warner could wield enormous influence in the American—and global—cultural landscape. Reviewing the coverage in the U.S. media and the opinions of commentators, Arts Wire Current fears that the merger "could strangle Internet diversity." From Arts Wire Current, January 18 2000
|
|
|
|
The Bad News About The News
When CNN, now owned by Time Warner, reported on its parent company's purchase by AOL, Guardian correspondent Peter Preston found the coverage wanting, "No doubts, no problems, no tough questions," about the merger were mentioned by the reporters of the cable news channel. In an era when news outlets are increasingly owned by huge corporations, when Disney chairman Michael Eisner has said of his newly-acquired network, "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney," Preston fears this will be a growing trend: the end of critical coverage of big media companies who, after all, own the news.
From Guardian Unlimited, January 17 2000
|
|
|
|
Good For Everybody, Except Us
Looking for motives behind the Big Deal, Edward S. Herman finds several: AOL taking advantage of its inflated market value, assured access to high-speed broadband cable for the Internet giant, a massive consolidated customer base that enables lucrative target marketing, the coordination possibilities between a major distribution outlet and a major content provider, and, of course, increased value for the companies' shareholders and executives. Unfortunately, notes Herman, "None of the benefits accruing to the merger participants benefit society at large.... And the social costs of the merger are substantial."
From Z Magazine/ZNet, January 16 2000
|
|
|
|
"The Whole Thing Stinks"
As AOL and Time Warner celebrated their nuptials, Media Channel asked media studies professor and Project on Media Ownership director Mark Crispin Miller what he thought of this deal to create a $350 billion global media monster. Like many other media critics, Miller is not exactly optimistic. From The Media Channel, January 11 2000
|
|
|
|
Broadband And The Public Interest: What does it all mean?
AOL had been an outspoken proponent of an "open access" policy that would allow broadband cable customers to choose their own Internet service providers, but now that AOL is buying Time Warner, with its massive cable systems, open access advocates fear this will change. Standing next to AOL CEO Steve Case at their joint press conference, Time Warner chief Gerald Levin promised to take the open access issue "out of Washington and out of City Hall and put it in the marketplace." The Benton Foundation looks at the history, and the future of the open access debate.
From Communications Policy & Practice - Benton Foundation, January 18 2000
|
|
|
|
What The Media Missed
In all the press frenzy over the deal, journalists spent plenty of time on details like Steve Case, AOL CEO, wore a tie and Gerald Levin, Time Warner CEO, did not. But for all the hyperbolic airtime and ink ("a whole new universe created overnight," reported NBC's Tom Brokaw), the media seemed to ignore—or avoid—the policy, privacy, economic, and public interest ramifications of the deal. FAIR looks at what the news media told us, and what it didn't.
From FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), January 13 2000
|
|
|
|
Megadeal Backlash
As investor worries over the implications of the proposed AOL purchase of Time Warner have share prices for both companies dropping, the European Commission announced that it will be investigating the merger based on its "sheer size."
From Guardian Unlimited, January 12 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Response: Stop!
In a brief online memo, James Love, director of the Consumer Project on
Technology, outlines his top five reasons "why the AOL acquisition of
Time Warner should be stopped." Check back with the CPT site, as there are likely to
be further updates on this issue.
From Consumer Project on Technology, January 10 2000
|
|
|
|
You Don't Need Access From Others If You Have Your Own
U.S. consumer groups are fearful that the purchase of Time Warner's massive cable system means AOL is giving up the fight for a national "open access" policy. Open access advocates are asking the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to consider implementing rules that would ensure that broadband cable customers will be able to choose their Internet service providers. From The Center for Media Education, January 10 2000
|
|
|
|
Yea, The Almighty Has Risen
When the merger was announced on January 10, 2000, many critics of
corporate media may have felt that their own prophecies, asserted as
exaggerated warnings, had come terribly true. Intoning from on high,
Norman Solomon suggests we should be wary of the new gods we may be
serving, for they will not be serving us.
From AlterNet/Independent Media Institute, January 14 2000
|
|
|
|
Brass Tacks
Open access, media diversity, consumer interests—these are the big
three issues raised by critics of the mega-media merger. But what,
exactly, are these issues? Don Hazen goes beyond the quotes to
explain the factors that have media activists sounding the funereal
bells for democracy. Hazen also explores the economic and market
pressures that lead to the betrothal and finds that the best way to
fight the potential AOL Time Warner control of Net content may be at the
local, not federal, level.
From AlterNet/Independent Media Institute, January 14 2000
|
|
|
|
Bigger Is Best
Planting tongue most firmly in cheek, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman affirm their absolute support and enthusiasm for the new deal. In fact, they say, what we really need is more mergers and more synergy. What about a Microsoft-GE marriage? And of course if we can get a Viacom-CBS-AT&T-MCI Worldcom-Sprint polygamy going, adding Wal-Mart would just make it more of a happy family.
From Focus on the Corporation, January 12 2000
|
|
|
|
Self-love In The Corporate Press
It's like the man on the oatmeal box: the danger that the new merger might further reduce the quality of reporting by journalists who work for huge media companies went largely unreported—by journalists who work for big media companies. The gushing, almost reverential coverage that flooded the newsprint included very little in the way of critical analysis, according to Trevor Butterworth, who sees the coverage of the AOL-Time Warner deal as evidence of a new form of media bias.
From TomPaine.com, January 12 2000
|
|
|
|
The Other World Wide Web
Prior to the merger announcement, Mike Hoyt wrote for the
Colombia Journalism Review about the dangers of "strategic alliances"
between news outlets, an entangled—and growing—web of content-sharing and business deals that may be putting editorial judgement and journalistic integrity at risk—a concern that could grow exponentially in light of the new mega-media marriage.
From Columbia Journalism Review, January 1 2000
|
|
|
|
The Horror Of It All
Three media experts—communications professor and author Joseph Turow,
media historian and author Robert McChesney, and Jeff Chester, executive
director of the Center for Media Education—answer the question, "Is
the AOL-Time Warner merger safe for democracy?" And though they all see the
Internet as the most profoundly democratic medium in history, their
worrisome answer is a resounding, "No."
From The American Prospect, January 12 2000
|
|
|
|
How To Save The Future
This first major melding of old and new media may raise
new issues that the current regulatory systems simply cannot address. To
preserve democracy, media diversity, open access to the Internet, and to
safeguard the public interest, perhaps we need to consider new rules.
This Nation editorial calls for immediate new discussions of
antitrust regulations, information-access policy, and public-interest oversight of media on a national and global scale.
From The Nation, January 14 2000
|
|
|
|
The Union On The Union
Following the National Writers Union's successful court battle regarding
electronic publishing rights, in which Time Inc., a Time Warner
subsidiary, was a defendant, union president Jonathan Tasini is calling
on government regulators and the press to investigate and publicize
"Time Warner's potential[ly] massive legal exposure to lawsuits by
freelance writers." The NWU recognizes the increased opportunity for
freelancers' works to be spread over the Net, and is offering to work
with Time Warner to ensure that electronic publishing serves
writers' interests, not just those of the media companies.
From National Writers Union (U.S.), January 11 2000
|
|
|
|
It's Not A Medium, It's A Mall
The world's biggest Internet company's purchase of the world's biggest media company may be an allegory for the domination of journalism and information by commercial and marketing interests. According to Norman Solomon, this takeover has already occurred in the media's eye, where the importance of the Internet is no longer as an information revolution, but rather, as an economic revolution.
From TomPaine.com, January 11 2000
|
|
|
|
|
AS THE MEDIA WATCH THE WORLD, WE WATCH THE
MEDIA.
|
|
BACKGROUND
Perspectives on media concentration worldwide in MediaChannel's At Issue: Ownership. |
WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING
"The system has become the plaything of a handful of billionaire investors who use their power to commercially carpet-bomb every possible moment of our lives."
Robert McChesney, author of "Rich Media, Poor Democracy."
"This acquisition is standard in the strategy of media corporations that no significant media company in the country will remain independent."
Ben Bagdikian, author of "The Media Monopoly."
"[AOL head] Steve Case is the Benedict Arnold of the digital age. Now that he has bought himself a piece of broadband cable access, he is no longer advocating for public policy to ensure open access to the Internet."
Jeff Chester, Executive Director of the Center for Media Education
"This may be good for business, but it's bad for people and the free flow of information. In our lust for profits, we have forgotten democratic principles. This can only increase the public's deep skepticism of the quality of the news."
Jill Nelson, author of "Volunteer Slavery: My Authentic Negro Experience"
Comments from the Institute for Public Accuracy (www.accuracy.org). |
SITES
Time Warner
AOL
AOL Watch
AOL Sucks |
|
|