The major media market mergers of the past ten years have had a drastic effect on the content of American media and its consumers. Although many feel that these changes have been negative, they have been encouraged by the assumption that it will have a positive affect on the economy and society. These mergers have severely altered our thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviors. Through a steady trend of corporate greed and unchecked power, massive media conglomerates have adapted the American people from citizens to consumers through a seamless transitional method. We have eagerly moved away from a pubic sphere model towards a market model wherein media companies search for the largest potential audience and adjust the content accordingly resulting in a reduction of intellectualism nationwide.
Media is a large, unwieldy, dense concept. Here it is defined as a means of mass communication although it can be used as a plural of medium, which is a method of storing information. The term also involves all of the devices and methods through which we consume media including new technology such as mobile mp3 players, wireless internet, personal digital assistants (PDAs), digital cameras, personal digital recorders and so on. Many Americans throw the word around, using it to refer to all aspects of our new consumer culture. Although it has become a buzzword, almost all definitions of media are valid as the industry expands every day interacting with an ever-expanding percentage of our daily lives. Operating on the premise that media as a means of mass communication, I would like to distinguish between media content and media style. I am directly addressing consumer content, which is defined as the information being transmitted while style is defined as the mode of presentation desired to achieve a certain result. The result in this case is to acquire a larger viewing population.
The relationship between the media and the consumer is a delicate one, balancing between current beliefs and structures and beliefs and structures yet to come. I have created a very simple illustration of this interaction [figure 1]. Generally speaking, the content of media is divisible into two categories, culture and news. Granted news is a element of culture but this difference will become more apparent later. I am defining news as the documentation and distribution of factual events occurring locally and globally. This encompasses what we consider to be the news such as local and national politics, changing science and technology, and other information that is of concern to citizens. Conversely, I am defining culture as social information or what everyone else in the society is doing. It includes information about what people are consuming and participating in such as music, entertainment, leisure, style and fashion, language, beliefs and behaviors. The media industry is responsible for distributing information about news and culture to the American public.
The consumer then interprets the information received from the media and uses it to make informed purchases and create beliefs. Purchases are defined as interactive feedback to political and economic powers and can be divided into political purchases (e.g. voting and political participation) and cultural purchases (i.e. everything else). These purchases also fuel the media economy by creating advertising demand. Beliefs are internal. The consumer uses media information to interpret and create beliefs regarding culture, news and oneself. The media clearly has the power to alter the perceptions that the individual citizen/consumer has about the world and often takes advantage of this influence to sell products and arrive at a higher profit.
This illustration remains constant as the purpose of the media industry changes over time. The consolidation of the media industry has altered the interests of media distributors from what Croteau describes as a public sphere model towards a market model. In The Business of Media, Croteau describes these terms as two interpretations of the term public interest, the ultimate goal of media. Public interest is a term used in many media regulatory documents. A broadcaster is required to serve “the public interest, convenience and necessity,†according to the Communications Act of 1934 which created the Federal Communications Commission [Croteau 65]. In the public sphere model, this is interpreted to mean the promotion of active citizenship through information, education and social integration; principles established by the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. This model operates on the delicate balance of what the public wants versus what the public needs, including potentially unpopular perspectives regarding public issues. Hoping to create an environment where media was used as a tool to foster communication between individuals within the community regarding a variety of conflicting topics and beliefs relevant to the community, regulations were instituted (such as the Fairness Doctrine) to force media outlets to adhere to these principles. Over time, as the composition of media companies have changed, these legislatures are interpreted differently and we approach a market model.
The massive consolidation of the industry has progressed unchecked for the latter half of the 20th century allowing less than ten companies to control all of the mainstream information regarding news and culture. The potential of this consolidation are recognized and criticized in our culture but remain largely insignificant in the actual interpretation of media regulatory documents. Political, economic and social power comes from the propagation of information, and many critics feel that by consolidating the media, the power has been placed in the hands of too few. Although the critical voice is heard loud and clear, the industry has gone through a series of defensive acts in order to convince the regulators and the public that this monopoly is beneficial to the consumer. Many feel that the actions of media companies violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which was a direct solution to the rising problems of the steel industry monopoly. It “authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them†(http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?page=learn_more&doc=51). This does not necessarily mean that trusts are illegal, rather that the government must review the economic behavior of a company to determine whether or not it is a monopoly that inhibits competition and subsequently hurts the American public. Media conglomeration has been viewed as potentially beneficial to the public because of the power of media conglomerations allows for the production and distribution of more media, of which the benefits will be discussed later. Therefore, the industry has gone relative uncontested by regulatory commissions.
In our new media-saturated environment, we consume media at every turn. Media companies have expanded to science fiction proportions wherein a handful of companies own and operate the majority of the industry. The goals of these conglomerations are drastically different from the original goals of the public sphere model. In the market model, the focus is no longer on providing information (mainstream and alternative) but rather to acquire the largest viewing population possible to offer its advertisers. The intentions of the media industry are no different from any other industry in a capitalist marketplace: to increase profits by any means necessary. Public interest is defined as what the public is interested in, or what is popular. Alternative perspectives are rarely discussed in a market model as they isolate viewers and lower ratings. In this model, media is a service to advertising dollars, companies attempt to acquire audiences that are attractive to advertisers. It is a delicate balance of what the public wants versus what the public will want while prioritizing company interests such as increasing profit and decreasing cost and risk.
Media has come to define our lives. Our society categorizes individuals according to political beliefs, our social beliefs, music and clothing preferences, books, movies, even the type of device used to consume the media (e.g. windows v. mac v. linux users) all of which are influenced by the media. It is the source and result of our culture; the relationship between media and culture is an infinite loop that can be analyzed endlessly. As the industry become larger, more powerful, and diversify to include many facets of media under one parent company, the balance of power is shifted in favor of the corporation and the public loses control of what was originally considered public domain. Media conglomerates have quickly become America’s cultural filter, deciding what will or will not be popular and making decisions regarding media content under many assumptions of what the public will want. Once again, the ultimate goal is to acquire the largest audience or the highest ratings by any means necessary. Often this means neglecting alternative perspectives in favor of the middle ground, mainstream culture that is accepted by the general American public. This trend is common to all aspects of media in a capitalist society including both facets of media content, culture and news. One of the simplest and most popular techniques of acquiring and maintaining audiences is to increase the quantity and level of sensationalism within any given media.
This increase in sensationalism is most obvious in the content of television shows over the past ten years. Shows such as COPS and When Animals Attack exploded into homes in a barrage of quick edit commercials and flashing text. The shows promised heart stopping action and real life videos of carnage and fantastic situations; ratings soared. During sweeps week, networks resort to all sorts of textbook sensationalism to attract viewers. From the lesbian kiss on Ellen to Michael Jackson’s Home Movies, the delineation between appropriate and inappropriate is pushed further back. Movies embraced the special effects budget and quality was judged by the power of an explosion; attendance rose. Music became obscene and offensive. As gangster rap took hold of the American youth, videos filled with naked women and gunfights increased record sales. The violence in video games was becoming more realistic with 3D graphics and playing fields and digitally enhanced blood splatter; the video game industry took hold when every kid in America wanted a Sony Playstation. Overtly sexual women were known to sell everything from laundry detergent to chewing gum. Extreme violence, sexuality and depravity sold more products; the product itself did not seem to matter.
As the sale of products increased, the advertising industry tightened their hold over mass communication. In America’s free market system, mass media is commercially sponsored media and the media source that speaks to the largest market with make the most money from advertisers. It is the main source of income for media outlets and in order to maximize profits, the media outlet is forced to prioritize the advertisers’ needs over the needs of the public. An excellent demonstration of this bias occurred in 1996 when CBS decided to cancel Murder She Wrote, a detective drama that was consistently ranked in the top fifteen shows every year for its twelve year run, more often than not in the top ten. Its downfall was the senior demographic that tuned in every week. Advertisers were simply not interested in an elder demographic who they believed to be fixed in their consumption methods. There was no chance to change their beliefs or purchases and therefore were not sought after by most advertising. The show could not pull the advertising revenue that it needed to remain on the air and CBS chose to cancel it. The public seemed irrelevant in this case even though it was clearly interested in the show.
Another moment, which may be slightly closer to home, was the commercial upset during the 1995 Grammy Awards. Frank Sinatra was awarded the Grammy for best Duets album and gave quite a lengthy speech by commercial standards. The production team decided to hurry it along by playing the exit music before he was done speaking. The entire audience (live and at home) was stunned. The moment was further emphasized when, after the commercial break, Billy Joel took the stage to perform his award winning song, “River of Dreamsâ€. During a particularly dramatic pause in the song, he extended the delay time, looked at his watch and cleverly quipped, “precious advertising time slipping by…†and then continued the song. Artists everywhere who were tired of the prioritizing of commercial wishes over artistic, ethical, and public interest needs celebrated the moment. “They cut Frank Sinatra off at the Grammy’s, they had to do a commercial. So the guy was rambling so what? He’s Frank Sinatra, let him ramble… People need to hear that… They decided that they didn’t need to be heard.†(http://www.turnstiles.org/articles/PerfSong1-96.html).
The need for advertising dollars does not simply edit speeches and cancel shows; it also decides the content that we have to choose from. Although it may seem that millions of new artists, television shows and movies come out every week, it is only a small percentage of the ideas and talent pitched to executives actually make it to production let alone become successful and generate profit. Even critically acclaimed ventures can be cancelled or rescinded if there is not a high chance of success. This blockbuster method of media production affects all channels from books, movies, music and television to technology, policies and advertising campaigns themselves.
In order to appeal to the largest audience, media makers resort to speaking to what is commonly referred to as the “general American public,†which is the larger percentage of American citizens. Although no one can really define what the general American public knows, wants believes or needs, much of media is produced with this group in mind. The general American public is considered to have average or below average intelligence and very simple wants: food, sex and excitement. They are very susceptible to suggestion and are easy to market to. They are also assumed to spend more money on entertainment and have fairly lowbrow tastes. Media often lowers its goals of educating and informing the consumer in order to acquire this highly sought after demographic.
The general American public is consistent in its desires. They like to see the guy get the girl (or get lucky), the bad guy blown up, intense horror movies, amazing stunts and the like. This constant need can be easily satiated with one of many standard screenplays or songs. There is a formula for a blockbuster and these are the projects that are green lighted by production companies. This choice to mass-produce mainstream content in order to maximize profits leads to a homogenization of popular culture.
If all competing mainstream media outlets are hunting for the same audience, then the content will morph into different versions of the same text repackaged time after time. We find ourselves in the throws of a national homogenized culture. National media outlets such as MTV create huge pop stars that are successful regardless of talent. A common criticism of American music is the idea of a pop star: an attractive, non-threatening, easy going individual with enough talent to learn the lyrics and dance moves. The music industry is desperate to sign acts like Britney Spears or N’Sync because of their massive guaranteed success. There is effectively no substance behind the music or the voice, but with the right marketing, these ‘artists’ climb to the top of the charts. Most recently, Fox’s American Idol: The Search for a Superstar has made careers for semi-talented kids who made it to the audition that day. Many of those who made the final twelve were still very unpolished and immature singers.
The movie industry relies on the perfect mix of sex, explosions and fast car chases to create summer blockbusters. Television has become one reality show after another. In March of this year, 24 new reality shows were scheduled to premiere on network stations before the summer. Reality game shows such as CBS Survivor and Fox’s Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire are cheap, easy to produce and often attain high ratings. From every angle, these shows seem like a win-win situation, low cost, high profit, but are simply a waste of time. They are pure entertainment trash and offer nothing to the public interest. By this we see the push towards cookie cutter media success forces a homogenization of culture, which often goes unrealized by the general American public. Being offered a choice between three of the same things is no choice at all.
This entertainment industry seems to have little regard for the profit-driven culture that they are creating and its effects on society as a whole. Cultural lag is occurs when material culture changes so fast that immaterial culture (e.g. government, social norms, moral structures) falls dangerously behind . The need for entertainment to be on top of the next big thing creates a cultural lag that is impossible for other aspects and industries to keep up with. Nothing moves as fast as the entertainment industry; an artist can reach the top and fall to below the bottom in less than a year. It seems that everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame, with five minutes of commercials. Time spent at the top of the charts becomes shorter for artists every year. According to Billboard, the longest running single this year remained at the top of the charts for 31 weeks as compared to 50 weeks in 1993 (billboard.com).
The conglomeration of media companies in order to include many types of media outlets has direct implications on media production as well, such as synergy and cross promotions. Synergy, otherwise known as idea franchising, allows a production company to market a single idea into many products. This is exemplified in the marketing surrounding Disney animated films. Marketed directly to children, they have the potential to sell almost anything involving the characters from a given film. Not only is The Lion King a movie, but there exists the toys, clothing, books, soundtrack and DVD sales, food products, jewelry, video games, a short lived Saturday morning television series and more. Other present idea franchises include Viacom’s Spongebob Squarepants, AOL Time Warner’s Harry Potter and NewsCorp’s The Simpsons.
Cross promotion allows a single concept to be promoted through several media (Croteau 117). By utilizing multiple holdings in many types of media, a company has the ability to ‘create a buzz’ about a new product. For example, by encouraging discussion and promotion of a movie through all facets of media, the company ensures the attention of millions of viewers instead of simply relying on television and movie previews to advertise a new production. A company may lead the American public into thinking that a new film is critically acclaimed by simply saturating its own entertainment sources with a buzz about a given show. Disney achieved a level of synergy unsurpassed when Disneyland and Disney World opened to great success. By using a theme park as advertising, Walt Disney was able to create an environment wherein consumers became part of the product.
News is a function of culture and therefore is subject to its changes overtime although many qualities remain the same. According to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), news broadcasters should observe a series of ethical observations, which include:
∑ Strive to present the source or nature of broadcast news material in a way that is balanced, accurate and fair.
o They will evaluate information solely on its merits as news, rejecting sensationalism or misleading emphasis in any form.
o They will guard against using audio or video material in a way that deceives the audience.
o They will not mislead the public by presenting as spontaneous news any material which is staged or rehearsed.
o They will identify people by race, creed, nationality or prior status only when it is relevant.
o They will clearly label opinion and commentary.
o They will promptly acknowledge and correct errors.
∑ Strive to conduct themselves in a manner that protects them from conflicts of interest, real or perceived. They will decline gifts or favors which could influence or appear to influence their judgments. (www.rtnda.org)
These ethical guidelines were established while media was still dominated by the public sphere model and was primarily concerned with serving the public interest. The evolution of news media towards a market model occurred later than cultural media as the news was never viewed as a money-making venture. As American television began to bend in favor of the market model, news programs were still clinging to the public interest. The style of news was often very simple, anchor men behind desks reading the days events to an attentive audience.
All of this changed with the debut of 60 Minutes on CBS in 1968. Suddenly, news programming could generate profits with the proper format and style. The other networks scrambled to create similar news magazines in order to compete. In 1985, Cap Cities acquired the ABC network and began pressuring the standard news division to generate profit as well. The evening news was forced into the entertainment industry and subjected to the same priority changes that the market model demands. Over the past fifteen years, all of these ‘respected news sources’ have deteriorated into sensationalist media outlets desperate for ratings.
Unfortunately, the American public has remained largely blind to this transition, continuing to believe that the news is only for the public good and not simply another part of the profit-driven media industry. The public is bombarded with information that they believe is news: information about shootings, robberies, muggings, rapes and other violent and socially despicable events, and they tune in every day, hungry for more. Whether or not these events are considered newsworthy is no longer a decision made by the intellectual elitists that filter media content. Instead, the decision has been put in the hands of the general American public. The news is now defined as what the American public wants to know about. They want to know about shootings, stabbings rapes and such. The general American public is not interested in global politics as demonstrated by the scant intellectual coverage of the second Gulf War. They want to see personal interest stories about kittens rescued from trees and three-year-olds that call 911 to save their choking grandma; they are not interested in the policies of local politicians or the situation in other countries. News programs cater to these warped desires in order to speak to the larger audience thereby reinforcing the ignorance. These programs are afraid to isolate viewers by embracing investigative reporting and intellectual discussion of the news but there is no incentive to change this trend because there is no money in educating the American people.
This search for sensationalist news often leads news programmers towards stories with negative content (e.g. rapes, muggings, murders). This is the information that the general American public wants. This unexplainable, twisted human need to observe violence against our fellow man brings in the ratings every night, so news programs attempt to cover as many as possible. This in turn, creates and reinforces fear in the general American public, and a frightened, vulnerable consumer is easy money. After priming the consumer with evidence of a harsh, unsafe world, he/she is willing to purchase anything that may increase the safety of their families and themselves.
This lack of hard news is not only due to the disinterest of the general American public. Media conglomerations have interests in many other things beside honest and fair news distribution. Media conglomerates themselves are the source of most news at the moment; media market mergers are happening every day but are never covered by the media. Media moguls hold more power than many politicians and are perpetually doing business in sneaky, backroom deals with other industry and political leaders and yet their behaviors go virtually unchecked by journalists and subsequently by the American people. This is only the tip of the iceberg that is media censorship.
Censorship in a market model is no longer for the good of the public, but rather for the good of the company. There are three levels of censorship, self, corporate and inter-corporate. Self-censorship is defined as an individual’s choice to censor herself in her own best interests. In order to maintain one’s job in media, burning bridges is not an option. If a journalist states opinion on the air that opposes or questions the opinions of the network or any higher power, her job may be terminated. Infamous political humorist, Bill Mahr, was fired from ABC after he made controversial comments on his show, Politically Incorrect, regarding September 11th. Independent ideas and thoughts are no longer allowed in mainstream media if they may offend a large viewing population. We have come a long way from the Fairness Doctrine, which demanded opposing views to be discussed in this public medium.
Corporate censorship is censorship for the good of the corporation. Because there are only six media companies with holdings in almost every type of media, there is a high chance that deep investigative reporting might expose another negative aspect of the parent company. Corporate censorship occurs so that other media holdings will not be damaged by the actions of its own news department. The Disney Corporation withheld one such news story. In 1996, Disneyland was found to have been hiring convicted sex offenders including prior child molesters. ABC news covered up the story in the interests of its parent company and the story went largely unnoticed.
But why did other news networks choose to dismiss the story as well? Inter-corporate censorship maintains the safety of other corporations with whom the news source parent company may have interest in. Many media corporations turn to others for new ventures in order to lower costs and risks. Because of these joint ventures, a corporation must consider the good of the other media companies. Through these three levels of censorship, much of media news remains in the dark.
Inter-corporate censorship is not only restricted to media industries. Other major industries are powerful and can severely affect the situation of a given media outlet. In 1995, CBS’s 60 Minutes dropped an interview with an executive of Brown & Williamson Tobacco because the network was afraid of a potential lawsuit. The network was also afraid to lose its connections within other industries, “the principle owner of CBS at the time was… a major stockholder in another tobacco company [and] RJR Nabisco and Philip Morris, conglomerates that are both tobacco companies and major food and beverage producers are among the biggest advertisers on CBS and other television networks (Croteau 173).†Once again, the public is left with an ignorant disadvantage because of the prioritizing of advertising interests.
All of these changes in media have taken their toll on the American public even if they are unaware of the changes within their beliefs and purchases. The push towards the media market model has forced media outlets to embrace advertisers as committed lovers, not just occasional bedfellows. In attempting to sell as much time and space to advertisers, the moral ethics of media outlets have been trashed. Americans are now saturated by advertising every minute of the day from the coffee cup at the drive-thru breakfast place to the electronic billboards on top of taxicabs to the coupons on the back of receipts, everything has become a potential product or advertisement. Not only are we bombarded with conspicuous advertising, ads that we realize as ads, but also we are consuming advertising without even recognizing it. Sports arenas are no longer public venues, sponsored by the community; instead companies purchase major arenas and rename them (e.g. Tommy Hilfiger Theater at Jones Beach, NY; Fleet Center, MA; MCI Center, D.C.). Product placement in television shows and movies are becoming more popular. In the case of television, the producers can slip a Coca-Cola commercial into a sitcom and receive ad revenue without selling additional commercial time. This allows them to make a greater profit by selling twice as much advertising time in a half hour show.
This very issue was raised in 1998 when a story leaked information about backroom deals between television networks and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. For 2-3 years, networks had been submitting their sitcom and drama scripts to the ONDCP for reviews of their anti-drug content. The ONDCP paid the network depending on the intensity and prevalence of a given anti-drug message. Over $22 million were distributed by the government for the sneak attack ads . The media is more than willing to push the pro-military/anti-drug beliefs that the government demands due to their intricate involvement with government regulatory agencies. The government is simply another corporation that media companies depend upon for revenue and liberal regulation.
Product placement and altered content are part of a larger issue of the content/advertising blur. Consumers are uncertain of where shows end and commercials begin. This lack of differentiation is particularly evident with the explosion of the music video. Thanks to MTV, the music video has become a staple of advertising for the music industry. Consumers were now able to see their favorite musicians and emulate their style and dance. The music video became a stylistic mold, quick shots of images accompanied by powerful music to convey some message. These techniques have been absorbed by the advertising industry (a business already quite familiar with jingles and using music to sell products) and commercials became thirty-second music videos selling everything from shoes to insurance.
Non-profit media outlets have also been forced to re-evaluate their commitment to non-commercial media. Organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are now accepting money from private companies such as Mobile, Ford and State Farm Insurance. Although there are no definitive commercials on the network, Masterpiece Theater is now Mobile Exxon Masterpiece Theater. Public television has suffered greatly at the deregulation of the media industry. It is now forced to accept money from private companies to replace the lack of government funding.
The advertising need for demographic, or niche audiences, has drastically changed the content of television. In the 1980s, during the explosion of cable, audiences were now given dozens of channels from which to choose. Television broadcasters were now able to devise channels that would direct speak to a specific demographic. Viacom pioneered this method through two major networks, Nickelodeon (ages 5-14) and MTV (ages 13-25). Suddenly, advertisers could market directly to a target demographic. These networks succeeded because of the need for niche markets. This trend has propagated throughout the media as television and movies became personal entertainment instead of family entertainment. The potential success of movies, television and books depends on the target demographic. They are made with specific consumers in mind and this differentiation of content has assisted the breakdown of the American family. Combined with an increase in the ratio of televisions per household, it is rare to see a family sit together in front of the television to watch a program. Instead, the daughter is watching MTV, the son is watching ESPN, the mother is watching C-SPAN and the father is watching HGTV (Home and Garden Network). Many parents complain that they are unaware of what their children are watching, but it is inevitable when the programs that teens watch are designed specifically for teens. Adults are not interested in the kids’ programs and occupy themselves elsewhere. This splintering of the family unit has innumerable effects on the beliefs and purchases of the American consumer.
The attitude of the average American is irreversibly altered by these changes in the media layout. These changes include an increased fear of society on the part of the consumer, a disinterest in political policies in favor of personalities, as well as America’s increasing distrust in the media. It has already been stated as to how the news media incites suspicion and fear in the minds of its consumers through sensationalism and scare tactics in order to gather audiences and sell products. This sensationalist media also tends to focus on moral scandals instead of political ones. Moral atrocities of trusted public figures are big business and the emphasis that news has put on these stories disregards the importance of political policies. The general American public (those that vote) now makes decisions based on a candidate’s character and personality instead of his/her policies.
America’s trust in the media is quickly being destroyed as more independent news sources step forward to fill the massive news hole created by corporate censorship. Although the transition may be invisible to the general American public, the extremity of the situation cannot continue to slip by unnoticed. Through the power of the Internet, independent media voices are being heard. Alternative thoughts and opinions regarding news, culture, music, movies, books, technology, political policies and more are being discussed in a virtual space that is, relatively speaking, free of corporate media domination. The general American public is now becoming aware of the rampant censorship within the media and is beginning to change their perception of news media to demand more content. Unfortunately, with the expansion of cable news networks, many Americans feel that they are getting more news content, when in reality, it is just the same content through many channels. The homogenization of culture extends to news programming as well.
The Internet is the great media hope of a new generation. It gives a voice to independent thinkers and artists who cannot find an outlet through mainstream mass media. The cost of production on the Internet is fairly low, anyone can own and operate a website for less than $100 per year. The medium has yet to be censored or significantly controlled by the FCC. The awesome amount of content on the Internet will be difficult for any media corporation to dominate. Independent news sources, music labels, books, movies, opinions and groups have bloomed on the Internet in droves allowing alternative ideas and media to slip into the attention of the general American public.
The market model is inevitable in a capitalist society that views media as a business. Individual media companies must focus on three major goals, increasing profit while decreasing cost and risk. If advertisers are the only source of income, then their needs become prioritized over public interest needs. To change this would require drastic alterations in the interpretation and implementation of regulatory documents. But we have allowed these media companies to grow uncontrollably and they have infiltrated our government systems. Now it is too late to return to even the ideals of a public sphere model. Americans have evolved into consumers, blind to the tricks of marketing but eagerly receptive to the next major project. They are unaware that it is the media companies driving their desires instead of the desires of the consumers driving the market. The supply and demand balance is severely fucked up in the American media environment and to correct this would require drastic changes in the beliefs and behaviors of all parties involved. All hope now lies in the power of the Internet. Make your voice heard, start a webpage.