Media Monopolies

Fact: a small number of corporations play an outsized role in shaping what millions of Americans see, hear, and ultimately believe. While the exact list varies depending on how companies are grouped or reorganized, a commonly cited set of dominant players includes Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, Paramount Global, Warner Brothers and News Corp. Together  these corporations have controlled a substantial share of television networks, film studios, publishing houses and newspapers.

Comcast owns:

• DreamWorks Animation
• Peacock
• NBC (including NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC)
• Universal Pictures 

The Walt Disney Company owns:

• Marvel
• Lucasfilm (owns Star Wars)
• Pixar
• ABC
• ESPN
• 20th Century Studios (formerly 21st Century Fox film assets)

Paramount Skydance owns:

• Paramount Pictures
• Paramount Television
• CBS 
• MTV
• Comedy Central
• Showtime
• Pluto TV

Warner Bros. Discovery owns:

• HBO
• Warner Bros. Pictures
• DC Comics
• Cartoon Network
• Discovery Channel
• CNN

News Corp (owned by Rupert Murdoch) owns:

• HarperCollins 
• The Wall Street Journal
• The New York Post

The Fox corporation (also owned by Murdoch)

• Fox News 

This concentration did not emerge naturally. The most important turning point was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which dramatically loosened restrictions on how many media outlets a single company could own. Prior to this, rules limited cross-ownership (for example, owning both newspapers and TV stations in the same market) and capped the number of stations a company could control. After 1996, those limits were relaxed or eliminated, opening the door for aggressive mergers and acquisitions. Companies rapidly expanded, swallowing local outlets and consolidating control at the national level. Earlier policies like the Communications Act of 1934 had emphasized serving the “public interest,” but by the late 20th century, the policy environment shifted toward prioritizing market efficiency and corporate growth.

Paramount and Warner Bros. 

These media companies continue to consolidate. Paramount Skydance announced on February 27, 2026 that it will acquire Warner Bros. Discovery in a definitive merger agreement. Paramount is paying $31 per share in cash for all outstanding WBD shares, and the deal is expected to close in Q3 2026, pending regulatory clearance and WBD shareholder approval. More than 2,000 actors, writers, and directors signed a letter opposing the deal, warning it will result in “fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences.”

Propaganda?

The result is not just economic concentration, but informational power. This becomes especially concerning when we look at how narratives can be coordinated across platforms. An example is the behavior of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns or operates a large number of local television stations across the country. In 2018, Sinclair drew widespread criticism when dozens of its local news anchors were required to read nearly identical scripts warning about “fake news” and media bias. The segments, broadcast in local markets that viewers often trust more than national outlets, created the impression of independent reporting while delivering a centrally produced message. 

Perhaps the most visible example of the political consequences of media power is the role of Fox News in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The network became central to the spread of claims about election fraud, many of which were later proven false. This culminated in the high-profile Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network lawsuit, in which Fox agreed to pay a $787.5 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems. Internal communications revealed during the case showed that some hosts and executives privately doubted the fraud claims even as they were promoted on air. In addition, in 2020, Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander by Karen McDougal after he claimed she tried to extort money from Donald Trump. Fox’s legal defense argued that Carlson’s statements weren’t meant to be taken as factual. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed, ruling that a reasonable viewer would treat his comments as opinion or exaggerated political commentary rather than literal facts. These case shows how media organizations, driven by ratings, audience expectations, and competitive pressures, can amplify misinformation with significant real-world consequences.

The consequences for democracy are significant. A healthy democratic society depends on access to diverse, independent sources of information. When most media flows through a small number of corporate channels, that diversity can be undermined. Local journalism declines as national corporations cut costs, investigative reporting becomes riskier in a profit-driven environment, and public discourse becomes more polarized as media outlets cater to specific audiences. Meanwhile, the line between news, opinion, and entertainment continues to blur, further complicating the public’s ability to evaluate information. Understanding this landscape is essential for anyone concerned with the future of democratic governance and the integrity of public discourse.

On March 7, members of The Writers Guild of America (WGA) voted just short of 99% in favor of a list of new demands from The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) – which represents Amazon/MGM, Apple, Disney/ABC/Fox, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount/CBS, Sony, Warner Bros., Discovery (HBO) and more. The demands are in pursuit of higher pay, adjusted residuals, new staffing requirements and protections from artificial intelligence (A.I.), amongst other concerns. 

Six months later, no agreement has been reached and the WGA is currently on strike, joined now by The Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), marking the first joint strike between actors and writers in 63 years and the first joint walkout since 1980. With seemingly no end in sight, many actors, writers, unions, laborers and fans alike are left wondering what this strike could mean for the future of the entertainment industry.

The WGA is looking to address concerns within three main categories: compensation and residuals; pension plans and health funds; and professional standards and protection in the employment of writers. Their list of demands within these three categories is as follows:

Compensation and Residuals

• “Increase minimum compensation significantly to address the devaluation of writing in all areas of television, new media and feature”
• “Standardize compensation and residual terms for features whether released theatrically or on streaming”
• “Address the abuses of mini-rooms”
• “Ensure appropriate television series writing compensation throughout entire process of pre-production, production and post-production”
• “Expand span protections to cover all television writers”
• “Apply MBA minimums to comedy-variety programs made for new media”
• “Increase residuals for under-compensated reuse markets”
• “Restrict uncompensated use of excerpts”

Pension Plan and Health Fund

• “Increase contributions to Pension Plan and Health Fund”

Professional Standards and Protection in the Employment of Writers

• “For feature contracts in which compensation falls below a specified threshold, require weekly payment of compensation and a minimum of two steps”
• “Strengthen regulation of options and exclusivity in television writer employment contracts”
• “Regulate use of material produced using artificial intelligence or similar technologies”
• “Enact measures to combat discrimination and harassment and to promote pay equity”
• “Revise and expand all arbitrator lists”

On March 20, negotiations between the WGA and AMPTP began but eventually stalled. Demands were not properly addressed before the set deadline of May 1, which provoked the WGA members to withhold labor starting May 2 after a nearly-98% vote in favor of a strike. As a direct result, many prominent late-night shows such as “The Late Night Show with Stephen Colbert,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” were shut down, along with “Saturday Night Live,” “Real Time with Bill Maher” and “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” 

As the strike continues, the list of projects that have halted production includes “Stranger Things” (Season Five), “Euphoria” (Season Three), “The Last of Us” (Season Two), “Abbott Elementary” (Season Three), “The Handmaid’s Tale” (Season Six and Finale), “Severance” (Season Two), “Big Mouth” (Season Eight and Finale), “Cobra Kai” (Season Six), “The Penguin (Season One Debut), “Dune Part 2”, Sony Pictures’ “Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse,” Marvel Studios’ fourth and untitled Spider-Man film, “Kraven the Hunter,” “Daredevil: Born Again” and “Deadpool 3,” among many others.

On June 5, SAG-AFTRA voted with nearly a 98% majority to strike if a deal could not be reached with the AMPTP by the end of the month, which would place them on the picket line alongside the WGA. SAG-AFTRA published a document detailing their positions, in which they explained they had already compromised during negotiations. However, according to this document, the AMPTP was not willing to meet the following demands:

• “Performers need minimum earnings to simply keep up with inflation”
• “Performers need the protection of our images and performances to prevent replacement of human performances by artificial intelligence technology”
• “Performers need qualified hair and makeup professionals as well as equipment to safely and effectively style a variety of hair textures/styles and skin tones”
• “Performers need compensation to reflect the value we bring to the streamers who profit from our labor”
• “All performers need support from our employers to keep our health and retirement funds sustainable”
• “Principal performers need to be able to work during hiatus and not be held captive by employers”
• “Principal performers need to be reimbursed for relocation expenses when they’re employed away from home”

According to the document, the AMPTP was only willing to agree to what SAG-AFTRA refers to as “simple basic issues of fairness and respect,” such as:

• “Access to reproductive healthcare and gender affirming care for performers working away from home in states that restrict medical access”
• “A consultation process to guard against racist and sexist “wiggings” and “paintdowns” of stunt performers”
• “Safety for performers working with animals on set”

In turn, SAG-AFTRA officially began their strike on July 13, which severely impacted the promotion of director Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” and director Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie.” Actors were unable to make media appearances pertaining to the release of either film, and the cast of “Oppenheimer” walked out of the premier of their own movie when the strike was announced. In spite of the clear negative impact on the two films, both Christopher Nolan and Greta Gerwg expressed their support for the WGA and SAG-AFTRA.

On Aug. 4, representatives of the WGA met with studios but to no avail, reporting that the AMPTP was not open to engaging in screenwriters’ issues. Now, over three months into the strike, a growing list of delays and cancellations is the least of the problems. The result of 171,500 actors and writers on strike in Hollywood is a hit to local economies all across the U.S. including a $3 billion blow to California. Consequently, 1.7 million out-of-state industry workers have been negatively impacted.

Though neither the WGA nor SAG-AFTRA could reach an agreement, The Directors Guild of America (DGA) agreed to a new contract with the AMPTP on June 23, shortly before SAG-AFTRA went on strike. The agreement between the AMPTP and DGA secured wage increases, better residuals and some protections from AI for directors. DGA released a statement on their website the following month, affirming their support for the WGA and SAG-AFTRA during their respective strikes.

For the strike to end, an agreement must be reached by the AMPTP with both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA. It is difficult to predict when this will happen, but, for now, an agreement seems unlikely in the near future. 

In keeping with Disney’s ever-growing push to dominate the entertainment industry, the $200 billion international company released their new streaming service – Disney+ –  Nov 12. 

The new streaming service offers an interface similar to Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime Video and features hundreds of classic Disney movies like “Snow White” and “Lady in the Tramp.” It also includes fan favorite Disney Channel shows like “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody” and “That’s So Raven,” movies and shows from the Marvel and “Star Wars” universes, Pixar movies and shorts and documentaries from National Geographic. 

Disney+ will also offer viewers never-before-seen content. The live action “Star Wars” show “The Mandalorian” lured in many die hard “Star Wars” fans, and the promise of multiple new Marvel shows and movies that feature iconic characters like Loki, the Scarlet Witch and Dr. Strange are sure to draw in even more viewers. 

But to me the big allure of Disney+ is the comfort and nostalgia that comes from watching old favorites. My favorite show as a child was “Lizzie McGuire,” a heartwarming and funny show about the relatable Lizzie and her efforts to survive middle school without too much embarrassment. Since the show ended in 2004, the only way you could watch the hilarious hijinks of Lizzie and her animated alter ego was if you happened to catch reruns on Saturday mornings. 

When I heard the show would be back on Disney+, I was excited, but I was also scared. What if re-watching after all these years ruined the show for me? What if some things are just better left in the past? 

I finally gave in weeks after the release of Disney+, and I was happily surprised. Sure, not every joke landed, and there were occasional cringe-worthy moments, but it truly was a good show. Now that I’m older, I can appreciate the underlying themes, especially ones of female empowerment, a bit more. 

In the very first episode, the show explores the ideas of being true to yourself in the face of pressure to fit into the crowd. It also discusses the harmful nature of girls tearing each other down, and how to accept blame. When Lizzie needs cheering up, her whole family compliments her on her intellect, kind heart and ability to maintain friendships. They make no comments about her appearance. 

I’m not saying that Lizzie McGuire is the next feminist icon. An educated viewer could probably find a lot to condemn about the show’s treatment of cheerleaders or the characterization of mean girl Kate. What I am saying is, unlike some other nostalgic shows, many of the Disney Channel shows still hold up more than a decade later. 

To this day shows like “That’s So Raven” and “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody” are applauded for their willingness to tackle important issues like the harmful impacts of photoshop on how young girls view their own body, or the health concerns that come with yo-yo dieting. More importantly, they managed to do this while still being funny enough to maintain their audience. 

Disney+ offers a unique look back at the shows that shaped so many of our lives. I think it’s beneficial to take a step back and review the messages those shows conveyed and what they mean today. It can also be really fun. 

I am concerned about the future of streaming services. I think they will eventually morph back into an upgraded version of cable –  expensive, crowded and usually filled with subpar programing. However, I admit the benefits that come with streaming platforms, not the least of which is being able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want. Now that can include my old favorite Disney shows. 

That being said, Disney+ is a welcome addition to the steaming market for most viewers. If the nostalgia of classics released from the elusive Disney vault is not enough to catch your attention, the new content may be. Though I cannot attest to the quality of these new shows, as a Disney girl at heart I have enough faith in the Imagineers to tune in and find out. You may not be willing to hop on the Disney bandwagon just yet, but with positive reviews of the service rolling in thus far, you may be alone. 

Disney released the original animated movie “Mulan” in 1998, and it eventually became the second-highest grossing film in that year. Disney cast Ming-Na, a Macau-American, to voice Mulan in the 1998 film. The main character, Mulan, defies her father’s wishes and dons a soldier’s uniform to take the place of her father within the Chinese army.

On the announcement of the live-action film, a preemptive petition was created to avoid Disney casting a non-Asian actress as the lead character. This petition entitled “Tell Disney You Don’t Want a Whitewashed Mulan” grows out of previous casting decisions that have cast white actors for characters who are not white. The remake of the popular Japanese film “Ghost in the Shell” received heavy backlash when Scarlett Johannson was cast as the main character. Further issues with casting came when white actress Rooney Mara played Tiger Lily, the Native American princess, in 2014 live-action “Peter Pan.”

“White-washing is a process whereby black characters, but also non-white characters, will be played by white actors,” said Emma Dabiri, cultural commentator and race expert, for CNN.

“Mulan” and “Ghost in the Shell” are not the first movies to be criticized of white-washing and misrepresenting people of color on screen. In 1963, Elizabeth Taylor famously portrayed the Egyptian princess Cleopatra, and Mickey Rooney portrayed a caricature of a Japanese man in the 1961 “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” with Paramount since calling the casting “a toxic caricature.”

Black actors also face the repercussions of white-washing in Hollywood. Dabiri explains that lighter-skinned, mixed race or biracial actors are often sought after to portray black characters. She mentions the upcoming Nina Simone biopic as an example of white-washing black characters. The actress Zoe Saldana was recently cast to play the singer who faced opposition for not meeting the typical Eurpoean standards associated with black musicians at the time. Dabiri says that Simone would not have lived the life she had if she had resembled the lighter-skinned Saldana.

The screenwriter of “Ghost in the Shell,” Max Landis, took to YouTube to explain the casting decision of the main character.

“There are no A-List female Asian celebrities right now on an international level,” Landis said.

In a piece for the New York Times, Keith Chow admonished that way of thinking, citing that movies that are ethnically more diverse create more box office revenue than those that have an all-white cast. Further more, Chow asks readers that if there are not any prominent minority actors in Hollywood, how are they to build their reputation if they are not even cast in large productions?

“For those in power, it’s on you to create stars who aren’t just straight white guys. They’re gonna be fine — there are so many roles for handsome white guys and God bless them, they’re great at what they do. That’s why it’s especially infuriating when there are specific Asian roles — those are so few and far between — and you choose not to [cast an Asian actor]. This person [could have been] the only Asian female lead in a movie all year,” said Alan Yang, a co-creator of the Emmy-award-winning “Master of None.”