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.

In an attempt to clarify the allegations, the Monitor was able to interview Mr. Carroll directly. When asked to provide the basis for his claim, Mr. Carroll backtracked and made another allegation.

“I think that ‘The Hilltop Monitor’ doesn’t even say anything,” Mr. Carroll said. “Every time I look, it’s some sort of graphic design or picture and I think it’s degrading human beings to where they can’t even read words on a page.”

Despite this boisterous response, Mr. Carroll later admitted that he doesn’t read the Monitor. “I think it’s a waste of my time, if you want to say that.”

Additionally, during the course of the interview, Mr. Carroll also openly advocated for a new policy to place the Monitor under control of Student Senate. He cited the Monitor’s general unreliability as a news source and suggested that he could use his power as president to coerce the Monitor into surrendering its autonomy.

“I have a few pieces of blackmail on [Brett Stone- Editor in Chief of the Hilltop Monitor] and that’s all I can say.” Mr. Carroll said. “Maybe there’s some intimidation there.”

When pressed about how his constituents would react to the dissolution of the Monitor as an autonomous entity, Mr. Carroll appeared disinterested. He then went on to declare that there would be no reaction.

“If there were any grievances, however, it would be among the six people who actually get paid by the institution to write for it,” Carroll said.

In his analysis, Mr. Carroll questioned whether allowing for the existence of an autonomous student publication was a good use of funds and pointed to the luxurious lifestyle of one individual in particular. “I just don’t know if you can justify paying for Drew Novak’s lavish, Polo, lifestyle whenever there are people in Eaton that are just trying to take a shower and they can’t” he said.

Novak, who serves on the Monitor’s editorial staff as the Perspectives page editor and concurrently as a Student Senator, has become the subject of much controversy lately for his extravagant, daredevil lifestyle. One source in his inner circle called him “out of control.”

When informed that the Monitor would not go along with Mr. Carroll’s plans, Mr. Carroll seemed to suggest that if he could not absorb it, then he would attempt to sabotage it.

“I’ve heard of stories where, just mysteriously, the Jewell website or other websites that the Hilltop Monitor is based on could crash and entire archives from a year could crash and if that were to happen, who can say whose to blame?”

When told that the Monitor had identified suspicious Russian activity on their website and was under the assumption that his administration was implicated, Mr. Carroll did not appear to care. In fact, he chose not to deny the allegations and suggested that he and his administration had been colluding with the Russian government since at least the previous student body election.

“There was a surge of money that demonstrated itself in the form of cupcakes in the first-year resident halls whenever I was running.” he said. “I’m not going to say where the money came from but that’s what swung the election.”

Despite Mr. Carroll’s degrading comments and his threats towards the Monitor, were not taken lightly.

“If Mr. Carroll thinks that we are going to go gently into that good night, he has another thing coming. We’ll be seeing him in court,” Stone said.

While pop culture news has often been thought of as “fake” in and of itself through the propagation of tabloid gossip, the same line of skepticism should be brought to the controversies it brings into question. Within the first three months of 2017, two major scandals about popular films have flooded social media—Amblin Entertainment’s “A Dog’s Purpose” and Disney-Pixar’s “Coco”—only to be debunked in a matter of weeks or even days. In both cases, the causes to boycott have been well-intentioned, as protestors felt that the crew of “A Dog’s Purpose” was abusive towards its animal cast and that the upcoming “Coco” is plagiarizing from Jorge Gutierrez’s “The Book of Life.” The issues being tackled, those of animal abuse and cultural appropriation, respectively, are problems that need to be addressed in modern society—hence why these controversies have become so pervasive.

For instance, third-party investigators have confirmed that the infamous video footage from “A Dog’s Purpose” was heavily edited to give the impression of an abuse that never occurred. Yet, when I spoke to people about this controversy, many were not aware that this investigation had ever occurred and commented on the lack of news coverage the rebuttal received in comparison to the original issue. In order to prevent people from being duped by these kinds of scandals, and by fake news in general, a few guidelines should be established.

• Fact-check, fact-check, fact-check.

Too often we limit our research to just looking at articles from different sources about the same thing, and social media really doesn’t help much with that. Take “Coco,” for instance. The major arguments against it are as follows: it appropriates from a Mexican director (Gutierrez) and it is incredibly whitewashed, with no Mexican presence in sight. Yet, not only does the film boast an impressive Latino cast and crew, but Gutierrez himself has taken to Twitter multiple times, stating that the similar concepts were coincidental, noting that many of his friends are working on “Coco” and even outright telling “The Book of Life” fans to put aside their differences and stop arguing about the subject. Much of this misconception comes from the fact than fans believed he was rejected by Disney when DreamWorks was the real culprit—a confusion of studios that would get you shot down in most animation forums. All this can be gleaned from a few looks at IMdB pages or other places fans would commonly frequent, like a beloved director’s Twitter feed.

• Think about when the news is being released.

These cases of fake news both hit the media following important milestones in the films’ production. The video for “A Dog’s Purpose” came just a week before its worldwide release, and the discourse surrounding “Coco” after its first trailer. This is a common way to stir up attention and make it look as though information has been “withheld” until the last minute.

• Think about what agendas it serves.

TMZ and PETA are both organizations that many view with a skeptical eye, yet neither came into question during the “A Dog’s Purpose” video due to the emotional reactions it brought. PETA is known for, among other things, condemning the use of animals as pets. What could it gain from editing footage from a movie that glorifies pets themselves? That is to say, we should think about the possibility of a constructed controversy and what deeper purposes this construction could serve.

• Realize that people make mistakes and can be forgiven.

This isn’t to say that all controversies about new releases are completely unwarranted—for instance, many compelling arguments were made about how M. Night Shyamalan’s “Split” contributes to the demonization of mental illness. What’s important to note, however, is that the creators should not be exempt from the conversation. Too often, we see them as parties within a corrupt system; yet, the producer of “A Dog’s Purpose” frequently donates to anti-animal abuse organizations, and after mistakenly trying to trademark “Dia de Los Muertos,” Pixar decided to hire many of the Mexican-American creators who spoke out against it.

These might seem like half-hearted apologies in a corporatized world that relies on them, but we should learn that complete skepticism is not the answer. Jewell-style critical thought, and acknowledging mistakes within media, is.