Robert McChesneys reply to Benjamin Compaine is astonishingly intemperate (though all the more enjoyable for it). While he may be right to call Compaine complacent, there are still some simple points he needs to acknowledge.
Only one of the Hollywood majors - News Corporation - has any significant role in newspapers. That role is widely (though not always wisely) deplored, but clearly the globalisation of entertainment media has little to do with the perceived decline of journalistic standards in US newspapers (assuming that perception to be correct). The US networks, despite now all being owned by conglomerates, have not starved their news divisions of resources, and network news has not measurably declined in quality (the present glaring faults are little different from those of 30 years ago).The international spread of news operations from CNN, NBC and Sky may cause misgivings at some levels, but their success has paved the way for both the BBC and ITN to follow suit. Is their global ambition a cause for alarm? If new patterns of media consumption undermine the economics of old media to the point where very few cities can support more than one morning or evening newspaper, is 'globalisation' to blame, and is there something that can be done about it?
Compaine is right to say there are actually more competitors in the media market than ten, twenty or thirty years ago, and the fact that most of them are large players does not make the market any less competitive. As it happens, stand-alone creators of broadcast content, like Discovery, Bloomberg and Hallmark, have also managed to thrive in this market.
Even an 800-pound gorilla like Murdoch has unquestionably added to choice and quality in entertainment. BSkyB has transformed (almost entirely for the better) the UK broadcast industry. 20th Century Fox was revived from its moribund stake. The Fox Broadcasting Channel broke open the old assumptions that there would never be more than three networks. It has carried much dross (as do all channels), but also much quality, as well as transforming the employment prospects of black talent. Twentieth Television has, from a standing start, become the most successful television production company in Hollywood, responsible for NYPD Blue, The Simpsons, Murder One, Ally McBeal, The Practice, The X-Files and much more.
It is true that the power of the major US TV producers - with strong primary and secondary markets at home, and huge distribution networks abroad - allows them to dominate the international stage. But when, in addition to those titles above, they also deliver The Sopranos, Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, The West Wing, Frasier, Friends, ER, Sex In The City and a host of teen-friendly series, it is not surprising that no other territory can compete for quality. Is their dominance regrettable, or laudable, or just a fact of life? Does their existence prevent domestic equivalents being produced? Does the fact that America's leading novelists outclass the UK's prevent Ian McEwan being published?
McChesney may have thrashed Compaine verbally, but the notion that his original argument remains unscathed by the latter does not bear close scrutiny.
