-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
The latest smartphone from Apple hit stores this weekend and reportedly the bell of the ball is the iPhone 17 Pro Max. Customers want it for its advanced telephoto lens, large display and battery life. Investors want it to keep up with the Joneses. While Apple remains one of the globe’s most valuable tech companies, there is growing concern on Wall Street that the industry leader is lagging behind some of its rivals when it comes to artificial intelligence. Ideally the new model addresses some of that chatter.
Competition — the bedrock of a free market society. Without competition, innovation is stifled and choice becomes an illusion.
Case in point: Prior to 1984, AT&T customers were required to rent AT&T telephones for its services. Sounds innocuous until you realize through a series of acquisitions and regulatory rules changes, the telecommunication company was able to take control of 80% of all telephones in the U.S. This was not by accident. One of the company’s earliest presidents, Theodore Vail, introduced a motto in 1907: “One system, one policy, universal service.” Vail was selling efficiency, but what AT&T eventually acquired was near total control of how Americans talked with one another. By the time Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the only choice nearly 80 million American households were left with was deciding what kind of AT&T phone to rent.
When the courts broke up the monopoly, not only did we have more carriers to choose from; we also saw an explosion in innovation. That is what happens when real choice is possible.
Within a week of President Trump’s reelection, Warner Bros. Discovery chief David Zaslav said, “it’s too early to tell, but it may offer a pace of change and an opportunity for consolidation that may be quite different, that would provide a real positive and accelerated impact on this industry that’s needed.”
Then Skydance acquired Paramount, and Nexstar has its eyes on Tegna. More consolidation in the media industry is expected. What were once solid walls between content, tech and distribution are crumbling, along with the modern corporate media infrastructure.
For industry leaders like Zaslav, the Ellison family and other stakeholders, the chaos is an opportunity to increase profits under the guise of efficiency. But for the rest of us, we’ve seen this story before, with AT&T when we were “free” to call but only from a centralized system.
Vail’s seductive promise of making phone usage efficient led us into a monopoly. And this consolidation of media threatens to lull the country into a false sense of choice when it comes to free speech. Sure, we may still have lots of channels to choose from, but if the decision of what is appropriate to broadcast, aggregate online, post or publish lies in the hands of a few private citizens, then there is no real choice.
Not when it comes to free speech.
The main reason founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin often quoted Roman philosopher Cicero — who championed free speech — was that he warned against centralized power.
After the murder of Julius Caesar, Cicero documented how the erosion of freedom of speech led Rome away from a thriving republic where vigorous debate was encouraged to a repressive empire ruled by a singular voice. A society where one worldview was the only acceptable one. There were still elections, Cicero noted, but without the freedom to criticize government, choice was but an illusion.
The American founders also leaned on the teachings of the French philosopher Montesquieu, who is credited with the development of the three branches of government. Preventing a consolidation of power was key for preventing tyranny, he warned in his work “The Spirit of the Laws.”
“There is no liberty if the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive,” he wrote in 1748.
The danger of media being controlled by a few conglomerates is reflected in the fates of past centralized powers: the fall of the Roman Empire, the breakup of AT&T. The potential harm to innovation is one concern. The restriction on speech is the much greater issue. That’s because if the citizenry has only an illusion of choice, then the people have only an illusion of freedom.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author argues that media consolidation fundamentally threatens free speech by creating an illusion of choice while concentrating control in the hands of a few private entities, drawing parallels to the AT&T monopoly that once controlled 80% of American telephones and forced customers to rent only AT&T equipment until the courts broke up the monopoly in the 1980s.
Competition serves as the essential bedrock of both free markets and free speech, with the author contending that without genuine competition, innovation stagnates and choice becomes meaningless, as evidenced by the explosion of telecommunications innovation and options that followed AT&T’s breakup.
Current media consolidation efforts, including Warner Bros. Discovery’s expansion plans, Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount, and Nexstar’s pursuit of Tegna, represent a dangerous trend toward centralizing media control under the guise of efficiency, with industry leaders like David Zaslav framing consolidation as providing “real positive and accelerated impact” when it primarily serves to increase profits.
Historical precedent demonstrates the dangers of centralized power, with the author citing the Roman Empire’s transformation from a thriving republic with vigorous debate to a repressive system under singular control, as documented by Cicero, and referencing Montesquieu’s warnings about the separation of powers as essential to preventing tyranny.
The erosion of meaningful choice in media represents a fundamental threat to democratic society, since when broadcasting, aggregating, posting, and publishing decisions rest with a few powerful entities, citizens are left with only an illusion of freedom rather than genuine democratic participation in the marketplace of ideas.
Different views on the topic
Some government officials and media executives argue that regulatory oversight serves legitimate public interest purposes, with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr maintaining that broadcast stations have “long retained the right to not air national programs that they believe are inconsistent with the public interest, including their local communities’ values”[2][3].
Certain political leaders view media consolidation and regulatory action as beneficial for the country, with President Trump praising recent media decisions as “Great News for America” and encouraging further restrictions on political commentary programming[1][2].
Industry stakeholders contend that consolidation can bring necessary efficiency and financial stability to struggling media companies, with major broadcasters like Nexstar and Sinclair arguing that relaxed ownership rules and expanded market reach would provide positive impacts for the industry while pursuing merger approvals and regulatory changes[1].
Some media companies assert their right to make content decisions based on business considerations and regulatory pressures, with entities like Nexstar and Sinclair demonstrating that corporate financial interests and regulatory compliance can justify programming changes even when they affect political speech[1].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In our first episode, the L.A. Times columnist George Skelton sizes up the governors he’s known, what made them successful and whether the next one can measure up.
On screen, Errol Flynn played a series of daredevils, fortune hunters, and suave romantics. Off screen, he lived a life of outsize debauchery and recklessness, including a persistent interest in underage girls. In 1943, at the height of his fame, he faced trial in Los Angeles on charges of statutory rape.
Why would someone decide to risk their life for a country that is not their own? What might they be searching for? Call Sign Condor is a podcast about the thousands of Latin American soldiers who are fighting in Ukraine — for Ukraine.
