Customer Reviews

Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters (Communication, Society and Politics)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is not for beginners, but will provide much more intellectual coverage of media ownership issues for any concerned activist influenced by the works of Ben Bagdikian, Robert McChesney, and the like. This book can also be seen as a more technical, but somewhat less illuminating, sequel to Beker's previous manifesto, the more expansive "Media, Markets, and Democracy." In this latest book, Baker advances a quite unique legal/economic analysis while zeroing in on specific matters of media ownership. Baker agrees with the critical media analysts who see trouble for democracy in the recent concentration of media, and here he goes beyond mere criticism into the deeper matters of law and economics that have caused the problem, and the legal and economic tools that could potentially solve the problem. The first chapter of this book is a fascinating economic analysis of the corporate media and its behavior, and why such trends are having measurable impacts on egalitarian democracy. The subsequent chapters debunk claims that media concentration is not really a problem, or a problem that will be easily corrected by free markets or the Internet. (Baker's analysis of the politicized and uncorroborated faith in mythical free markets is especially insightful.) Baker also provides in-depth coverage of the First Amendment issues of media ownership, and finally advances several fairly plausible policy solutions that are based on real legal precedents and feasible readings of the law.

Unfortunately, this book is not as strongly presented as Baker's previous works. Here the writing style is highly padded and repetitive, with excessive previews of upcoming sections and reviews of previous chapters. Another issue is occasional quantitative analyses that appear forced and awkward. Also, Baker builds much of his arguments by debunking other theorists, most notably Benjamin Compaine and to a lesser extent Bruce Owen, in a fashion that will probably lead to a ruinous intellectual arms race. This book will be most useful as a research supplement for those who have been influenced by Baker's established theoretical work on media patterns and the health of American democracy, especially the matters covered in this book's stronger predecessor. [~doomsdayer520~]

Great book in excellent condition. Thanks very much.

Baker is a great thinker, not a good writer though.

In the first chapter, in only fifty-three brilliant pages, we have a sweeping encyclopedic look at the issue, how the current empiric framing of the issue misses the point entirely, and a straightforward argument why we should return to a value-driven approach.

Unfortunately, the book does not end after chapter one.

Having already demolished the arguments of "the other side" by showing the complete irrelevance of their underlying values, he feels compelled to answer their every argument point-by-point. As a result, he spends the next one hundred and fifty pages going back over the material from the first fifty, exhaustively dismantling the statements of his opponents.

In this, he is far more gracious than I. From his rebuttals alone - and the number of times that he must explicitly point out that the right wing's arguments completely miss or obfuscate the point - it becomes obvious that those he is arguing with have completely different goals.

I am reminded of the many times I found myself debating creationists. Rather than simply stating that they had different goals (faith, not science), the most vocal creationists routinely employ linguistic tricks, logical-sounding dodges, and semantic logic traps. Their goal was - and still is - not to compare and test ideas, but to capture the public's mind. Debate, after all, is more a measure of verbal strategy than a test of an idea's soundness.

C. Edwin Baker has apparently not learned this, and believes that his opponents are still acting in good faith. Therefore, he must believe that they are misinformed or mistaken, and so he rebuts all their points. Repeatedly. He has many facts and excellent analysis on his side - but it is the sheer weight of both that is the book's downfall.