MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

Media Consolidation

How Information Monopolies Prevent Change

The Concentration

Result: Most Americans get information from a tiny number of sources

Why It Matters for Reform

Manufacturing Consent

Status quo bias: Owners benefit from current system—don't cover alternatives

Advertiser influence: Can't criticize major advertisers (pharma, finance, defense)

Horse race: Politics as sport, not substance—avoids policy depth

Specific to AIP

Structural reform: Never covered seriously—"not realistic"

The Business Model Problem

Layoffs: Journalism workforce collapsed—no capacity for depth

Digital Makes It Worse

Platform power: Facebook/Google decide what's seen

Local news collapse: Digital killed local papers, no one covers local government

Foreign manipulation: Bad actors exploit system

Implications for AIP

The Challenge

Complexity: GRT, Stability Accounts too complex for soundbites

Losers will advertise: Healthcare, defense, tax industry opposition will buy media

Bias: Media owners benefit from status quo

Strategies

Celebrity validators: Famous advocates break through

AIP Media Reforms

Antitrust potential: AIP framework could include media deconcentration

Discussion Questions

Is media consolidation overstated? Do alternatives matter more now?

Should AIP include explicit media reform component?

How do we get coverage for ideas media ignores?

Is social media enough to bypass traditional gatekeepers?

What's the role of academic/intellectual credibility in media strategy?

Note: Media is both obstacle and essential channel. This document is more strategic analysis than policy proposal. AIP must account for information environment. Validators invited to assess media landscape and strategy.