On Media Concentration and the Diversity Question
Corporate mergers and the consolidation of ownership in the American communications
arena have long been sources of concern. The perception of a direct relationship between
democracy and a vibrant communications system of diverse sources and owners is near universal
(or, at least, is given universal lip-service), as is, for the most part, the converse fear that a
communications system which rests in just a few hands will corrupt the freedom of speech,
impair the practice of democracy, and impress an ideological pall on society. The Supreme
Court’s reasoning in the 1941 case of Associated Press v. United States expresses the issue
plainly. In language that has since assumed a kind of talismanic status in discussions about the
First Amendment and corporate power, the Court stated that
[The First] Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of
information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public,
that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government
itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations
a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to
publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the
Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the
press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction
repression by private interests.
1
Because the press could itself stifle freedom of speech through its business practices (in this case,
restrictive membership regulations), the First Amendment did not preclude government from
applying the antitrust laws to that medium. A few years earlier in 1934, apprehension about
1
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
Page 1 of 53 
Convention