publishers as a clandestine cartel, intimately bound up “withrnthe power and paper trusts, with all the banks, and with all thernpowerful financial institutions which control the country.”rn\’hile much of the book reflects the peculiar political circumstancesrnof the age, Seldes is devastating on the constraints tornfree reporting that automatically arise from the commercial interestsrnof the media magnates. He is equally revealing aboutrnthe organized pressure groups that could not even be mentionedrnin print in anything other than a flattering tone, lest arnboycott threaten sales and (above all) advertising: now thatrnwould make a good expose today. Even in 1938, decades beforernany Surgeon General’s warnings, Seldes was complaining thatrnthe press failed to report frightening research about the healthrndamage caused bv tobacco products, for fear of offending thernindustrw The central message was that “The matter of moneyrnis the chief obstacle to a free press.”rnThe matter of money was crucial to reducing choice in thernpress oer the course of the century. While there never was arngolden age of streetwise journalists and hardbitten independentrneditors, earlier decades were indeed marked by a strikingrndiversit}’ of active print media. Most major cities in the earlyrn20th century had at least two or three daily neyvspapcrs, generallyrncovering a variety of political viewpoints, and these outletsrnwere supplemented by an active ethnic and political press.rnMore significant, the different outlets were owned by severalrndistinct proprietors. This relative cornucopia was already underrnthreat by the 1950’s, with the absorption or destruction of localrnpapers b great national chains like Hearst, Scripps Howard,rnBlock, and Gannett. In the new regime, pa]3crs and radio stationsrnbegan a long-term process of consolidation and rationalizationrnthat accelerated dramatically after the coming of television.rnBy the 1970’s, the one-newspaper city was a commonrnfeature of the social landscape, and that newspaper was likely tornbelong to a national or international conglomerate. Thoughrnthe chains were by no means monolithic in terms of ideology orrnpartisan allegiance, they rarely strayed far outside a fairly narrowrnpolitical consensus.rnThe long dominance of print media was challenged in thern1950’s by the rise of television, but even this change was minorrncompared to the explosixe growth of other forms of electronicrnmedia in later decades. Today, the dissemination of news is incxtricabKrnbound up with other activities collectively bracketedrnas “entertainment.” This includes books, magazines, andrnnewspapers as well as records, tapes, and compact discs, in additionrnto films, television programs, video games, and CDROM,rnand the vastly profitable “spinoffs” available from merchandising.rnThe profitability of the latter is apparent to anyrnparent subjected to blackmail for the purchase of items bearingrnthe name or likeness of Pocahontas, Casper, or the Flintstones.rnTodav, Americans spend some $400 billion on “entertainment,”rna category which also includes cable fees and gambling.rnThe combined industries employ 2.5 million people, a 66rnpercent increase since 1988 alone, and the resulting jobs andrnin’estment have been critical in preventing regions likernCalifornia from collapsing utteriv with the decline of Gold Warrnmilitar- spending.rnChanging technology has brought together the realms ofrnprint, electronic media, and recorded music, a point obviousrnto an one sitting at a computer that is simultaneously playingrna compact disc, or using the Web to access a video clip.rnWithin a decade, the distinctions between traditional media.rncomputers, and communication networks will have faded tornvanishing point, a symbiosis that is already foreshadowed by therncurrent convergence of the corporations presently active inrnthese diverse fields. Technology also overwhelms traditionalrnnational boundaries, so that new media empires are desperatelyrnanxious to preserve and promote their interests in such lucrativernregions as Europe and the Pacific Rim. hiternationally, thernAmerican balance of payments would look far grimmer withoutrnthe profits from entertainment, a product avidly consumedrnby a global market with no great taste for American-made carsrnor electronics. American makers of film, video, and musicrnalready earn 40 percent of their revenues overseas.rnBy the 1980’s, media enterprises were seeking to controlrnactivities in several types of activity, venturing into print publishingrnand music, both making and distributing films and tele-rn’ision programs, and running their own television stations andrncable networks. For decades, federal authorities attempted tornregulate this sort of crossover for fear of permitting monopoliesrnthat could stifle free expression, but such qualms were overriddenrnby the free market atmosphere of the Reagan, Bush, andrnGingrich years. When the history of the American mediarncomes to be written, the year 1995 might well be regarded as arnturning point, in which Congress and the Federal CommunicationsrnCommission finally abolished or significantly reducedrnmany of the restrictions which had limited the growth of thernconglomerates, permitting, for example, a single company tornown two teleision stations in the same market, or to holdrnnewspapers in a market where it already ov’ned radio or televisionrnconcerns. A company could now own television stationsrnbroadcasting to over a third of the American market, while nationalrntelevision networks are allowed to compete freely m thernsyndicated television market. Limitations on foreign ownershiprnof media corporations have been de facto suspended by thernadministration’s failure to check the activities of Rupert Murdoch’srnAustralian-based News Corporation, with its wide holdingsrnin American newspapers and its Fox Broadcasting system.rnDeregulation was accompanied by a sharp growth in the sizernand power of the media giants, and their integration into multi-rnindustry cfjncerns. This trend originated in the 1980’s withrnGeneral Elcctric’s acquisition of RCA, which included thernNBC network, while ABC was purchased b’ the Capital Citiesrnsyndicate, and Time merged with Warner. Even these enormousrnmergers were dwarfed by the developments of last summer,rnwhen CBS was absorbed into a Westinghouse empire thatrnalso included such nonmedia enterprises as nuclear power, defensernelectronics, office furniture, and even refrigerated trucking.rnIn media terms, Westinghouse now found itiself in chargernof 15 television stations and 39 radio stations, with several hundredrnradio and television affiliates.rnAnother 1995 venture combined Disney and CapitalrnCities/ABC, which together earned revenues of some 17 billionrndollars and had a total market value in excess of 40 billion. Thernsecond largest merger in American history, this deal created arnhuge conglomerate with 85,000 employees, about the samernstrength as Westinghouse. The overweening Mouse controlsrn11 television stations and over 220 affiliates, m addition to 21rnradio stations, and newspapers in 13 states. It also operates severalrnof the best-known cable channels, including Lifetime, Artsrnand Entertainment, the Disney Channel, and the sports networkrnESPN, which enjoys international popularity. Disney isrnan example of the oligarchic control prevailing in the seeminglyrnfreewheeling wodd of broadcast cable, in the arena of “500rnFEBRUARY 1996/13rnrnrn