Bob's posting on artsy-fartsy lefty papers reminded me of a disagreement I had with some students at a seminar earlier this summer. I was asked if I was concerned about the increasing concentration of media ownership, lack of diversity among media outlets, and the supposed increase in censorship. I respectfully disagreed; here's why:

First, I suspect the censorship bit comes from Disney's declining to distribute Michael Moore's trash (see my previous post and a critique by NPR's Scott Simon here). That's not censorship--it's Disney's right as a private entity. Moreover, censorship is something done by governments not by private parties. Note also that Moore's garbage and other litter box goodies such as "Supersize Me" are playing in a theaters nationwide.

Second, while there may be some large media conglomerates (AOL/Time-Warner comes to mind), there is an incredible array of newspaper, radio, television, and internet sources available; I think there is more, not less, info available today. (One student, apparently not sensing the irony, complained about a lack of news sources then said she read French and German papers via the internet. Would this have even been possible 10 years ago?) Netflix is renowned for making indy films available and Monday's WSJ had an article on bands such as Anti-Flag that are popular for their anti-Bush songs.

Third, I think the students' concerns arose from two factors. One of those was actually an increase in diversity--Fox News--not a decrease in media diversity. The other is frustration over the war and a feeling that there should have been more hard questions about, say, WMDs asked before we invaded Iraq.