The eight multinational corporations that dominate the US media, and are no small players in Europe either (namely, General Electric, AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney, AOL/Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation, Viacom and Seagram, Bertelsmann), are looking to the global media market to boost their revenues.
In fact, within the next decade the majority of their revenue is expected to come from non-US sales.
Unlike movies, music and, increasingly, TV, newspaper publishing is, in most countries, owned by companies based in that country. In Ireland, for example, the biggest-selling newspapers are owned by the Tony O'Reilly empire, Independent Media.
However, also making an impact on the Irish market are Murdoch-owned publications, the Sun and the Sunday Times. Murdoch's News Corporation also owns several other publications in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and the US as well as television stations including BSkyB. O'Reilly's company has newspaper and other media interests in the southern hemisphere as well.
When one organisation begins to take control of a majority of media outlets, concern for the democratic values of a free press arise.
The treatment of the recent proposed increase in the British television licence fee is a typical example. The Murdoch papers have uniformly and vocally objected to the introduction of a digital licence fee because, they say, it would slow down digital take-up. Coincidentally or otherwise, Murdoch, through BSkyB, has invested heavily himself in digital television.
In his British publications there have been editorials, columns and "exclusives" examining the unfairness of an increase in the fee to pay for "BBC digital channels no one wants to watch". Such is the influence over public debate a media organisation operating at national level can exert. How will huge media conglomerates affect issues globally?
There is considerable concern over how these huge organisations will impact on indigenous cultural media, such as independent filmmaking.
Countries throughout the world are working hard to keep a rein on the spread of media monopoly. A conference examining the growing domination of the world's media by a few corporations a couple of years ago recommended that culture should be kept out of the control of the World Trade Organisation, which pushes for free trade.
As it is already, Hollywood, reflecting all-American values which seek to maintain a financially driven status quo, dominates cinema screens - and has a stake in every thing from `street' fashion to Christmas toys.
Even in developing countries, organisations which are among the world's largest media companies have interests and dominate local market. Some of these have links both with the larger media conglomerates and with Wall Street investment banks.
What happens in these countries when the gross inequities between rich and poor are challenged by groups such as the Zapatistas in Mexico? Media in such countries have often been close either to governments or to business elites, or both, so they haven't exactly been revolutionary. Now that these national media are establishing links with global organisations, the wider world's understanding of political instability in certain countries may be similarly affected by financial agendas.
The world's largest media companies own a huge chunk of book, magazine, and newspaper publishing, record companies, television stations and cable systems and film production.
There can be a positive side. According to author Robert McChesney, "global conglomerates can at times have a progressive impact on culture, especially when they enter nations that had been tightly controlled by corrupt crony media systems (as in Latin America) or nations that had significant state censorship over media (as in parts of Asia)."
