I'm as against monopolization as the next guy, but...<p>6 companies having a major presence in the market actually seems like a lot. How many have a major presence in the mobile OS market? Carrier market? Browser market? Soft drink market? None of those hit 6.<p>Similarly, that there even <i>are</i> 140 other movie studios to compare to is amazing. There's nowhere near 140 mobile OSes, or carriers, or browsers. Maybe 140 soft drink brands, but not that anyone has access to in one area.<p>"Control" is so vague it could mean anything. Do these 232 media executives review every show, every article? I don't think so. An article is written, goes to an editor, maybe approved by a middle manager, and then hits the presses. Reddit and my local paper have the same owner if you go high enough on the chain, but there is certainly no connection or common message between the two. In general, I think executives care about profits, not message.<p>90% media market share does not mean the same thing as 90% of what Americans consider important. You can try to defend the connection if you like, but you can't just assert it without evidence or argument.<p>Even so, correlation does not imply causation. Maybe Americans would care about the same things regardless how many companies controlled the media. Maybe the reason these companies are so successful is that they're telling Americans what they already want to hear.<p>There is just way too much to the issue to say that because 6 companies control 90% of the media market we're all trapped in some common viewpoint.<p>Finally, go to the original source please: <a href="http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/" rel="nofollow">http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infograp...</a>