Media mergers have become more prevalent in recent years, which has people wondering about the negative effects that could be caused by media ownership becoming more concentrated.Such negative effects that could come into play are lack of competition and diversity as well as biased political views.The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." Recently, new age critical scholarship has emerged that has investigated policymaking critical junctures in the communicative history in northern America.As a result, the media reform movement has flourished.
Journalists and their reports may be directly sponsored by parties who are the subject of their journalism leading to reports which actually favor the sponsor, have that appearance, or are simply a repetition of the sponsors opinion.
Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them.
Concern among academia rests in the notion that the purpose of the First Amendment to the US constitution was to encourage a free press as political agitator evidenced by the famous quote from US President Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press.
Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest.
On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories refused or edited beyond recognition.