The media, considered by journalists to be the fourth institutional estate, is now aligned with the principle of the rule of cartels and other trusts or monopolies (known as dominant position). They (the journalists) argued that media concentration posed a danger to plurality, but in reality, given the plurality, it is the right to speak out that is being called into question more than anything else. So why have the major groups besieged the major media? Is it to better govern the people and their destiny, or to lend a helping hand to politicians? Especially since this trend is observed in all major countries, more or less so called democratic.
In 1995, I wrote a memo entitled "Vox Populi" while I was a law student at Assas, Paris II. I explained how to seize power using Article 16 of the Constitution. So, to return to our topic, the simple fact of establishing these information cartels or trusts at the top of civil society, in place of a multitude of press outlets, formerly more or less free, isn't this an alignment, a deliberate establishment of order? To what end? That's not the subject today; we'll see that later.
I. Information Cartels and/or Trusts
Let's take the case of France and the USA.
Mr. Rodolphe Saadé and La Tribune, Mr. Bernard and Les Échos, Mr. François Pinault and Le Point, Mr. Alain Weill and L'Express, Mr. Xavier Niel and Le Monde, Mr. Patrick Drahi and Libération. That's for France.
For the USA, Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, Mr. Michael E. Reed with USA Today, Mr. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. and the New York Times, Mr. Marc Benioff of Salesforce for Time Magazine.
Given this brief overview of the press, let's call it "important" in these two countries, with a broad and qualified readership, what do they have in common, apart from the fact that, in the eyes of their leaders, they (journalists) are paid to remain silent in the face of those in power, or even better, in the face of those in power?
Why talk about a cartel or a trust or even an agreement? On the one hand, the competition authorities, the secular arm of the state in both countries, are ill-advised to preach about conflicts of interest for these large companies. It's clear that legally, the antitrust authorities' legal argument is untenable.
On the one hand, the state, the chief author of laws and regulations, is also the judge. In short, you will have understood that it is both judge and jury, or rather, jury and judge by choice, the latter being theoretically impartial and independent but under the control of the Minister of Justice, a member of the government, and therefore of the executive branch and therefore of its regulatory power.
Well, beyond crowd control, which we will not discuss here today because it goes back to the initial question: for what purpose? As seen above, this is more, in my humble opinion, a matter of the will of these integrated companies and groups in an oligopoly situation, or in a dominant position, which is necessarily abusive—since, as I mentioned in another article, abuse of a dominant position, or even a dominant position, is a synonym for abusive, in my opinion—and therefore of these gentlemen, to be like the state, judge and jury.
What could be better? I'm a jury and I judge myself; in short, as you'll have understood, I'm always as white as snow. Hee hee. The icing on the cake is that no one can actually challenge me because I'm the master on board; anyone who wants to challenge doesn't have the right to speak. The judge being the master of the debate. Hee hee
II. Consequences
Beyond the desire to make money from these media outlets, which, it's true, were gradually bought out by these large groups controlled by these dominant positions, it's because they weren't really making any money, so these gentlemen bought everything for a pittance.
Anyway, let's move on. So, the consequences: apparently, there aren't necessarily any huge profits here. What's left is to direct people to their products, thus directing "people's thoughts." Likewise, we'll see in due course whether or not this is true, whether 1 + 1 = 2, or whether one and one always equals two.
For me, the consequences lie elsewhere, as I explained: the press is normally a natural countervailing power to the State, which has the regulatory, legislative, and judicial systems in its pocket. So, for me, it's in his best interest, as I explained in another article—Competition Law: What is Competition?—to support large monopolistic or oligopolistic groups in light of globalization, which no longer dares to speak its name.
Once again, he finds his advantage: national standard-bearers, unique and select interlocutors, rather than a multitude of interlocutors, small ones at that, who cannot adequately represent the country and its neocolonialist will.
In Vox Populi, I spoke of two things: living space and the desire to direct people's thoughts.
As for the desire to direct people's thoughts, we'll see later, because it is once again part of the answer to the question: For what purpose?
Regarding living space, not to mention current events - the US's desire to annex Greenland and the Russian Federation's Ukraine - the demographic bomb Einstein spoke of alongside the two other bombs - nuclear and information - against which he believed humanity must fight, if we look at reality, it is that countries are facing a scarcity of living space.
Consider the Republic of China or the Federal Republic of India and their billions of people. But this problem is perceived with a completely different acuity by smaller countries: rising sea levels due to so-called climate change, the rush to Europe of migrants from Africa and elsewhere, and migratory flows to the US and Canada view this allusion to living space with a different and serious perspective.
For these large media groups, monopoly or oligopoly means neocolonialism in the same way as their legal guardian, while once again being master on board, therefore party and judge.
So, no one is left to say whether the state is mistaken or misguided, even more so against these large corporations and therefore against these gentlemen. Because beyond the protest they want to silence, they especially cannot stand contradiction, any idea contrary to their own. Basically, they tell anyone, "Silence, kneel before your lord." We're back to serfdom, the circle is complete. This is the Middle Ages—a dark period of humanity—and not the Renaissance.
Ultimately, the desire for expansion of these companies translates into silencing criticism. In the absence of growth drivers in so-called mature, industrialized countries, these large corporations are preparing for their final assault in emerging countries, and economic battle means everyone is in line. Hee hee
So if you do the math again, 1 + 1 never equaled 2, but 1 (I, master of the world lol, number one), so 1 + 1 = 1, or 1 symbol of monopoly or dominant position.
Author
Vidal Bravo - Jandia Miguel
Engineer - Master II in Law
Paris II / Panthéon - Assas
UFR of Montpellier I - Consumer Law Center