I think what scares me most about media consolidation is that it's so subtle and gradual it's hard to care.

Once you've gotten used to Time Warner, why not AOL Time Warner? In a way, when figures like Murdoch permit themselves to become symbols of the phenomenon, they're allowing us to put a face to the name, so to speak: stepping down was the best business move Gates has made. Turner's philanthropy (the action of a person) gets more attention than the bias of his news channel CNN (the inaction of a construct).

Consolidation can be justified (even necessitated) by any number of neo-liberal or conservative arguments on the basis of growth economy and competition. But just like these arguments don't take into account environmental costs, neither do they address the social impact that a media monopoly would have.

If someone has the ability to choose the perimeters of cultural debate, and appoint those who are qualified to add to it, that person would have power far beyond that of anyone within our current democratic paradigm; power unchecked by even the pretense of accountability or responsibility. That person would be a king, and one with a kingdom far surpassing any previous monarch in history.

And corporate rule won't be all public executions and plagues -- there'll be a lot of bad stuff, too.