More negatives

Another way conglomerates can control how people think is by stifling anything that they don't particularly care for. By owning so much, it is hard to keep their values in check. Since one conglomerate could potentially own about fifty percent of everything of what fifty percent of the population watches each day, who would report on the conglomerate doing anything ilegal, or unethical,? Since they own so much, they can easily stifle any negative information about themselves, leaving their greed unhindered.

Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.

A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.