>And would they count YouTube as "one" outlet?

YouTube has editorial control over which videos are allowed to stay up, which videos are eligible to get monetized, and which videos are actively promoted. It's not just a web server with an index and a movie player.

That may be so. The other point is that all those media mergers are perhaps the inevitable consequence of a battled and dying industry due to disruptive technology (YouTube / Widevine).

YouTube/IG/etc are not media creators per se, just aggregators. Thus, not including them on that list makes perfect sense to me.

Well, when you say "american media" then don't include all "media" sources, it just looks like clickbait.

from the article it says "Today, 6 media giants control a whopping 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to.". there is a heavy handed content moderation policy on all major social media platforms. it is a rare day when I don't see or hear of blocked suspended or banned content on social media.

And? I'm just pointing out that "90% of what we read, watch, or listen to" is wholly inaccurate.

They are not just aggregators, but also publishers. They ban/censor certain content, they create algorithms to shape the exposure of information, they control monetization, etc. they have far more influence on “American media” than the six listed here.

Also missing is Nexstar Media which owns 197 US TV stations, and Sinclair Broadcast Group which owns 193 US TV stations.

And let's not forget iHeartMedia which owns around 850 US radio stations. Their stations reach nearly 100 million listeners a week, and nearly 250 million every month.

If they didn't divest yet, the latter is also the owner of most billboards and bus stop ad places in the US.

The 6 corporations "owning the media" concept came out just shortly before, and during, the rise of social media (e.g. I recall it circulating as far back as 2010-'12). In fact, reddit and social media are how a large number of people became aware of it.

Without picking a side or making an argument, it's basically a repeatable factoid that gets people wondering how much collaboration, and potential illicit collusion, is really being applied to the stream of messages they are exposed to on a daily basis.

This isn't true. Consolidation of (old-) media has been a concern discussed as such since well before AOL was acquired by Time Warner.

Sure, but it wasn't a shareable meme that could go viral. I'm referring to the comment about it passing the sniff test, my belief is it doesn't pass the sniff test because the concept of it being "6 corporations" is a decade old. And, as you suggest, perhaps much older.. I'm referring to when it was popularized as only 6.

Personally, I think it's naive to blame some exact set of companies... but in reality I never would've thought about it until someone pointed out how severe the consolidating was, and in plain sight.

Agree this piece was garbage and was exactly the kind of content that the actual tech companies who dominate media would want to promote, to deflect from their ability to silence anyone.

YouTube, FB, etc. don't create content and you can choose for the most part, but they still significantly shape what gets seen.

They also don't include The New York Times, iHeartRadio, or Twitter. But sure, if you ignore everyone else, 6 companies control everything.

> The six they list doesn't include YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc where a huge amount of media is consumed.

None of whom are major producers of their own content. They're just floating user-generated content and content from the corporations mentioned in the OP.