"The Fourth Estate", as a term referring to the media, was first coined in the 19th century by either Thomas Carlyle or Edmund Burke according to Wikipedia.
Thomas Carlyle in On Heroes and Hero Worship (1841) writes,
- ... does not... the parliamentary debate go on... in a far more comprehensive way, out of Parliament altogether? Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than they all." [1]
In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General; the church, the nobility and the commoners .
Today The Fourth Estate is largely owned by multinational corporations who run their media businesses to a) make the largest possible profit and to b) manipulate the political process.
The rise of citizen media is an exciting opportunity to create a new kind of press, one that is owned and operated, not by large corporations or by governments, but by normal people.
But here's what I can already start to see happening - citizen media is already starting to be assimilated by the guys with the big bucks. They come as white knights, offering friendship and benevolence, the light shining out of their eyes. They are on board. They get it. They want to help usher in the new paradigm.
Yeah.
At Microsoft, there used to be a term, used frequently before the DOJ case. That term was "embrace and extend" (often referred to by Microsoft competitors as "embrace, extend and extinguish"). A rough translation is "to appear to accept new and threatening standards from the outside by integrating them into your products, but then use your size and reach to quietly re-direct the new standards to meet your own objectives and create hurdles for competitors".
I can see "embrace and extend" already making its way into podcasting.
Where?
Apple integrates podcasting support into iTunes and then swamps its directories with MSM shows. Podcasters cheer. But ask yourself - who owns Apple?
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
| BARCLAYS BANK PLC |
| FMR CORPORATION (FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORP) |
| AXA |
| STATE STREET CORPORATION |
| Calamos Advisors LLC |
| VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) |
| MORGAN STANLEY |
| JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC |
| JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC |
| Amvescap Plc |
What other business interests do these funds have significant holdings in? Here's just one:
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
| CAPITAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY |
| BARCLAYS BANK PLC |
| AXA |
| CITIGROUP INC. |
| STATE STREET CORPORATION |
| WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP |
| FMR CORPORATION (FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORP) |
| DODGE & COX INC |
| VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) |
| JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC |
Coincidence?
Let's pull another company at random... say GENERAL ELECTRIC (owners of NBC and other media interests).
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
| BARCLAYS BANK PLC |
| STATE STREET CORPORATION |
| FMR CORPORATION (FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORP) |
| AXA |
| VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) |
| CAPITAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY |
| NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION |
| Mellon Financial Corporation |
| JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY |
| WELLS FARGO & COMPANY |
Hmmm... yeah, I'm paranoid... companies with very large MSM interests, who also have large stakes in technology companies, who happen to be playing a large role in podcasting, which is a key tool in citizen media.
What else is happening in citizen media?
Large venture capitalist firms are buying big equity stakes in leading podcasting outfits. Who provides the financial backing for these firms? What other interests do they have? What kind of interest, for example, do they have in Time Warner? Interesting...
So... What else is happening?
Large media companies are trying to buy up technology firms, some of which provide leading VOIP services important to citizen media. What could happen if they gain control of those assets?
I don't know. Maybe I need to cut back on the espressos...
you're full of theories arent you?
can you now shed some light on the umpiring scandle that is sweeping the afl this week ;)
Posted by: Frank Arrigo | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 09:36 AM
One of the things I love about Cam's blog is your guaranteed at least one or more different conspiracies a week.
The other thing is he has too much time on his hands.
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:01 PM
Frank: Not sure Cam can (sounds like a song/dance, The Cam-Can) but have a look at my rant (feel free to link (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)):
http://mollyzine-afl.blogspot.com/2005/08/umpirer-gate-has-there-been-bigger.html
Molly
Posted by: Phillip Molly Malone | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 02:21 PM
Cameron,
Large institutional investors are common to alot of multinationals. Fund managers generally try to hold a simlar percentage of their investments according to the weighting a particular company has in a stock index.
As Microsoft has such a large market capitalisation (USD $290 billion) it carries a heavy weighting. So all the big funds and insitutional investors are gonna have big holding of MSFT.
I think that it's a common thing for the big corporations to make palys to control emerging industries and businesses.
In this case podcasting. It doesn't mean that podcasting's guaranteed to be the next big thing, but for little outlay they hedge their risk of being left out of the game.
Another thing to consider is that commerical radio broadcasters will use podcasting as a fertile recruiting ground. This may be to recruit talent for broadcasting, or if a viable business model eventuates for podcasting I suspect they'll be second on the scene. The less commercially viable podcasters will remain narrowcasters.
For Melbourne readers, I see the situation a bit like Frank Penhalluriack in the laste 1970's - early 1980's:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Penhalluriack)
That bloke struggled opening his little hardware store every Sunday, and copped fines every Sunday.
As a cause celebre, eventually the Sunday trading laws in Victoria changed. Who benefits most? Myer. David Jones. Bunnings. Target.
When people like you prove it commercially viable, the big (multi)media players will get involved big time.
That doesn't mean you won't still make money. Frank Penhalluriack's still got his hardware store.
Posted by: Bob M | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 08:08 PM
Bob, yeah I remember reading about Frank. He stuck to his guns for years.
Re institutional investors - I understand they have large holdings in many companies and it would be wrong to think that they are "hands-off" investors. They play a large role in determining company strategy and often hold board seats. My point is that it would be naïve to suggest that they will sacrifice their investment in several large media companies in order to promote an emerging paradigm. It is not in their interest.
If we are to build "citizen media" into a genuine alternative to MSM, we need to be very careful about whose bat and ball we play with.
To the rest of you guys - I will quote Michael Moore. "I'm not into conspiracy theories except the ones that are true."
Posted by: Cameron Reilly | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 09:48 PM
I agree with you Cameron. On all points.
Posted by: Bob M | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 01:10 PM