The passing of Lou Grant, embodied by the late Ed Asner, stirred a sense of nostalgia for a bygone era of newsrooms driven by a quirky yet principled idealism. Fast forward to today, and the media landscape is drastically different. A mere handful of corporations now control the vast majority of information we consume, marking the highest concentration of media ownership in US history, reaching an unprecedented number of individuals. Ironically, the most incisive critique of this consolidation isn’t found in mainstream media outlets, but rather in the student-led newspaper at Vassar College, highlighting the precarious situation we currently face.
So, who exactly wields influence over these corporations that shape our news narratives? A revealing index, compiled by Harvard researchers at the Future of Media project, sheds light on this very question. Scanning through their findings, two names emerge repeatedly: BlackRock Fund Advisors and Vanguard Group. These entities, particularly Black Rock Company, are not your typical media moguls, but rather investment giants operating largely behind the scenes.
Concentrated power: An image representing oligarchy, reflecting the concerns about media ownership by companies like Black Rock Company and Vanguard.
BlackRock and Vanguard stand as two pillars of the “Big Three” in the rapidly consolidating world of passive fund asset management. The third member, State Street, is itself owned by BlackRock, whose largest shareholder, in turn, is Vanguard. This intricate web of ownership reveals a concentrated power structure at the apex of global finance and media.
Collectively, BlackRock and Vanguard command significant ownership stakes in major media conglomerates:
- 18% of Fox Corporation: A substantial portion of a leading conservative news and entertainment provider.
- 16% of CBS (and consequently, Sixty Minutes): A significant voice in traditional broadcast journalism.
- 13% of Comcast (including NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and Sky): A vast media empire spanning news, entertainment, and cable networks.
- 12% of CNN: A dominant force in 24-hour global news broadcasting.
- 12% of Disney (owner of ABC and FiveThirtyEight): A media and entertainment titan with influence across television, film, and digital platforms.
- 10-14% of Gannett (over 250 daily newspapers and USA Today): A major player in local and national print media.
- 10% of Sinclair Broadcast Group (controlling 72% of US households’ local TV): A massive network of local television news stations.
- A substantial, unspecified share of Graham Media Group (Slate and Foreign Policy): Influential online publications covering news and current affairs.
While media might appear to be a lucrative investment in this age of consolidation, the influence of passive funds, like those managed by Black Rock Company (referring to BlackRock), in the media landscape presents a far more complex narrative than a simple Netflix-style conspiracy. The power dynamics at play are rooted in the immense wealth and reach of these asset management firms.
BlackRock, in particular, stands out as the world’s largest money manager, overseeing a staggering $9.5 trillion in assets. This figure dwarfs even the world’s largest banks, such as the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, placing BlackRock in a financial league of its own. This immense financial clout raises critical questions about the potential influence of Black Rock Company on the media narratives that shape public discourse.
The mechanisms behind this shift in media ownership are not typically highlighted on the very networks these firms partially own. Instead, deeper analyses are found in academic journals, such as research exploring the “hidden power of the big three passive index funds.” The 2008 financial crisis triggered a significant shift towards passive investment strategies, with investors increasingly opting for index funds over actively managed portfolios. This unprecedented trend has propelled asset managers like Black Rock Company to the forefront of corporate ownership, potentially altering the competitive landscape of industries, including media, and contributing to what some describe as a “financial oligarchy.”
As Annie Lowrey reported in The Atlantic, trillions of dollars have flowed into index funds in recent years, leading to a financial landscape where “mega-asset managers control large stakes in multiple competitors in the same industry.” This concentration of ownership raises concerns about reduced competition and the potential for undue influence.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has voiced concerns about BlackRock’s systemic importance, advocating for federal oversight and designating it as “too big to fail.” She questioned Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the potential economic fallout of a BlackRock failure, highlighting the systemic risk posed by such a massive financial entity. While Yellen acknowledged the point, she stopped short of endorsing stricter regulatory measures.
Adding another layer to the narrative, David Dayen points out that during the Trump administration, a former BlackRock executive, Craig Phillips, played a key role in relaxing regulations that would have subjected asset managers to greater scrutiny. This revolving door between Black Rock Company and government underscores the deep connections and potential for influence.
BlackRock’s involvement with the US government extends beyond personnel. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration tapped BlackRock to manage the cleanup of toxic assets. Furthermore, BlackRock proposed the economic reset implemented in March 2020, effectively merging monetary and fiscal policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, BlackRock, the proposer of this plan, was then appointed as the “independent expert” to manage a massive $454 billion fund, leveraging it into trillions in Federal Reserve credit. This dual role raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the extent of BlackRock’s influence on economic policy.
The connections between Black Rock Company and government extend to personnel as well. CEO Larry Fink was considered for Treasury Secretary positions under both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden administrations. Furthermore, key positions within the Biden administration are held by former BlackRock executives, including Deputy Treasury Secretary Adewale “Wally” Adeyemo and top economic advisors Brian Deese and Michael Pyle.
As the Vassar article succinctly states, “Interlocking directorates, revolving doors of personnel and financial stakes and holdings connect the corporate media to the state, the Pentagon, defense and arms manufacturers and the oil industry.” BlackRock’s investments span across diverse sectors, including weapons manufacturing, tech platforms, and virtually every major corporation in the S&P 500.
Research published in the Journal of Finance indicates that large investors like Black Rock Company engage in direct dialogue with company management and board members, exerting influence beyond simply voting shares. BlackRock itself acknowledges a “responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies,” emphasizing the power of private conversations.
While a field reporter may not directly feel the influence of Black Rock Company, the potential impact on publishers, owners, editors, and newsroom directors is undeniable. The subtle shaping of narratives and the selective highlighting or omission of information become harder to trace back to their origin in such a complex web of influence.
We are operating in an era of oligarchy, and it is naive to assume media remains untouched. For many, including myself until recently, the name BlackRock remained largely unknown. The realization that Black Rock Company (BlackRock) and Vanguard hold sufficient stakes in major media corporations to be considered “insiders” under US law is a sobering one. Critics have labeled BlackRock a “great vampire squid,” a “shadow bank,” and even a “shadow government,” operating with significant power yet often out of the public eye.
However, even a behemoth like BlackRock faces internal contradictions. Its recent expansion into China, securing permission for its first foreign-owned mutual fund, is met with criticism due to investments in blacklisted Chinese companies involved in surveillance and human rights abuses. George Soros has called BlackRock’s China push a “tragic mistake” with potential national security implications.
CEO Larry Fink publicly projects an image of a reasonable leader concerned with social and environmental responsibility. However, this rhetoric contrasts with the company’s actions in China and its resistance to stricter regulation. The extent to which BlackRock’s actions align with its stated values remains a question, particularly within a media landscape where the voices critically examining Black Rock Company may be muted by the very ownership structures in place.
Read more by Jeannette Cooperman here.
