Everyone complains about corporate control of the news, huge media conglomerates, etc. Was this the product of a market without barriers to entry?
I can't help you with that specific question, but I must say that it is likely the product of a lazy consumer. The government has stripped the consumer of his senses so far that he easily falls into complacency, believing someone will do what is best for him. We rarely step outside of our comfort zone to discover reality. And by "we" I mean the public, not most people on this forum.
tunk:Everyone complains about corporate control of the news, huge media conglomerates, etc. Was this the product of a market without barriers to entry?
Quite the opposite, actually. It is actually through government intervention that almost all monopolies form, let alone survive. Remember, tv licenses, radio licenses...any sort of media business requires some sort of government approval. This limits the market...this is the exact opposite of "no barriers to entry". It is the government barriers that create such a dominance of only a few firms...because only a few firms are even allowed to be in the industry. Milton Friedman speaks on this...
More on monopolies:
Is statism needed to protect against corporate monopolies?
Is natural monopoly really impossible?
Another facet is the argument that there is actually an upper limit to how big a company can (naturally) get before its sheer size actually hurts profitability. Doug French actually spoke on this at the Mises Circle in January this year.
Seems like this was discussed once before. There are definetely some barriers and regulations getting in the media.
The FCC has an amusing mission strategy. Here's there own page on licensing.