I think the corporatization of media in the past few years has done terrible things to both music and movies, at least. Sequel-itis in the movie industry, the same few outrageously famous artists turning out the same boring things.

But I think it's going to pass. You've got the Internet on one hand, which offers an alternative distribution system. Self publishing's a lot easier nowadays (music through iTunes, for example), and when there is finally some kind of established way to download movies, we'll probably see some kind of YouTube-style resurgence of independent filmmaking. Then on the other hand, there's smart producers (like George Lucas, who's realised that the big studio system isn't going to work for him) and consumers (like us), who know what's what.

So yeah, the situation might not be so peachy now, but i'll wait and see. Meantime, comics are a great distraction.

I think commercial media right now isn't great. There's a lot of crap out there.

But you know, there's some great stuff out there. They Might Be Giants are occasionally working under Disney, but still keeping their creative control and writing great stuff. I don't watch a lot of TV, but the big corporations still churn out some good stuff every now and then.

What are corporations looking for when they decide whether to sell/produce art, movies, books, etc.? Profit. This leads to two things:

Firstly, if something has proved popular in the past, then it is likely to be popular in the future. They're looking to provide people with something they'll buy, and hence will give people what they want. Yes, they'll spend a hefty amount of time telling people what they want before giving it to them, but ultimately it's what the people want. This is what leads to sequelitis, "outrageously famous stars", and so forth - they're safe bets for turning a profit because they have an existing following who will continue to support them unless they prove to be too poor. Equally, these generally originate from good quality things initially, hence why they are encouraged to continue.

Secondly, an inbuilt quality control. Given that art is expected to sell if it is produced, if something is produced that is considered terrible, then it is not going to be mass-produced by corporations. This does raise some potential concern over truly great original pieces being lost due to not being deemed "commercial enough", but for the most part great art will get snapped up by corporations to be shown as such.

The third potential consequence, which I have not related to profit, is if the corporation in question has some image or angle that it wishes to promote, this will affect their choice of production. This, however, has limited commercial impact beyond cornering a niche market (being a recognised supporter of certain styles or similar provides marketing opportunity for consumers interested in that area), and, due to the nature of corporations, unlikely to affect what is available at market.

I doubt that corporate controlled art is going to pass quickly, since it is a pretty simple way of getting a product marketed for an artist. However, the approach corporations take may well change around, since the ability for independent productions to be heard is getting easier, and so corporations are going to have far from a monopoly on what is made available for consumers. That said, radio, TV, cinemas and bookshops are likely to remain the main methods of marketing product sales (CDs/DVDs/downloads/books) simply due to Joe Average probably not wanting to trawl through the output of masses of mediocre artists (imagine having to listen to all the auditions for "Whatever Idol" without the judges comments, interviews, etc. - how bored/irritated would you end up?) in order to hear something he'll like.