For my money, Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal (subscription requried) is one of the most insightful commentators on business and related political matters on the scene today. In today’s column, Mr. Jenkins analyzes Comcast’s bid for Disney. The entire piece is well worth reading, but here are a few tidbits:

Four years ago we adopted Disney and Michael Eisner as our standard example of how the world had been left off-kilter by the absence of hostile takeovers. Nothing would do more to redress the imbalance of power that puts CEOs in the catbird seat, we said, than restoring a lively market for corporate control, which had been all but outlawed by court decisions and state laws.
Picking at the scab in several subsequent columns has finally paid off. That said, last week’s Comcast offer isn’t a good deal for Disney, even if Comcast’s Brian Roberts is hoping Mr. Eisner no longer has the credibility to say so. Disney is a “content” company, and even if badly run, gets up every morning with a chance to start anew. Comcast is the one that finds itself nowadays in a strategic pickle.
* * *
A final note on the content vs. distribution quandary: The merest whiff of a media merger brought out the Chicken Littles, consisting of self-appointed consumer groups in full cry about media monopolization. Listen closely and the substance of current complaints about the media is exactly the opposite: too little control, too many voices, too much programming that serves tastes and values the critics disapprove of.
* * *
Unquestionably, public anxiety over the expanding media cacophony is a real phenomenon, as evidenced by the urge to link every act of juvenile delinquency to something learned on the Internet or heard on a heavy-metal record. There’s almost a neurosis at work here: What critics want is Big Brother, but saying so would be the ultimate political incorrectness, so they phrase their agenda as fear of Big Brother, usually bearing a resemblance to Rupert Murdoch.