Project Essay: Government & Corporation Controls Over the News Media & What We Can Do to Change Them
Judith Ayers
York College of Pennsylvania
Abstract
This essay examines the control of the media by their parent corporations and the government. The author gives numerous examples from journalists, and broadcast area professionals. She also shows the means in which they, the government and corporations, employ to reach the goal of controlling the information consumed by the U.S. Public. The author proposes that to break this barrier between knowledge and the people that another arm of news is necessary. Blogs are already doing this, at a grassroots level and there is no need for legislation as government is part of the problem.
Government & Corporation Controls Over the News Media
Every night around five or six pm millions of families gather around the television to watch the nightly news. Men and women in dependable suits, with dependable smiles, and reliable stories. News stories about recalled toys, statements from the pentagon, and what movie topped at the box office this weekend. Lindsey Lohan, the Grammys, new diet fads, and new scandals crowd our TV’s and come from every angle on virtually every channel. We are being lied to. The real reasons for war and world pandemics are never revealed; instead we are force fed “truth” when in fact it ‘s the furthest thing from the truth. There are many prominent members of society and the news industry that would agree. Walter Cronkite, broadcast journalist for almost twenty years, stated, "...we must decide which news items out of hundreds available we are going to expose that day. And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control.'"(Marrs, 2001, p.102). Media critic Michael Parenti declared that journalists are employed “to continually recreate a view of reality supportive of existing social and economic class power” (Marrs, 2001, p. 102). David Rockefeller, who spoke at a Bilderberg meeting in 1991 admitted:
We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller)
John Swinton, former editor of the New York Times, stated in 1893 that,
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his
Country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/02/no_such_thing_a.html)
The control over our news media is happening by not only its corporate owners but also by the government. This is not a new idea, but only a time-honored tradition; it is then an apparent pattern that in our Republic, events such as the invasion of Afghanistan, the financial crisis of 2008, and other similar crises are highly susceptible to be spun or doctored and, many times, the public is told outright lies by the media. This is because the news is highly controlled by entities such as the government and the parent corporations that monopolize and own the news companies. This effectively ends a free and nonobjective press, especially in times of war and national emergencies when the truth is most needed. I pose that the Internet and blogs will be utilized to end this monopoly and break this barrier. This is known as the fourth branch that goes between the real news and the people. This revolution of the media is happening on its own. There is no need for legislation that clearly will not work because the government is part of the problem.
The real arm of control are the corporations who own them, these controls over the news media are not part of a secret cabal that conspiracy theorists formulize in their basements. This is an all too real problem that will, if continued by the government and corporations, eventually be the end of our free Republic. The first power that I will approach is the consolidation of the media by the powerful corporate owners that dictate them. The ownership chart available by Free Press indicates that all dominant mass news media is owned by five giant parent corporations: General Electric, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Co., Viacom, and News Corporation. Between all of these corporations they own the following networks: NBC, Turner Broadcasting, ABC, CBS, and Fox. Their cable interests include: CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, CNN International, and Fox News Channel. Time Warner owns CNN as well as CNN International and was the eighth largest donor to the Bush Campaign (The Big Six, 2009). How can a company who owns and produces one of the largest news stations be objective and unbiased in their news stories? Even reporters agree; “A survey by the news industry publication Editor & Publisher showed that….Nearly half of its members indicated their belief that news coverage is shallow and inadequate” (Marrs, 2001, p.102). To put this in perspective, it must be taken into account how much time Americans spend in front of the television or other forms of popular media. For example, “A 1994 study by Veronis, Suhler & Associates revealed that the typical American spends more than four hours a day watching TV, three hours listening to radio, forty-eight minutes listening to recorded music, twenty-eight minutes reading newspapers, seventeen minutes reading books, and fourteen minutes reading magazines” (Marrs, 2001, p. 103). To put this even further in perspective this study was done in 1994. Think about how much MORE time must be spent in all these activities, including Internet. American citizens are met with a daily onslaught from these five parent corporations that are constantly selling news, agendas, and products.
One of the common misconceptions regarding media control is that there is some league of government employees who corner journalists and tell them not to publish information or something ‘bad will happen’ to them. The publication editors and station editors also exhibit this control states journalist Jim Marrs (2001). He conquers this theory by stating that there are major choke points within the flow of information and news into the U.S., “such as the international desk at Associated Press headquarters in New York, where one person decides what news from outside the United States makes it on the wire service…the real control over the mass media is not direct control over the thousands of hardworking editors, reporters, and news directors throughout the nation, but rather the control over the distribution of information” (p. 106). One person controls all news outlets and what we as a nation hear. By being able to control a virtually unheard of job, the corporations have successfully cut off American citizens to what is really going on in the real world and how we are as a nation viewed by the rest of the world.
In an article for the Nation the author continually holds the consolidation of the media responsible for the gruel it mentally feeds us, “Rapid consolidation has brought us dumbed-down media, with broadcast and cable networks that rarely challenge the status quo,” (“Our lapdog media”, 2008). The author then goes onto say that they should stop further consolidation and investigate the Pentagon’s propaganda programs, these are all valid concerns and the grasp on the media must be addressed.
Within the corporate paradigm there is always a need for competition and the goal of maintaining and upholding ratings. Former CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr has said that news today is “a kind of commodity in the marketplace, no longer a holy profession….Today, it doesn’t matter anymore. You just make your money and to hell with public service” (Marrs, 2001, p. 106). A further damning example is the Top Ten Censored Stories that is published annually. In 1995, six out of ten of the censored stories, according to “AlterNet news service, involved business stories such as the monopolization of telecommunications, the worsening child labor situation, increased government spending on nuclear arms, medical industry fraud, the chemical industry’s battle to subvert environmental laws and the broken promises of the North American Free Trade Agreement” (Marrs, 2001, p.107). This shows the all-knowing and reaching power of the parent corporations. They not only own the media but also the telecommunications, and resources, and many happen to be in the back pocket of politicians. How can these news organizations be able to bring us critical news stories when the people they should be reporting about own them? Simply put, they cannot.
The second arm of control is the government. There is an extensive history of government and media “friendship.” The article, Governing in the Age of Fox News, journalist Paul Starr explains some of the historical ties of government and the media; “Jackson established the practice (which lasted until 1860) of having a quasi-official paper that spoke directly for the president and received federal patronage” (p. 97). This would probably surprise and shock most Americans as we see free press and free speech as the bedrock of this nation. The article goes on to state that the press continued to be highly competitive and that the President’s newspaper did not become a monopoly (Starr, Paul 2010). Starr, rebukes once again, the journalists that seem to have no clue as to how to translate the news to the public; “the passion should be for the truth. If we can encourage some adherence to professional standards…not via the government but by criticism and force of example, this republic of ours — thankfully no longer fragile — may yet flourish” (p. 98). These are heartening words of a disheartening situation that are only magnified by the following information.
In 1977, a former Washington Post journalist, Carl Bernstein, wrote an investigative piece on the direct relationship between the CIA and the news media. This article appeared in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977. This article divulges information concerning journalists who worked alongside the CIA, reporting for them in other countries, and here in the U.S. and acting as a go-between for spies. All in all, these journalists were working almost solely for the CIA. These more than four hundred journalists came from some of the most prestigious and revered companies in the news; “The New York Times, Time, CBS, Newsweek, ABC, NBC” (2007) are just some. This example shows that control over our news by the government or a government organization is not a far-fetched idea. According to former CIA director William Colby, “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media” (Watts, n.d., Para 14). These damning words add support for Carl Bernstein’s article; the article also states how in-depth the relationship was between the CIA and the media owners, “unquestionably the CIA’s most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS President William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees…CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings” (2007). This is not only a disturbing relationship but also one that is completely polar to the relationship that the two agencies should have. Examples after examples is given of how the two worked together and how they were able to communicate information to the public; “According to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist’s byline in the Times. “Cy came out and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?’” a CIA officer said. “We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it.” Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. “A lot of baloney,” he said” (2007). All this is a transmission of federal spin to the public. Critic, Michael Parenti criticized the news media, stating, “Much of what is reported as ‘news’ is little more than the uncritical transmission of official opinions to an unsuspecting public,” (Marrs, 2001, p. 103).
Government control over the media is not only on things concerning foreign relations and the CIA, but also on things like the education policy. USA Today revealed in an article titled, Fake News, by author Perry Bacon Jr. that talk show host, Armstrong Williams, was paid “$240,000 to promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law on his talk show…and in other TV appearances…and to encourage other journalists to talk up the law” (Bacon Jr, 2005, p.15). This kind of control over even minor things like the education policy leads one to ask what else could they be hiding? As we saw with the CIA project where over four-hundred journalists were used, in TV and newspapers to project the CIA’s ideals, sometimes verbatim, to the American public. This kind of attitude by the government is reprehensible and should certainly not be tolerated by the people of a supposedly free country.
In an interview I conducted with Professor Briggs at York College of Pennsylvania, he explained the government’s job of “working hard to get us to believe what they tell us.” Lowell Briggs worked in broadcasting for almost seventeen years and he earned his degree in Broadcasting from Temple University. He was able to give me some insight into how he believed the government has historically, up until the modern times, controlled our news and the topics that we see on a daily basis. Since World War 1 and the Creel Committee, or the Committee on Public Information, the government has attempted to, “persuade the public to its way of thinking.” As indicated by Briggs, the persuasion, and partiality to using pubic relations agencies permeates every level of government and does not just take place at the top levels of the federal government; “government of all levels work hard to frame, image, and deliver message.” The “convergence” of PR and marketing, as well as PR and crisis management, have also “changed the landscape of U.S. household.” According to Briggs, by an increase of PR practitioners, now every business, and agency, carries one, including the government. But ultimately, he states, it is “incumbent on an educated populace to not believe all of what the media/government says, and to research to determine what’s correct.” I could not agree more no matter what person or agency or government controls the media. It is ultimately up to an educated populace to decide what is truth and who to finally listen to.
It is perceptible by looking at certain situations, that we are not told the truth. The world’s daily events and facts are not administered and delivered to a critical public, but instead, our brains are filled with Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and other stories of which celebrity hooked up with another. We’re certainly not told of the persecution, genocide, colonization, or the imperialism that even our country takes part in. We can see by looking at national emergencies, that have taken place in the U.S. and then comparing them to other media organizations around the world to see how they measure up. That the news is sometimes vastly different in the U.S. then it is abroad, this brings us to a question, if the U.S. News is really bias? Let’s find out. The financial scam of 2008, in the article Flying the Flag, Faking the News, the author describes the situations and how the media portrays them in a ‘false reality’. “False reality economy has a deficit of billions which must be reduced with cuts in public services and regressive taxation…Fact We are not in this together. What is remarkable about this PR triumph is that only 18 months ago, the diametric opposite filled TV screens…in a state of shock, truth became unavoidable…The Wall Street and City of London trough was on full view for the first time” (Pilger, 2010, p. 20). This reveals a cycle of PR circles, and the media trying to sequester real news from the public, but in some instances the truth eventually shines through. After that, there are two modes of recovery: real recovery into a new and different path or for the government or financial institution to feign an illegitimate road to recovery. “No longer the responsibility of the banks, whose debt is to be paid by those not in any way responsible: the public. The received media wisdom of this ‘necessity’ is now a chorus, from the BBC to the Sun. A masterstroke, Bernays would surely say” (Pilger, 2010, p.20). So we can see in the above article the author uses the information of a false reality and compares it to the REAL reality. The media portrays the false reality, while the citizens see and live in the real reality; this is what makes many outlets of the media so unbelievable because people can see that they are not telling the truth.
The first U.S. article comes from CNN, title; Federal Action prevented second Great Depression – White House “President Obama's chief economic adviser says quick government response averted collapse over the past year”(Luhby, 2009, Para. 1). The author first asserts with bad economic sense that the only possible way that we could have avoided another great depression is through the Omni-potent government. The article is simply a transmission of an official statement to the people. There is no critical analysis of whether that statement is actually economically true, it just regurgitates exactly what the government says, "The policy response in the current episode, in contrast, has been swift and bold, said Romer, speaking at the National Economists Club in Washington D.C.” (Luhby, 2009, Para. 1) The article is literally just a reiteration of what the government and the National Economists Club said. There is no critical evaluation of their statements; the media and journalists have mistaken objectivity for being mind-numbingly passive.
The second article comes from the Huffington Post, entitled The Recession is OVER, “It's official: The longest recession the country has endured since World War II ended in June 2009” (Aversa, 2010, Para. 1). The National Bureau of Economic Research, a single panel in Massachusetts says the recession has ended. There is no comparison throughout the entire article of any other economic institutions; there is simply a regurgitation of ideas and statements made by “officials.” The article also states near the end that, “The NBER normally takes its time in declaring a recession has started or ended…. it declared in July 2003 that the 2001 recession was over. It actually ended 20 months earlier, in November 2001.”(Aversa, 2010, Para. 5-6). Somehow adding this disclaimer, that the Bureau is taking its time on formulating that this recession is over, it is clearly an effort to signify that it MUST be true. Both of these articles are really just a waste of time and space, they are both merely a regurgitation of official statements. There are no original thoughts found in either article, no journalistic investigations into the real facts, absolutely nothing beyond government statements.
Found in these articles is that the idea that recession did not last very long and that it is now on an uphill battle to recovery. But is that really the case? Now we will look how the financial crisis and recovery is viewed overseas. The first article we look at is a Russia Today article, the title is, haunting title, Professor Igor Panarin: When America fell to pieces the shouting was outrageous. While the article is conducted in an interview style the journalist gives jumping off points for the interviewee to develop, expand, and illustrate his ideas. “As early as autumn 2009 the economic crisis may lead to a civil war in the USA and then to its division into parts. Igor Panarin, doctor of political science, dean of the foreign affairs department at the Diplomacy Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry” (When America Fell, 2008, Para. 1). This article would clearly never be seen in the U.S. Panarin asserts that our financial system and economy will be our “main destructive power” (When America Fell, 2008, Para. 3). Our system has become, because of our immense growing debt, “a pyramid which is bound to collapse” (When America Fell, 2008, Para 3). The professor states that the skeleton holding the U.S. together is extremely fragile and, because it is such a melting pot, there are bound to be severe divisions when the economy eventually does collapse. He also asserts that, with the death of the dollar, the Amero will become the new currency of North America; “In 2006 a secret agreement was made between Canada, Mexico and the USA on preparing to implement the Amero as a new currency unit. This may mean replacement of the dollar.” (When America Fell, 2008, Para. 8). Throughout the entire article he uses facts after facts, never assertions or reiteration of others’ ideas.
Our financial crisis is seen in quite a dismal light according to Igor Panarin, and this is reiterated in Nepal’s news. In the article, Currency War, the Dilli Raj Khanal, asserts that the ongoing international devaluation of the dollar can very well result in catastrophe, “It is worth noting that the last time the currency system collapsed was during the 1930s. That only led to a deepening of depression but also fuelled international rivalry that ultimately led to World War II.” (2010). The U.S., being the superpower that it is, does not produce much of anything, except the dollar. It is not very off-target to say that, if the dollar becomes immensely devalued, we could quickly become a third world country ruled in chaos. This has been reported in the extreme by Russia Today, and by the conservative in Republica of Nepal. What does this show us? This shows us that the real journalism takes place with a rational argument based on facts, not a spinning of facts.
My interview with Professor Briggs concerned this topic and contained valid information. He stated that this financial crisis was the “most ingenious manipulation of public psyche ever seen.” But yet, it was never reported on objectively. Instead, “corporate America snowed the public.” The media could not report objectively because, “Major banks own significant amounts of stock in the ever-decreasing number of media corporations.” This clearly shows that the media, time and time again, will not report about the corporations and the people that own them, which happen to be the biggest corporations and the biggest banks.
So, what can we do about this corporate and government monopoly over our media? This movement is taking place very naturally at the grassroots level of blogs. As blogs become more popular there comes a new question, are they credible enough to be considered news sources? The Associated Press seems to think so; in a letter to its members they made the announcement that they should now be cited as news sources (Fisher, 2010, Para. 1). The Associated Press might even be a little slow to pick up on the trend. In 2008 an analysis of articles from both the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as the confirmation of AP, “show that there’s big changes to come in the structure of news organizations,” (Fisher, 2010, Para. 1). Blogs can be considered credible sources because they have, as some authors put it, “additional credibility that the mainstream media lack, as they refine and improve their own shortcomings” (Good, 2005, Para. 1). These blogs are seen as trustworthy because they are independent, and have a level of expertise that mainstream news cannot achieve. Additionally, many blogs focus in on one strict topic and are written by experts on that specific topic. Bloggers also do not try to “strive for unattainable objectivity” (Good, 2005, Para. 7) because they realize they have political opinions and are very open about where they come from. The article says that, while blogs have some shortcomings, if they can fix those and make themselves better, they have a lot of credibility, expertise and public trust going for them. (Good, 2005, Para. 12)
The massive control over the media is very apparent, as we have seen in many examples. This is often even joked about on popular TV shows. On the Simpson’s four-hundredth episode, Kent Brockman the local broadcast journalist states;
Friends, the press and the government are in bed together in an embrace so intimate and wrong, they could spoon on a twin mattress and still have room for Ted Koppel. Journalists used to questions the reasons for war and expose abuse of power. Now, like toothless babies, they suckle on the sugary teat of misinformation and poop it into the diaper we call the 6:00 News. Demand more of your government. Demand more of your press. (Mason, 2007, Para.3)
Unfortunately, the government’s attempted, and many times successful; control of the news media is not history. “News is what somebody, somewhere, wants to suppress.” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lordnorthc164571.html) The fight for truth and honest news continues and will continue until the grip that the corporations and the government have on the media is released. It is being helped along by blogs and honest individuals who want to see the truth brought to light. Will you join in the fight?
References
Bacon Jr., P. (2005). Fake News. Time, 165(3), 15. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Pilger, J. (2010). Flying the flag, faking the news. New Statesman, 139(5017), 20. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Starr, P. (2010). Governing in the Age of Fox News. Atlantic Monthly (10727825), 305(1), 95-98. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
(2008, May 19).
Our Lapdog Media. Nation, p. 3. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Marrs, Jim. (2001). Rule By Secrecy. New York: Harper Collins.
