Corporate Media is Threatening a Free Press - Part 2
News editors have a social responsibility to fairly and accurately educate the public. In 1969, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest," yet this is exactly what is happening every day.
The Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics out of Ohio University released two articles *in 2009* warning us of the Ethical Implications of Monopoly Media Ownership and the dangers of Corporate Interests and Their Impact on News Coverage. These articles are a bit hefty, so I will summarize them in this post, but I would really encourage you to take some time to read the complete articles if you can.
Current media monopolies limit freedom of expression, particularly in how they prevent the creation of independent media outlets. This has improved somewhat with the evolution of social media because now an individual has more of a voice (and ability) to share information and influence other people; however, corporate media still holds such a large share of the audience that it creates an unfair advantage when it comes to rapidly spreading news and ideas, especially among older generations who often prefer television as a means of gathering information. Corporate media also has the power to kill stories that might negatively impact ratings and profits - even if those stories are critical to our freedom or health.
You may remember, in 1995, CBS chose not to air an episode of 60 Minutes that exposed how Big Tobacco hid the truth about tobacco's harmful properties from the public. CBS reportedly censored itself to avoid a lawsuit from Big Tobacco. Eventually this report was aired, but only after depositions from Big Tobacco's whistleblowing doctor (who was hired to develop a safer cigarette) were leaked and published by The Wall Street Journal.
After the CBS controversy surrounding the damaging report on Big Tobacco, CBS producer, Lowell Bergman, resigned and went to work for ABC. At ABC, he discovered that it was against "ABC code" to do a critical story of the owners of NFL teams and that "scoops" about the network’s advertisers or suppliers were discouraged.
In 1997, two well-known and widely respected reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were fired from WTVT-13 (a subsidiary of Fox Television) for refusing to broadcast false reports about Monsanto (who we happen to be hearing about in the news again for its potentially cancer-causing product, Roundup). At the time, Monsanto was injecting dairy cows with a controversial growth hormone, and Akre and Wilson intended to air a report about it. Monsanto threatened to sue Fox Television. The report was delayed for nine months, and Fox executives would not approve of 80 different rewrites, so Akre and Wilson threatened to inform the FCC “of a false, distorted, or slanted news report which [Akre] reasonably believed would violate the prohibition against intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television.” Both reporters were fired in December of that same year.
(Interesting note: this blog post was originally written before the most recent “whistleblower” came forward with allegations of Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. So as I’m editing this post, this information reinforces the notion that whistleblowing is a very risky but also very necessary business.)
One of the research papers I mentioned above cited an organization called Project Censored: The News That Didn't Make The News. I suggest checking this out if you have the time. Project Censored is supported by The Media Freedom Foundation, a non-profit organization of educators and researchers, whose mission is to "educate students and the public about the importance of a truly free press for democratic self-government." Project Censored highlights the important links among a free press, media literacy, and democratic self-government. You have to decide for yourself if you consider this source to be credible. My own personal bias tends to trust academic sources but you may be different. I personally feel that Project Censored is a trustworthy source.
When I read the 'Top 25 Censored Stories of 2017-2018' released by Project Censored, three of those stories related to the issue of media monopolies. This is very concerning because I discovered Project Censored through an article that was written a decade ago, yet once again, this issue is being swept under the rug, and since that time, corporate ownership of the media has consolidated further and further.
One of the buried news stories from Project Censored reports on The Washington Post's policy that bans employees from using social media to criticize customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers, or partners. Employees are also encouraged to contact Human Resources if they suspect one of their colleagues has violated this policy. This policy provides a convenient loophole for corporations who want to avoid negative coverage from The Washington Post because becoming a sponsor puts an end to any negative coverage.
A second buried story relates to coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. A research study of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, found that coverage of 'Russiagate' accounted for 53% of broadcasts, eclipsing coverage of many other important issues - including corporate dominance over American politics and policy. It was suggested that unbalanced coverage of 'Russiagate' may have contributed to the U.S. Department of Defense changing its posture, recommending improvement and preparation of US nuclear capabilities in response to Russian activity, thus escalating tensions between nations.
Finally, a third buried news story discusses the Limits of Negative News and the Importance of Constructive Media. This topic deserves an entire post of its own, so I will come back to this at a later date. I only mention it because I promise you now that I will make every effort to produce media that is as constructive as possible.
The bottom line is that we need *more independent voices* providing a critical balance to serious conversations. We must elect politicians who are committed to breaking up media monopolies. And until that can be achieved, we must be able to depend on one another, as friends, family, colleagues, and neighbors to be socially responsible in how we evaluate and share information.
Current media monopolies limit freedom of expression, particularly in how they prevent the creation of independent media outlets. This has improved somewhat with the evolution of social media because now an individual has more of a voice (and ability) to share information and influence other people; however, corporate media still holds such a large share of the audience that it creates an unfair advantage when it comes to rapidly spreading news and ideas, especially among older generations who often prefer television as a means of gathering information. Corporate media also has the power to kill stories that might negatively impact ratings and profits - even if those stories are critical to our freedom or health.
You may remember, in 1995, CBS chose not to air an episode of 60 Minutes that exposed how Big Tobacco hid the truth about tobacco's harmful properties from the public. CBS reportedly censored itself to avoid a lawsuit from Big Tobacco. Eventually this report was aired, but only after depositions from Big Tobacco's whistleblowing doctor (who was hired to develop a safer cigarette) were leaked and published by The Wall Street Journal.
After the CBS controversy surrounding the damaging report on Big Tobacco, CBS producer, Lowell Bergman, resigned and went to work for ABC. At ABC, he discovered that it was against "ABC code" to do a critical story of the owners of NFL teams and that "scoops" about the network’s advertisers or suppliers were discouraged.
In 1997, two well-known and widely respected reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were fired from WTVT-13 (a subsidiary of Fox Television) for refusing to broadcast false reports about Monsanto (who we happen to be hearing about in the news again for its potentially cancer-causing product, Roundup). At the time, Monsanto was injecting dairy cows with a controversial growth hormone, and Akre and Wilson intended to air a report about it. Monsanto threatened to sue Fox Television. The report was delayed for nine months, and Fox executives would not approve of 80 different rewrites, so Akre and Wilson threatened to inform the FCC “of a false, distorted, or slanted news report which [Akre] reasonably believed would violate the prohibition against intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television.” Both reporters were fired in December of that same year.
(Interesting note: this blog post was originally written before the most recent “whistleblower” came forward with allegations of Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. So as I’m editing this post, this information reinforces the notion that whistleblowing is a very risky but also very necessary business.)
One of the research papers I mentioned above cited an organization called Project Censored: The News That Didn't Make The News. I suggest checking this out if you have the time. Project Censored is supported by The Media Freedom Foundation, a non-profit organization of educators and researchers, whose mission is to "educate students and the public about the importance of a truly free press for democratic self-government." Project Censored highlights the important links among a free press, media literacy, and democratic self-government. You have to decide for yourself if you consider this source to be credible. My own personal bias tends to trust academic sources but you may be different. I personally feel that Project Censored is a trustworthy source.
When I read the 'Top 25 Censored Stories of 2017-2018' released by Project Censored, three of those stories related to the issue of media monopolies. This is very concerning because I discovered Project Censored through an article that was written a decade ago, yet once again, this issue is being swept under the rug, and since that time, corporate ownership of the media has consolidated further and further.
One of the buried news stories from Project Censored reports on The Washington Post's policy that bans employees from using social media to criticize customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers, or partners. Employees are also encouraged to contact Human Resources if they suspect one of their colleagues has violated this policy. This policy provides a convenient loophole for corporations who want to avoid negative coverage from The Washington Post because becoming a sponsor puts an end to any negative coverage.
A second buried story relates to coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. A research study of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, found that coverage of 'Russiagate' accounted for 53% of broadcasts, eclipsing coverage of many other important issues - including corporate dominance over American politics and policy. It was suggested that unbalanced coverage of 'Russiagate' may have contributed to the U.S. Department of Defense changing its posture, recommending improvement and preparation of US nuclear capabilities in response to Russian activity, thus escalating tensions between nations.
Finally, a third buried news story discusses the Limits of Negative News and the Importance of Constructive Media. This topic deserves an entire post of its own, so I will come back to this at a later date. I only mention it because I promise you now that I will make every effort to produce media that is as constructive as possible.
The bottom line is that we need *more independent voices* providing a critical balance to serious conversations. We must elect politicians who are committed to breaking up media monopolies. And until that can be achieved, we must be able to depend on one another, as friends, family, colleagues, and neighbors to be socially responsible in how we evaluate and share information.
References
https://www.projectcensored.org/category/the-top-25-censored-stories-of-2017-2018/page/3/
https://www.projectcensored.org/13-the-limits-of-negative-news-and-importance-of-constructive-media/
https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/news-and-the-negativity-bias-what-the-research-says-78a0bca05b11
https://www.projectcensored.org/5-washington-post-bans-employees-from-using-social-media-to-criticize-sponsors/
https://www.projectcensored.org/13-the-limits-of-negative-news-and-importance-of-constructive-media/
https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/news-and-the-negativity-bias-what-the-research-says-78a0bca05b11
https://www.projectcensored.org/5-washington-post-bans-employees-from-using-social-media-to-criticize-sponsors/
Comments
Post a Comment