Capitalism and Freedom of the Press
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-- First Amendment, Constitution of the United States --
The Bill of Rights notes how Congress can't make any laws infringing upon the freedom of the press for individuals, but I feel in today's age, it's not Congress who is censoring the press, it's money. In order to meet the requirements for my senior perspective course (SRP 435) and combine my interest in media, I decided to see how capitalism in America is affecting freedom of speech and the press.
For some, their knowledge of the media is what they see on television: Press a button the remote, and on pops a series of moving images. Up until my Media Ethics class(JMC 438), I had no idea about how much power and clout was held in the hands of so few individuals. We watched a PBS documentary called The Merchants of Cool, and one of the topics covered was the current consolidation of media corporations. In America there are five main media conglomerates, and their individual and collective holdings are something to behold. In 2001, when the documentary came out, PBS launched a Web site to allow more in depth exploration of the material. One of the activities on the Web site shows the spider web of the holdings of each individual company. The data is a little old, but the point is still valid. Five companies own a lot. The big five are:
Time Warner
Viacom
Walt Disney
News Corp
Bertelsmann
These holdings don't even take into account giants like Sony or NBC Universal (owned by GE). In the introduction to his book The Business of Media, David Croteau explains the problem that arises from media monopolies.
"What is in the public interest may not be in the corporate interest. The major corporations that own the media—and are often involved in many other lines of business—may not want certain embarrassing stories to be publicized very widely (or at all). They may not want to encourage critical examination of their business practices or the effects their products have on communities or the environment. They may not want stories or programs that offend their advertisers or interfere with the advertising pitch. They may want to avoid stories on subjects they deem 'unpopular.' Their ownership of the media gives them the potential to influence how a story is—or is not—covered" (8-9)
He goes on to say: "Media are supposed to be a watchdog of government, but who serves as a watchdog of corporate media?" (9).
This got me thinking, with the exception of Bertelsmann, each of the media giants owns at least one news station: CBS is owned by Viacom, ABC is owned by Disney, Time Warner owns CNN and the WB, and Newscorp owns Fox and Fox News. How could the corporate side of these companies affect their coverage of news. It's difficult to project how much of an influence the board of directors wields in the news department, but the potential for censorship could be extremely high. I researched the Disney board of directors, in order to find out the other corporate entities that each director represented.
-- First Amendment, Constitution of the United States --
The Bill of Rights notes how Congress can't make any laws infringing upon the freedom of the press for individuals, but I feel in today's age, it's not Congress who is censoring the press, it's money. In order to meet the requirements for my senior perspective course (SRP 435) and combine my interest in media, I decided to see how capitalism in America is affecting freedom of speech and the press.
For some, their knowledge of the media is what they see on television: Press a button the remote, and on pops a series of moving images. Up until my Media Ethics class(JMC 438), I had no idea about how much power and clout was held in the hands of so few individuals. We watched a PBS documentary called The Merchants of Cool, and one of the topics covered was the current consolidation of media corporations. In America there are five main media conglomerates, and their individual and collective holdings are something to behold. In 2001, when the documentary came out, PBS launched a Web site to allow more in depth exploration of the material. One of the activities on the Web site shows the spider web of the holdings of each individual company. The data is a little old, but the point is still valid. Five companies own a lot. The big five are:
Time Warner
Viacom
Walt Disney
News Corp
Bertelsmann
These holdings don't even take into account giants like Sony or NBC Universal (owned by GE). In the introduction to his book The Business of Media, David Croteau explains the problem that arises from media monopolies.
"What is in the public interest may not be in the corporate interest. The major corporations that own the media—and are often involved in many other lines of business—may not want certain embarrassing stories to be publicized very widely (or at all). They may not want to encourage critical examination of their business practices or the effects their products have on communities or the environment. They may not want stories or programs that offend their advertisers or interfere with the advertising pitch. They may want to avoid stories on subjects they deem 'unpopular.' Their ownership of the media gives them the potential to influence how a story is—or is not—covered" (8-9)
He goes on to say: "Media are supposed to be a watchdog of government, but who serves as a watchdog of corporate media?" (9).
This got me thinking, with the exception of Bertelsmann, each of the media giants owns at least one news station: CBS is owned by Viacom, ABC is owned by Disney, Time Warner owns CNN and the WB, and Newscorp owns Fox and Fox News. How could the corporate side of these companies affect their coverage of news. It's difficult to project how much of an influence the board of directors wields in the news department, but the potential for censorship could be extremely high. I researched the Disney board of directors, in order to find out the other corporate entities that each director represented.
In my mind, the best known person on the Disney board is Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer, Inc. I feel it's worth questioning whether Jobs would be above making a call to Disney CEO Robert Iger, and asking him to make sure that certain information is not made public in the ABC newscast.
In his book The New Media Monopoly, Ben H. Bagdikian raises a similar point:
"Control of public information by a handful of powerful global firms weakens democracy by omission of news that might interfere with media's maximizing their own profits. The same tendency makes the news media sympathetic to similar profit maximizaion by whatever means among corporations in general. That sympathy and empathy would aid and assist in one of the most spectacular ethical blots in U.S. private enterprise" (102-103)
Direct censorship isn't the only threat to the free flow of information. Bagdikian goes on to say:
"To meet the profit pressures, newspapers have been cutting reportorial costs by reducing staff size and news space, and broadcast media have cut serious air time on radio and and television. As a result, many newspapers have lost some of their best journalist, and the public has lost daily access to their reporting" (105-106).
Direct censorship isn't the only threat to the free flow of information. Bagdikian goes on to say:
"To meet the profit pressures, newspapers have been cutting reportorial costs by reducing staff size and news space, and broadcast media have cut serious air time on radio and and television. As a result, many newspapers have lost some of their best journalist, and the public has lost daily access to their reporting" (105-106).
I remember watching Good Night and Good Luck, and seeing how Edward Murrow threw caution to the wind and stood toe-to-toe with Joseph McCarthy and stopped the madness of the "Red Scare." Alcoa, the primary advertiser of the show wanted to pull their sponsorship, but ultimately it was the news department at CBS that made the call to run the segment. I doubt that would happen today. Journalists are a dime a dozen, and for companies, more often than not it's not worth it to lose millions in advertising revenues in order to run a story.
