As Sen. Bernie Sanders (CJR, 8/26/19) has recently noted, corporate ownership of media interferes with the core societal function of the press: reporting and investigating key issues at the intersection of public need and governance. And nowhere is that more critical than when it comes to climate. Due to their corporate conflicts of interest, trusted news authorities have diverted us from our primary responsibility—assuring a viable habitat for our children and grandchildren.
As a journalist who has worked both inside and outside of establishment media, I see influence as embedded in a corporate media culture rather than in isolated cases of CEO dictates. It happens in little ways, such as how an interviewer frames a question, and in big ways, like the decision to exclude a topic, a person or a group of people from the airwaves.
CBS corporate headquarters, known as “Black Rock.”
Like most US companies, news organizations are hierarchies, which people who have worked in corporate offices can readily understand. Given that “90% of the United States’ media is controlled by five media conglomerates,” the top executive at many news outfits is likely the CEO of a multinational corporation. The word comes down from the business execs to the company’s division chiefs, as seen in countless movies (like the 1976 classic Network). This was how it was when I worked on primetime national news at CBS in the 1990s.
On the inside, it wasn’t easy to see organizational bias, when job security and team work required overlooking it. The response to the heavily promoted primetime news pairing of two well-known anchors exemplified how news personnel learn to toe the line. The two anchors had zero chemistry, but no one mentioned it, as if an unwritten code had been instantly internalized. This dragged on for two years, pulling down the network’s ratings.
Higher-ups would never offer editorial staff direct input on content. That’s what the executive and middle management were for. Would these managers confide to their staff that the big guns gave them a certain direction? No. Whatever it was, they would present it as their own, and it would be adopted.
Within this culture, controlling the content goes on in whispers, frowns, headshakes and decisions made behind closed doors. If anyone strays into a verboten zone, as I did when I proposed a feature about Native Americans, those in the know privately communicate the ethos that is expected and allowed. “We never put American Indians on air because they talk too slow,” a producer explained.
Despite such experiences, when I left CBS, I respected the many producers with whom I’d worked, many of whom are still employed at the various networks. That work experience honed editorial judgment in ways impossible to measure, for which I am infinitely grateful. It also showed me that organizational agendas and values can trump claims to objectivity.
Reporting from Independent Media
The New York Times‘ original headline (10/29/11) was, “In Village’s Fight Over Gas Drilling, Civility Is Fading Fast.”
Yet over a decade later, working in progressive online media, I was still astonished that several major stories I covered, were anywhere from underplayed to entirely absent from establishment news.
When I began to cover fracking in New York state in 2009, at first both 60 Minutes (11/14/10) and the New York Times (11/27/09, 10/29/11) covered it as a Hatfield/McCoy feud between upstate rural neighbors, rather than as an invasive industrial activity with a host of health and environmental repercussions.
During the critical years of the major fracking buildout from 2005 to 2016, the New York Times gave a prominent environmental platform to self-declared “climate champion” Andrew Revkin, whose reporting FAIR (Extra!, 2/10) called “a source of some comfort—and crowing—for the climate change denial crowd.” His pro-industry stance on fracking and naysaying on methane impacts condoned an industrial expansion that has produced far-reaching environmental damage.
The Times’ Ian Urbina (6/25/11) did invaluable reporting on fracking’s faulty economic model. But in 2013, the paper of record closed its environmental desk, even as Inside Climate News (1/11/13) was reporting that “worldwide coverage of climate change continued a three-year slide.”
MSNBC show hosts like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes rarely covered fracking, instead letting gas and oil industry ads reassert claims of safety. Nonprofit environmental groups, leading activists, along with a growing body of independent journalists filled the media void, including my own reporting at Huffington Post, AlterNet and EcoWatch.
The TTP
For the Washington Post (6/24/15), the important thing about the Trans Pacific Partnership was how it made Obama look.
In 2014, I began to report on the Transpacific Partnership (TTP) and other concurrent global trade agreements, which are often characterized as core to President Barack Obama’s “legacy” (e.g., New York Times, 6/14/15; Washington Post, 6/24/15). The agreement’s full provisions were never revealed to the public prior to the June 2015 vote granting absolute trade authority to Obama—authority that would have passed to Trump if the agreement had been ratified in late 2016, as Obama hoped.
In conducting multiple interviews with trade analysts, as well as following the protests in Europe and the resulting leaks of the contents, I learned from trade analyst William Waren (Connect the Dots, 1/28/15) that even prior to the TPP’s passage and ratification, plans were underway for the buildout of fracking, gas and oil, and coal trade and global export freed by its anticipated passage.
Nothing within the unenforceable Paris Agreement would have prevented it. In fact, the Paris Agreement provisions were nonbinding, while the trade agreements that were being secretly negotiated concurrently, including the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), were designed to be binding, to “effectively trump whatever commitment is made in Paris,” Waren revealed on Connect the Dots (12/9/15).
Further, the TPP’s planned instatement of an international corporate tribunal with international legal authority over all nations would have mortally injured global democracies. In 2016, Mark Ruffalo summed up what was at stake in the fight: Expanding the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in NAFTA via TPP
would block worldwide environmental and social progress while empowering corporations to undermine existing climate and environmental policies.
As we witness the Trump administration’s deconstruction of US environmental regulatory infrastructure—appointment by appointment, policy by policy—let’s appreciate that in defeating TPP and associated trade deals (thanks to the work of grassroots organizers and independent media), Americans dodged a bullet.
If the US had passed the TPP as planned during the 2016 lame duck session of Congress, both the US and all co-signers (a total of 12 countries) would have been contractually bound to a wholesale takedown of environmental regulations and economic barriers to fossil fuel development—as well as the loss of any right to challenge corporate rule or prevent health and environmental impacts. The climate impacts of the intended gas and oil buildout would likely have been devastating and decisive.
Barack Obama with Jimmy Fallon: “Look, Jimmy, the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad.”
Nevertheless, the forward drive to pass the TPP occurred in a near void of corporate coverage. What had been negotiated behind closed doors with multinational corporations remained their business secrets. Prior to its authorization in June 2015, no mainstream outlet thoroughly investigated and disclosed the TPP’s provisions. Obama’s most memorable pro-TPP television appearance was singing about it with Jimmy Fallon. FAIR (6/11/16) called the enthused Vox coverage (6/10/16) of Obama’s performance
a borderline parody of everything wrong with corporate-owned “new media”: What we have here is a Comcast-funded website plugging a Comcast-owned TV show to promote a trade deal aggressively lobbied for by Comcast.
Both the New York Times and its liberal economist columnist, Paul Krugman, covered the TPP infrequently. Krugman (10/6/15) professed he was a “lukewarm opponent” of it, and minimized its importance. “We’re not talking about a world-shaking deal here,” he wrote (3/11/15) three months before the Senate granted Obama the authority to sign the final agreement without further consultation or deliberation.
Prior to the vote, a college friend of the MSNBC host Chris Hayes assured me that Hayes, a former environmental reporter for The Nation, would be deeply concerned about these trade deals. I was dubious, but she was insistent. With the contact she provided, I sent all of my TPP research and sources on to Hayes. I received no response.
MSNBC fired Ed Schultz, its sole host who showed any interest in covering corporate trade agreements. (cc photo: Jake Bucci)
Rather than cover the TPP, MSNBC went on to fire Ed Schultz, the sole show host who covered trade agreements. (Sadly, the 64-year-old Schultz died in 2018.) In surveying TPP coverage, Media Matters (2/4/15) found that Schultz was the exception in a near-total blackout by all three major networks. Week after week, Hayes and other MSNBC hosts devoted airtime to meticulously dissecting far more minor concerns.
As in any large organization, the firing and hiring of staff speaks volumes to surviving staff members about the owners’ priorities. The unseen casualties among reporters of integrity, and the disservice to journalism, cannot be overestimated. Those working in corporate media get the message without anyone having to tell them, and highly paid show hosts have the most to lose.
The press’ mission is to inform the citizenry and flag abuses to power, not promote special interests. When citizens blind themselves to a news organization’s corporate entanglements, and trust the outlet to be truthful anyway, it is, to put it mildly, extraordinarily naïve.
It’s not about whether or not the public has access to a private conversation or confidential memo sent to editorial with a corporate dictate. The evidence is what’s given airtime and what isn’t over many years.
Was it just happenstance that MSNBC, for example, failed to cover the TPP after firing Ed Schultz? Comcast, the owner of MSNBC, sat at the table behind closed doors during the five-year long negotiations of the TPP’s specific trade provisions.
Have MSNBC or any of its competitors uncovered Comcast’s agenda for the trade agreements? What if concerns over intellectual property rights, for example, made it a corporate mission to pass a deal that also happened to radically hasten the climate tipping point? Should any company have that much power?
No business, no matter how sizeable, should have the right to subvert the actions and political choices necessary to address climate, as well as the activated movement capable of assuring that at long last we do what needs to be done. The only sane response is to support the movement, and the independent media outlets that provide a platform for ideas, facts, studies, polls, policy initiatives and disclosures outside the corporate media frame—and to overhaul the media to address this unfair use of public airwaves for gain and compromise as the world burns.
If it greeds
It leads
The Incredible Belief That Corporate Ownership Does Not Influence Media Content. How about PHARMA controlling content of the news that CBS, PBS, ABC, NBC, NPR (National Pharma Radio). All you have to do is look at this years measles hysteria reporting which state legislatures used to abolish informed consent and coerces parents to have their children undergo an elective invasive medical procedure that Congress and the Supreme Court declared as “unavoidably unsafe”
Merck one of the big four of vaccine manufactures scored record sales of MMRII and ProQuad using the media’s/government propaganda to frighten people into using two of its “unavoidably unsafe” products. It may not be corporate ownership but news divisions would die if PHARMA dollars dried up.
Come on FAIR, interview Robert F. Kennedy Jr. –Americans Can Handle An Open Discussion on Vaccinations–https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/americans-can-handle-an-open-discussion-on-vaccines-rfk-jr-responds-to-criticism-from-his-family/
Time for FAIR to walk the walk; not stick your head in the sand to avoid seeing the slide into Medical/Phasism
FAIR has previously used the term “anti-vaxer” in a derogatory (ad hominem) fashion. I generally love FAIR’s newsletters, but they are toeing the line of the pro-vaccine movement, ignoring easily-verified information such as the terms of the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, to name but one.
Derogatory doesn’t necessarily equal ad hominem (a personal attack is only ad hominem if it is the basis for an inference, i.e. “you’re dumb, THEREFORE your claim/argument is false”), and FAIR is only “pro-vaccine” in the sense that they are “pro-climate change” or “pro-evolution”: they are dedicated to factual reporting, and that entails acknowledging the truth of various scientifically-established propositions, like that climate change is real and/or that vaccinations are effective and largely harmless.
If you want FAIR to report the truth and fulfill their function, you’re going to have to tolerate it when your conspiracy theory crackpottery de jour is on the receiving end- can’t have it both ways.
FAIR readers are readers who have learned to be skeptical of the corporate main-stream-media. Does FAIR and its readers think that only the fossil fuel industries are capable of fudging science, hiding inconvenient truths and Big Pharma–think Merck’s Vioxx which killed 160,000 Vioxx patients are no different than Chevron or BP or Monsanto? The same Merck that manufacturers 10 or so vaccines “mandated” for our children doesn’t fudge the science, overstate efficacy and understate safety?
The most rapacious industry on the planet and it appears that FAIR is turning a blind eye and avoiding the inconvenient truths. WHY?
Except, unfortunately, for the fact that the same sort of non-partisan, academic/scientific research which exposed the lies and propaganda of the fossil fuel industry RE climate change, is what exposed the lies and propaganda of… anti-vaxx truthers. Oops. The problem isn’t suspicion of mainstream medicine or journalism- that is perfectly reasonable. The problem is the rejection of an overwhelming body of empirical evidence: this is where you pass into delusion and crackpottery.
And so, again, what you’re ultimately advocating is that FAIR betray their fundamental purpose- accurate, fact/evidence-based reporting- and start reporting certain untruths simply because that particular flavor of untruth happens to be your favorite conspiracy theory. It would be wise to not hold your breath on this count.
Yikes.. you want FAIR to spread anti-vaxxer misinformation? Is it opposite day? I take it you don’t realize that this is pretty much the exact literal opposite of what FAIR exists to do?
I want FAIR to live up to its standards, core values, and principles. Its not asking too much. When the government, Congressman Adam Schiff calls on social media, Facebook, Amazon, to censor anything that is critical of Merck, Glazo Smith Kline, Sanofi and Pfizer’s vaccine products, FAIR should be asking WHY?
Well but now you’ve pulled a complete 180. Do you want them to spread anti-vaxxer misinformation, or do you want them to hew to their stated principles and mission? Which is it? Can’t have it both ways, my friend.
Perhaps you should take a huge step back and ask how you determine what to label with the pejorative and non-neutral term “misinformation”. These are legitimate comments about a seemingly pro-pharma bias at FAIR.
No “huge step back” needed, its incredibly simple: this is a question that has received intense scrutiny, and so it admits of a formidable body of empirical data. That which contradicts what has rigorously been established via observation and replication, is misinformation. So, precisely the sort of anti-vaxxer untruth and outright lie that “Michael” is criticizing FAIR for not reporting as factual (yikes).
And these are obviously not legitimate comments about any real bias, but advocating for propaganda, pseudoscience, and anti-intellectualism: ironically, of the exact same sort that Trump and friends like to spread RE the well-established science THEY don’t like; anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, creationists, all peas of a pod, and all using the same playbook. Unfortunately, FAIR is probably one of the least hospitable places on the web for spreading misinformation, so you may want to look for other, slightly more sympathetic avenues for dangerous crackpottery.
Excellent article, yet you missed completely the fact that the airwaves that Comcast &c are using to promote their corporate agenda are owned by the American People. How much does Comcast (and all the others) pay to use these commonly-owned resources? Usually nothing. Why are they using commonly-owned resources to promote their private interests? This is the neck of the Hydra!
Good article. Was very disappointed to see the rampant false equivalency being drawn between Sanders specific critique of corporate-backed mainstream outlets influencing negative coverage of “medicare for all” and/or climate change on the one hand, and Trumps generic “any story I don’t like or which is negative is fake news” on the other, so I’m glad that FAIR has contributed to un-muddying the waters a little bit here.
Also the false equivalency between Sanders and Trump when Sanders had the “unmitigated gall” to suggest that Jeff Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post might influence their reporting on Sanders.
The mainstream media including NPR were suggesting Sanders was a “conspiracy theorist”.
NPR, which is now little more than a repeater of gossip from MSNBC, CNN, Washpost, and other mainstream outlets and is itself biased against Sanders, also played up that Sanders Trump comparison.
This excellent piece by Ms. Levy is what REAL journalism looks like.
Talk about bringing back memories.
I don’t know how it works at the HQ level but during the late 70’s I happened to work as a reporter for an affiliate of one of the big three networks. Needless to say the manager’s, and head of sales office, was down the hall from the newsroom.
If we wished to bring a guest to the studio for a live interview, a not so subtle vetting took place. Needless to say the bland, community boosters, and the typical local celebs received carte blanche. Controversial spokesmen need not apply. One day I heard I renowned international journalist would be in the neighborhood. I contacted their office, then as a courtesy advised my boss, the manager. We had a back and forth, what with spooking potential sponsors, etc., with him finally screaming at me, “The First Amendment be damned.”
The phrase rings in my ears to this day. So, the interview never took place. Less than a year later the journalist was assassinated in their country. Oh, boy, did I understand where corporate media really stood. After working in our college paper, then as a reporter for a radio station, in television, I believed I had reached a level where one could make a real difference. In corporate media, not a chance…
Be well
Amazing story– and I am sure that there are many such out there. And yet many people choose to remain addicted and allow their opinions to be formed by media authorities.
Weirdly, it seems that the land known as America, has found a wormhole back in time. It seems like all e\ major media are now the British, and the truth tellers are the neo freedom fighters. How ironic —–and even we now need a neo Tom Paine.
Fine article, Ms. Levy, It seems to me that in just a short time the Mega-rich and their Corporate bodies will have total control of the planet, using their bought and paid for tyrants, and their pseudo-Parliaments, Congresses. One thing to thank the Trump for is not signing that TPP agreement. I see the reluctance of Congress to do anything at all to help free Puerto Rico from their billions of dollars of scammed debts. Or the example of Greece, put through the wringer of the IMF and World Bank. Good article in 9/17/19 New Yorker by Bill McKibben “Money is the Oxygen fueling the fire of Global Warming.” Thank you for your writing.
Ms Levy is too kind when she calls it the INCREDIBLE Belief That Corporate Ownership Does Not Influence Media
What it is is really a CREDULOUS belief because you either have to be brain dead or have the ability to totally suspend rational thought to believe it.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people of all political stripes who are not only able but willing to do just that.
We don’t just have a media problem in the US. We have a thinking problem. Namely, millions of people are not capable of critical thought.
Well stated Lars! Too many people spending too much time on Americas got talent and reality TV pablum. Too many people just won’t dig deeper. It takes too much time, too much effort.
This article was an exercise in “beautiful soul” blathering (in the Hegelian sense). We need less of this self-congratulatory fluff that actually is dependent upon a corrupt MSM against which to assert moral superiority–and more gray, faceless efforts to actually change the media in favorable ways.
Great article, because people need continual reminding —- especially the younger individuals who are trying to make sense of this world — that the MSM is… wait for it… a BUSINESS that is by-definition PROFIT DRIVEN. It’s not… repeat N…O…T… NOT, a non-profit institution that’s searching for TRUTH to inform the world and make it a better place, as non-profit colleges & universities generally try to do. Like any other corporation, the MSM giants are 98%* focused on this financial quarter’s results. As FAIR explains in its ‘basic precepts’, subscriptions to the MSM typically represent a small amount (ie; something like ~15-25%) of their revenue, with advertisers representing the remaining ~75-85%, so GUESS who takes precedence when the internal politics of the individual MSM companies play-out, especially at the higher decision-making levels? (Hint: it’s the group that LIKES infomercials, mass-mailings, pop-up ads, and loud-volume commercials). Arguments can be made that the MSM has always been this way, which is true, but in this age of deregulation of business (other than financial reporting) and absurd profit expectations of 10-20% per year and similar growth figures, financial considerations inside companies have been emphasized beyond anything since probably the 1920’s.
* From articles like the above, general business articles, as well as 40+ years of personal experience to corporate politics and meetings.
good job
60 Minutes is a corporate and MIC shill. And shill for the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, FBI etc.