International Action Organization

 CREDIBILITY GAP

By Lila Schow

November, 2002

Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people.  No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens.  No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion.  Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power.  So nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media.  The question is, Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?  And are the men [and women] of the medium demanding enough of themselves? ¹ 

Though he spoke these words 33 years ago, former Vice President Spiro Agnew hit upon a problem the American public struggles with today.  Can we trust our media?  Does it provide us an uncensored account of the news or has it turned into a giant propaganda machine?

Throughout the history of the United States, the media has been depicted as the hero.  It alone has dared to voice criticism of those in power. It exposes corruption, and provides the people with the information necessary to get through the day.  The public service it imparts on Americans is invaluable.

Yet, it is threatened and it threatens.  

Threats to the objectivity and freedom of journalists increase daily.  Advertisers, corporate execs, government, and the sale of story content all pressure the media to compromise their reporting. 

“Programs without sponsors quite simply do not air, and print media rely on advertising, not subscriptions, for the bulk of their income.” ² Advertisers, in a time of recession, appear to feel freer than ever to demand a favorable context for their ads, which, after all, are media’s main revenue source.² In 2001, the Project for Excellence in Journalism revealed that over fifty percent of news directors are routinely instructed by their advertisers what to air and of what to scrap.³ 

Dillards’ destroyed a 60 Minutes story that charged the retail giant employed guards who used racial profiling and excessive force to detain and deter shoplifters.  Dillard’s pulled their ads from 60 Minutes owner, CBS.  The result was a watered down segment on shoplifting in general with no mention of Dillards. ²

In another instance of corporate tampering, Time Magazine ran a “Heroes for the Planet” series in their Spring 2000 issue.  The series had an exclusive sponsor, Ford Motor Company and Time made it clear that not all environmental issues would be reported on equally.  Environmentalists fighting the automobile industries for tougher pollution controls never appeared in print.  Time explained, "We don't run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes." ²

            Global Issues reports,

There is no formal censorship in the USA, but there is what some call "Market Censorship" -- that is, mainstream media do not want to run stories that will offend their advertisers and owners. In this way, the media end up censoring themselves and not reporting on many important issues, including corporate practices.⁴

Thanks to this type of self-censorship most advertisers don’t have to get involved in the decision making.  Such was the case in the recent ship loader’s strike on the West Coast.

We are told how many days the strike has lasted, the inconvenience and cost to the public and the economy, and how negotiations threaten to break down. Missing is any reference to the substance of the conflict, the grievances that drive workers reluctantly to the extreme expediency of a strike, such as, cutbacks in wages and benefits, loss of seniority, safety issues, or the unwillingness of management to negotiate a contract.⁵

            Advertisers aren’t the only ones that shape the news the media reports.  “Corporate media owners increasingly see using their media outlets to promote their other businesses and the perspectives they favor as simply standard business practice.” ²  Other businesses “including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies” as well as sharing members of the board of directors with such corporations.⁶

A company like AOL/Time Warner admits freely (to shareholders, anyway) that using some of its media holdings to promote other properties is a prime marketing strategy. The trouble is, readers and viewers can’t discern why certain things are selected as newsworthy; they think news is news, not covert corporate self-promotion, and they have an ever-shrinking number of places to go for news that isn’t dominated by such conglomerates.²      

Doubts about this type of conflict of interest were raised after NBC’s Nightly News coverage of Boeing’s Sonic Cruiser on June 21, 2001.  The story extolled the virtues of the new jet, offering no criticism at all.  The reason for this one-sidedness became clear upon the revelation that NBC’s owner, General Electric, had “plans to invest $1 billion over the next three years in the creation of the proposed jet’s engine.”²

To promote ones self and commodities makes good business sense, but as global media giants expand to the point where less than two dozen companies control the information the world sees, the focus shifts from true journalism to corporate endorsement.  This world-wide domination is not always a bad thing.  The media can now promote “anti-racist, anti-sexist or anti-authoritarian messages that can be welcome in some of the more repressive corners of the world.”⁴

            Even the United States government is not immune to influencing the media.  "The first fact of American journalism is its overwhelming dependence on sources, mostly official, usually powerful," Walter Karp pointed out in Harper's Magazine. Journalists advance their careers by "working with" movers and shakers in government.¹¹ Compounding the existing influence of the government, September 11, 2001, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in our nation.  Now reporters face, “incredible pressure on the press corps to present U.S. actions and policy in the best light.” ²

With the ability to write laws or enact policy with direct impact on media owners, government officials are the ultimate power players. They can also restrict access to themselves or their meetings, leaving reporters without the information or quotes they may need for basic reportage on issues of public import. As much as many people may believe journalists exist to be a thorn in the side of official power, the reality is that reporters who regularly or seriously offend powerful officials often face a tough time, in the community and on the job. ²

Colon Powell’s son, Michael K Powell is currently the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  The powers of the FCC include issuing renewal licenses to broadcasting stations in the United States.  This nepotism imposes a huge compromise in the objectivity of coverage toward our government’s foreign policies, including the war on ‘terror’ and upcoming invasion of Iraq.⁷  

However, the Bush Administration does not need to rely solely on the FCC to keep American journalism in line.  Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, Bill Maher referred to US long-rang cruise missile attacks on other countries as cowardly on his ABC show, Politically Incorrect.  His statement was in response to the President’s label of the terrorists as cowards. ²  

His words incited White House spokesperson, Ari Fleisher, who at a news briefing chastised Maher adding, “There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”⁸ Major advertisers pulled their ads and several ABC affiliates dropped the show which was later cancelled. ²

            At the other end of the spectrum is the self censoring managing editor of CBS Evening News, Dan Rather.  In repeated interviews after the September 11 bombings (most notably David Letterman) he says, “George Bush is the president. He makes the decisions, and, you know, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call.”⁸ A great patriot to be sure, but has Dan Rather’s loyalty compromised his integrity to report on the current administration?

Sale of story content is a relatively new threat to journalism.  “The media is separated into two categories. One is content and the other is advertising. They’re both for sale.” ² Thanks to Public Relations firms, “you can buy the news stories just like you buy ads.” ²

Nevada Woman sells its cover story every month for a flat $15,000.  June 2001 featured Wells Fargo Bank president Laura Shulte. “When it comes to employees, the super regional bank promises to care more about their people than anyone else. They hold true to the idea that their people are their advantage.”² Such quotes come as no surprise since Wells Fargo purchased the story for corporate promotion.  As for disclosing to Nevada Woman subscribers when an apparent news story is actually PR polishing, the magazine feels it unnecessary.

Less acceptable than the threats to our media is the media’s threat to Americans.  Like it or not, what we see, read and hear shapes our public opinion.  The media can make or break people and issues overnight.  They decide what is important and what is not with no guarantee of fairness or accuracy in their reporting. 

Compare ABC's World News Tonight broadcast January 16, 2001 covering the annual report detailed by Human Rights Watch to the press release from HRW:

The anti-terror campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic attacks on civil liberties around the world, Human Rights Watch warned in its annual global survey released today. ¹⁰

The actual press release from Human Rights Watch, dated January 16, 2001 states:

Several countries are using the U.S.-led war against terrorism as a justification to ignore human rights. Human Rights Watch says that Russia, Egypt, Israel, China, Zimbabwe, Malaysia and Uzbekistan have all cracked down on domestic opponents in the name of terrorism. ¹⁰

In addition to the selectiveness of the report, NBC omitted one country singled out for criticism by Human Rights Watch: the United States, whose anti-terrorism measures were described in the group's press release as "threatening long-held human rights principles."¹⁰

Some feel that Bush’s talk about another war on Iraq is just a way to distract Americans from the floundering economy and rising unemployment.  Maybe, maybe not, but can you imagine what would have happened this year if the news media concentrated on these issues with the same fierce determination that has pervaded coverage of terrorist cells and weapons of mass destruction?

Reporter Amira Hass sums it up well, "What journalism is really about – it's to monitor power and the centres of power."

Sources

1.      Spiro Agnew, Television News Coverage, Published: Vital Speeches of the Day, December 1, 1969

2.      Fear and Favor 2001:How Power Shapes the News by Janine Jackson and Peter Hart  http://www.fair.org/reports/ff2001.html#government

3.      2001 survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism Columbia Journalism Review, 11-12/01

4.      Media in the United States Global Issues

5.      Monopoly Media Manipulation by Michael Parenti http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

6.      Interlocking Directories  Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org/media-woes/interlocking-directorates.html

7.      Federal Communications Commission  http://www.fcc.gov/

8.      Patriotism and Censorship by Peter Hart and Seth Ackerman http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/patriotism-and-censorship.html

9.      New York Times, 9/28/01

10. Action Alert: ABC Omits US From Human Rights Report, January 18, 2002 http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-hrw.html

11.  Media War Without End by Norman Solomon, December 2001 http://www.accuracy.org/zmag1101.htm

Send mail to InterAct's Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site. Last modified: 02/08/06