In addition to some disinclination to investigating the corporate masters, there is also the fact that news departments which are part of a vast conglomerate are expected to be as profitable as other sections of the company. Thus, news is not treated as a public service but rather as a means to generate money — and entertainment which attracts advertisers and audiences is seen as the means to achieve that end.
Such an attitude was on very public display recently when it was revealed that ABC was seriously considering dropping its highly regarded Nightline news program in the hopes of attracting the Dave Letterman Show. For many people, this was their first real encounter with the fact that corporations like Disney (which own ABC) simply aren’t very interested in the news or in informing the public about important issues.
None of the above even begins to touch upon the problems which arise out of government influence on the news. The White House has informed the American press that they should “watch what they say” regarding the War on Terrorism — and, for the most part, the press has obeyed. Americans get a very different picture of the conflict than do people in other countries. This presented a problem for CNN because, unlike most other news organizations, it has a significant audience outside of the United States. Following the government’s recommendation would, in effect, cause them to lose at least some of their foreign audience. So, the company compromised:
- CNN president Walter Isaacson solved this dilemma by authorizing CNN to provide two different versions of the war: a more critical one for global audience and a sugarcoated one for Americans. Indeed, Isaacson instructed the domestic CNN to be certain that any story that might undermine support for the U.S. war be balanced with a reminder that the war on terrorism is a response to the heinous attacks of September 11.
Another facet in government control is, ironically enough, a result of the press’ attempt to be professional! Instead of being critical of the things they are told, which might betray a personal bias, many reporters tend to act more as stenographers, simply repeating whatever they are told. But, instead of repeating anything, they tend to repeat only what “legitimate” sources tell them — and this tends to be restricted to government representatives and corporate Public Relations departments. Critics tend not to qualify as “legitimate” news sources. This, of course, simply reveals a different bias — but one which is not as obvious.
The next time you read a story from, say, the AP wire, take a very close look. How much of this “story” involves actual questions or any attempts to get at the truth? How much of the story is just a repetition of whatever the author is being told by someone else? How much of your news is little more than a repetition of what government and corporate PR departments have created? When was the last time you saw a reporter asking hard, insightful, and critical questions?
What I have discussed here represents just a tiny fraction of the sad information contained in Borjesson’s book. I have only referenced some general principles — the authors she has brought together go beyond this and discuss many actual cases where these principles have been realized, causing good and interesting stories to be lost and the public to remain uninformed.
This book will likely make you very angry, but perhaps that is the only way things will change. It may be time for you to start asking your news sources why they aren’t doing a better job and what sorts of pressures they labor under when attempting to investigate and report.
« Back...
