“. . . for news
organizations to be indebted to the financial success of publicly traded corporations jeopardizes the public's right to know and threatens our democracy.
[May 17, 2011] Every
single mainstream and cable news organization in the U.S. is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange as part of the business structure of a U.S. Corporation. Your
favorite news channel or network could be owned by your favorite appliance
manufacturer. Hot damn…how terrific is that? Not
terrific at all, because for news organizations to be indebted to the financial
success of publicly traded corporations jeopardizes the
public’s right to know and threatens our democracy.”
Comcast owns 51%
and General
Electric (GE), 49% of NBC, which includes CNBC and MSNBC. Therefore, the
company that provides us with cable, internet, and telephone services in our
homes and the company that manufactures our appliances and light bulbs also
have control of our news.
The whole idea of
corporations owning news organizations violates the Society of Professional Journalists Code of
Ethics that “Journalists
should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to
know.” That means they should act
independently and avoid, at all cost, any conflicts of interest, perceived or
real. That was easier for them to uphold before the conflicts of interest started signing the paychecks of news
producers.
Walt
Disney owns ABC News. Now come on…do
you think an ABC News producer would ever approve content that could
potentially damage the reputation of the company that brought us Disneyland and
Disney World and family-friendly programming? For god’s sake, they brought us
Mickey Mouse. No way would ABC harm their bottom-line. Time Warner owns CNN and AOL, and AOL acquired the Huffington Post. News Corp owns Fox News, Fox Business, New York Post, and Wall Street
Journal. CBS owns CBS News.
Before Time Warner
acquired Turner Broadcasting System in 1996, which owned CNN, this media
observer expected journalists to “remain free of associations and activities that may
compromise integrity or damage credibility.””That’s no longer the case. Having a
stake in the financial outcome of a corporation has greatly damaged the
credibility of the news media.
No one believes a news organization
would not compromise their integrity and risk damage
to their credibility to prevent worldwide negative implications of a news story
attributed to their parent company. Besides, the parent company is not
going to sit idly by and let a subsidiary cause their financial ruin.
What do you think
would happen if a news organization got hold of information that depicts their
parent company in an unfavorable manner…would journalists hired by that organization
act ethically and put the public’s right to know first and foremost and “seek truth and report it” or would
they withhold it from the public?
News that GE paid no federal taxes in 2010, which proved unfavorable to
their corporate image, received no coverage on NBC, CNBC, or MSNBC until six
days after the New York Times reported it. It was as if they thought
viewers would not notice that every other network was reporting the story but
them. It was all over the Internet. It was apparent General Electric (GE)
had silenced them.
Fox News producers
and broadcasters vigorously defended News Corp against criticism over its $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association in order to influence the
2010 midterm election. Fox News, like MSNBC, violated the public’s right to
know. Unfortunately, Americans have come to expect bias in News Corp because
Rupert Murdoch support of Conservatism is very well known. Fox News was built
on it.
Fox News cast GE
in a negative light for not paying any corporate taxes, and MSNBC broadcasters
cast dispersions on News Corp for donating to only Republicans. It
appears that it is acceptable practice to bring down your competitor’s parent
company, but don’t you dare report anything that could adversely harm your own
parent company. The public’s right to know does not take precedence over
protecting their corporate image.
SPJ’s ethical standard of being “courageous
about holding those with power accountable” only applies to celebrities
and politicians. Cable news executives leave any harsh criticism of Wall Street
or corporate CEOs to their opinion shows as long as they’re not criticizing a
CEO of their own parent company. Would ABC vigorously investigate Walt Disney
if they became ensnarled in a scandal that could damage the company’s
reputation or drive down the price of its stock? Would CNN hold Time Warner accountable for
some corporate misdeed? Is Bill Maher a Christian? Hell no!
If a powerful and
sophisticated weapon defense system protects us from foreign threats, what
protects us from U.S. corporations that control what we read, what we see on
television, or what news we hear?
That’s my yada yada and I’m sticking to it.
Follow
me on Twitter: @smaxxmahaffey
Visit
my website http://www.smmahaffey.com to
read more of my writing