|
|
|
|
Assisted by a 20-year
pattern of media deregulation, media consolidation has produced
the "info-tainment" news style that defines our national
broadcast news system, one much more likely to tell us all about
Michael Jackson and much less about things that matter -- unless
they're part of some political debate. Thus, issues that matter
much to Americans (such as health care costs or energy usage),
but are avoided by bought-off politicians, simply aren't given
much coverage.
Just as fast-food merchants
all have similar menus, the news networks have all converged
on the same formulas and flavors of "news" presentation,
favoring media events over sober reporting. True diversity and
journalistic independence are lost. Worse, they put their own
profits way ahead of any notion of informing the
public. Consider the following incidents.
1. In May,
2005, ABC News proclaimed as a major news item -- not a "feature"
report-- that Disneyland recently turned 50 years old. Disney
happens to own the ABC network.
2. As detailed
in the highly
rated Russell Crowe movie "The
Insider", CBS censored its own history-making "60
Minutes" report on how the tobacco industry manipulated cigarette
nicotine levels to improve their addictive properties. CBS's parent
company happened to be involved in merger talks with a major tobacco
company, which top CBS officers had millions of dollars of profit
to gain from. They didn't want to deflate the merger's value by
depressing tobacco stock.
3. On January
18, 2002, the people of Minot, North Dakota learned what it is
like to be "served" by a monopolistic radio conglomerate.
On that day, a train derailed in Minot, spilling over 200,000
gallons of toxic anhydrous ammonia, an event federal officials
called "catastrophic". City authorities called one of
Minot's Clear Channel radio stations to help alert citizens (Clear
Channel owned 6 of Minot's 7 commercial stations). But no one
answered the phone. Clear Channel reduced labor costs by cutting
staffs and automating broadcasts. Over fifty people were rushed
to the hospital for treatment and hundreds of livestock were killed.
(Sources: The Associated Press, Jan. 14, 2003; Senate Commerce
Committe hearing, Jan. 14, 2003; New York Times, March 29, 2003
"On Minot, N.D., Radio, a Single Corporate Voice")
4. As we
have noted elsewhere,
Sinclair Broadcast Group is a leader in "innovative"
ways of increasing profit by firing local news staffs and then
centralizing news operations; beaming news and weather from their
Baltimore headquarters, using matched studio sets to maintain
the appearance (deception?) that viewers are receiving "local"
news.
|
 |
| Media
consolidation -- the acquistion of more and more stations by large
owners -- has occured over a two decades, with a large push toward
consolidation beginning in the Reagan era of deregulation. As shown
in the graph below, fewer and fewer corporations own America's mass
media system. This has been examined by author Ben Bagdikian in
his book (and updated editions) on media consolidation. His first
book was published in the 80's when there were 50 corporations that
controlled more than 80% of what Americans watch. In his latest
edition ("The New Media Monopoly"), he notes that the
vast majority of the mass media consumed by Americans is controlled
by only 5 corporations. The figure shown hear documents Bagdikian's
longitudinal study of media consolidation. |
|
Media Ownership
over Time
Graphical
illustration of media consolidation, as provided by author Ben
Bagdikian in this book "The New Media Monopoly"
|
 |
|
As our examples
and timeline show, media consolidation has resulted in central
control of media production that has resulted in loss of concern
for local issues and service to the "public interest".
In this era of pro-business deregulation, the demands for greater
profitrs and control have out-trumped citizen concerns.
Apologists
for our system of large, distant, McNews networks point to the
hundreds of cable station and, with a sense of incredulity ask,
how can anyone carp about diversity?
The answer
is simple: There may be hundreds of cable stations, but 80% of
what Americans watch are controlled by only five Fortune-100 corporations.
And this is not a "wacky liberal" assessment: The most
feverent supporter of deregulation -- the Bush Administration's
controversial Michael Powell -- said as much himself.
Furthermore,
cable channels add absolutely nothing to the delivery of local
news; that job is still done only by the broadcast stations
|
|
|
"You
know, we've heard the statistic over and over in this debate that
five companies control everything, own everything, monopolize
everything. Those are real poor uses of words because they actually
own only about 25 percent of all the channels, but they happen
to command 80 percent of the viewership."
|
| FCC
Head Michael Powell, during a 2 June 2003 television interview on
"The News Hour", attempting to argue that ownership of
the "channels" -- not the networks and their programming
-- was the important issue facing the American public. It ignores
the fact that people watch television programs, not channels,
and 80% of what is watched is made by a handful of Fortune-100 companies
like General Electric. |
 |
|
The notion
that "bigger isn't better" is not just our opinion backed
up by a few impressive examples. It has been shown in a large
scientific study.
A comprehensive
study of local broadcast television was conducted by the Project
for Excellence in Journalism, a research organization affiliated
with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
It is worth
noting that the research of the PEJ has been touted by moderate
public voices and even right-wing extremists, such as Sinclair
Broadcast Group's Mark Hyman. On two separate editions of Sinclair's
"The Point" program (April 5 and 6, 2005) Hyman approvingly
cited results of PEJ research in a selective way to support his
pet theorie. However, he and Sinclair somehow overlooked one of
the most comprehensive studies ever conducted by this research
organization. Well see why.
In the largest
study of its kind, the PEJ sought to determine if there was a
correlation between the quality of local new broadcasts and the
number of stations owned by the parent organization of the local
station ("Does Ownership Matter in Local Television News?").
They analyzed 172 distinct news programs and some 23,000 stories
over a five-year period beginning in 1998. The study was done
in collaboration with Princeton Survey Research Associates and
funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
A wide swath
of American television was examined, as the PEJ study collected
data from 154 stations in 50 different television markets. In
analyzing the new broadcasts, they assessed local broadcast "quality"
using a number of measurements, including: depth of the coverage,
quantity of local news reporting, report accuracy, balance, and
community significance of each report. (Specifics of their report
are available on their website and downloadable as a PDF file).
at their website. To test for a correlation between local news
quality and size-of-ownership, they assigned each station to an
"ownership group" determined by the FCC's rank of audience
reach. Four groups were identified, the largest being stations
belonging to the 10-largest ownership groups (including Sinclair)
and the smallest group owning 3 or fewer stations.
Among the
study's finding, a clear relationship was found between ownership
size and local news quality. To quote the study's conclusion:
"Smaller station groups overall tended to produce higher
quality newscasts than stations owned by larger companies - by
a significant margin."
It is perhaps
not at all surprising that KCRG -- owned by a small company --
is preferred by viewers over KGAN -- owned by 61-station Sinclair
group -- by at least a 5-to-1 ratio, according to Neilsen ratings
of their local news programs.
|
Final
Comments
It is not
hard to see how greater and greater media concentration into
the hands of a few corporations has resulted in bland and superficial
news coverage. The so-called "mainstream media" is
rightfully criticized for their lack of journalistic standards
and investigative zeal. Because of the profit motive, news organizations
are now controlled by the networks' entertainment divisions.
Occasionally, a network news organization stumbles upon real
news and reports it, but too often, they report political debate
and fluff. Thus, political press conferences are considered
to be "news", while really important issues -- energy,
health care, and the environment -- are hardly ever truly explained
to the public (beyond the political squabblin) so that THEY
can make decisions. The public hears much more about the "Runaway
Bride" than about health-care reform issues. And, curiously,
all the major news organizations copy each other. Thus, "Runaway
Bride" is covered for weeks on all networks, while nary
a peep on more substantive issues.
For decades
now, the public is fed McNews that is neither nourishing or
healthy. Coverage of political debating and uncivil bickering
has replaced the public presentation of facts and issues. Politics
over policy.
Traditional
conservatives would recoil from the notion of the control of
our media by a few mega-corporations, just as they would argue
against government control of the media. Yet those conservative
voices are largely silent, replaced by politicians fronting
for powerful interests who constantly preach that businesses
can do no wrong and the governement can do no right. This odd
distortion of logic -- giving one powerful group carte blanche
while denying the right of citizens to effect change -- is a
dangerous trend that needs to be questioned for its underlying
motives.
Like the
body enfeebled by too many Big Macs, our minds have been conditioned
by non-news to believe that there really is no point in being
informed or being involved. After being fed so much drivel,
gossip, and politicking, who can blame the citizen from being
turned off by McNews?
Yet, isn't
an informed public critical to a democracy?
And if the
general public is disengaged and apathetic, who is running our
country?
|
|
|
Iowans for better local TV
|
