Inventing Reality

by Michael Parenti

  Adapted from E. Baskakov, “Empire of Lies and Deception,” Democratic Journalist, October 1987, pp. 25-26.

  While conservatives from Spiro Agnew to George Bush have denounced the press for its supposedly “liberal bias,” they have never sought stricter regulations on ownership, advertising rates, and profits. Presidents like Nixon and Reagan imposed serious restrictions on freedom of information yet supported corporate takeovers and profiteering in the media industry. In 1985 the Federal Communications Commission even set up new rules allowing greater concentration of ownership in television and radio.

  The end result of all this concentration is that market-dominant media corporations make a higher percentage of profit on every dollar than do smaller competitors. It is not that they have superior quality, just superior reach and more economic muscle.10 Needless to say, the social and political implications of big profits and giant media mergers are subjects not critically treated by the news commentators who work for these conglomerates.

  INTERLOCKING CONTROL

  Newspapers and television networks are run like other corporations in the United States, by boards of directors composed mostly of persons drawn from the moneyed stratum of society. Three-quarters of the major stockholders of ABC, CBS, and NBC are banks such as Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Bankers Trust, Citibank, and Bank of America.11 Representatives of the more powerful New York banks sit on the boards of the major networks and greatly influence network fiduciary functions.

  Besides banks, the big media organizations hold interlocking directorates with giant companies that have major investments in airlines, coal and oil, insurance, telephone communications, agribusiness, automotives, defense contracts, rocket engineering, nuclear power, and nuclear weaponry. Ford Motor Company—already exercising a considerable influence on American society with its own multibillion-dollar business— has had directors on the corporate boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times.12 General Electric, one of the nation’s largest and most influential industrial giants, owns NBC.

  The board of directors that rules CBS contains board members from ITT, IBM, Philip Morris, Dow Corning, J. P. Morgan, Rand, Carnegie Corporation, AT&T, Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Alcoa, Bulova, and Metropolitan Life.13 Seated on the board of directors of the company that owns the Washington Post are representatives from IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of New York, Bankers Trust, Heinz, General Electric, and Coca-Cola.14 Overall, the directors of media corporations “are linked with powerful business organizations, not with public interest groups; with management, not labor; with well-established think tanks and charities, not their grassroots counterparts.”15 With few exceptions, they lean politically to the right, being supporters of conservative viewpoints. They are drawn from a narrow, high-income segment of the population.16

  MANY VOICES, ONE CHORUS

  Hailed for its pluralism and diversity, the news media actually are highly centralized outlets that proffer remarkably homogenized fare. News services for dailies throughout the nation are provided by the AP, UPI, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post wire services, and one or two foreign ones such as Reuters. The underlying political viewpoints of these conduits are pretty much the same, “marked by a prefabricated standardization of news which is constricting and frightening.”17

  A growing portion of press offerings is given over to fluff and puffery rather than “hard” news, to trivialized features and gossip items, crime, scandal, sports, “women’s features,” advertisements, crossword puzzles, comic strips and horoscopes. Be it broadcast or print, the news is usually scant, superficial, and oriented toward “events and personalities in the limelight,” a few “headline stories” along with a number of conservative or simply banal commentaries and editorials.18

  Whichever newspaper one reads or TV news show one views, in whatever part of the United States, one is struck by the indistinguishable and immediately familiar quality of the news and views presented and of the people presenting them. One confronts a precooked, standardized news industry that is in sharp contrast to the “pluralistic diversity” of opinion said to prevail in the United States. Most of the news items and even many editorials are “canned,” derived from syndicated sources. Worse still, many are thinly disguised press releases distributed by private or governmental sources and published almost verbatim. For instance, PR Newswire, a wire service specializing in business press releases, distributes 150 stories daily to the major TV networks and other broadcast outlets, and to some 600 newsrooms across the nation, including the major dailies and wire services.19

  To think that information and viewpoints circulate in “a free market of ideas” is to conjure up a misleading metaphor. A “market” suggests a place of plentitude, with the consumer moving from stall to stall as at any bazaar, sampling and picking from an array of wares. But the existing media market of ideas is more like the larger economic market of which it is a part: oligopolistic and accessible mostly to those who possess vast amounts of capital, or who hold views that are pleasing to the possessors of capital.

  To be sure, in this controlled market there is a vast array of publications—for motorcycle owners, dog owners, and homeowners, for brides and singles, for fishing, hunting, and dating, for camping and gardening, for weight watching and weight lifting, for karate and judo, for sailing, swimming, and jogging, for auto mechanics, auto racing, horse racing, and horse raising, for music fans, movie fans, television fans, soap opera devotees, and computer buffs, for just about every conceivable diversion and taste. Relatively few of these have anything to do with meaningful political and social affairs. Most are devoted to recreation and consumerism. The diversity of publications, both serious and trivial, should not be mistaken for a plurality of ideas and ideologies, nor a wealth of political information.

  If the news media offer a good deal of trivialized fluff, isn’t that what the public wants? Don’t people prefer to be diverted and entertained rather than informed and burdened with serious matters? Publishers and network producers say so. But one reason they do not offer more serious news is that it costs more than the canned features. News is produced by staff reporters who demand salaries and benefits and who often try to unionize. Sometimes they attempt to write about things that are troublesome to large financial interests and big advertisers. In contrast, “soft” features attract advertisers and offend no one. They can be bought inexpensively from a syndicate, and they demand no salaries, benefits, or unions.20

  One of the first things a big chain does when it takes over an independent newspaper is cut down on its staff in order to lower costs and maximize profits. The result is less news and less quality. And if the paper enjoys the monopolistic advantage of being the only daily in town, it can raise its advertising rates and make still more money. Although the chains control 75 percent of the nation’s daily circulation, they employ only 25 percent of the correspondents. In other words, they make more money but offer less news.21

  Is this what the public wants? Less news and more high-priced advertising, the costs of which are eventually passed on to them? If anything, circulation tends to stagnate or even decline slightly when an independent becomes just another link in a newspaper chain. In city after city, “the papers that chose to emphasize the primacy of news over the primacy of advertising revenues developed the strongest reader loyalty,” and had the best survival rate. Papers that failed had less serious and poorer quality news, and less coverage of all kinds than did their successful counterparts.22

  The same is true of magazines. In the 1960s national magazines like Life, Look, and the Saturday Evening Post actually gained circulation when they became more socially conscious and dealt with important issues. Yet they died at the height of their popularity because of the competing appeal of television as an advertising conduit.23 The fate of the national magazines was not determined by what the public wanted but by where the corporate advertisers wanted to put their money.

  There
is no one monolithic public but many various publics. Some people may want to be distracted with tabloid television, comic strips, and pop features, but many others are concerned about serious politicoeconomic events and issues, including world events.24 They get little of what they want from the news media, and what they do get is what the dominant interests want them to have—as we shall see in the pages ahead.

  Who Controls the News?

  Does ownership of the media translate into control over information? Or are journalists free to write what they want? Reporters themselves offer contradictory testimony on this question. Some say they are independent agents while others complain of control and censorship.

  CALLING THE TUNE: OWNERS

  The people who own the media conglomerates along with their directors and chief executive officers are drawn overwhelmingly from the ranks of the rich. Not surprisingly, nearly all of them are politicoeconomic conservatives.1 One media critic notes that among the top officers of the three major networks “there is not a person who 1 would judge is a liberal.” The network bosses are “in general closer to the right of the political center than to the left.”2

  Do these rich conservatives preside over their empires without a concern for the ideological slant of the news stories and political commentary produced by their media organizations? If so, it would seem odd. An article in Forbes, a business magazine, noted that the Hearst Corporation enjoyed “considerable clout over network programming” because it owned the largest collection of non-network-owned ABCTV affiliates. Forbes recognized that with ownership comes “clout” and saw nothing unusual about that.3

  Rupert Murdoch was once asked: “You’re considered to be politically conservative. To what extent do you influence the editorial posture of your newspapers?” He responded: “Considerably. The buck stops on my desk. My editors have input, but 1 make final decisions.” Murdoch added that he thought of himself not as a mere conservative but a “radical conservative.”4

  Otis Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, readily admitted there existed an ideological selection process: “I’m the chief executive. I set policy and I’m not going to surround myself with people who disagree with me. In general areas of conservatism vs. liberalism, I surround myself with people who generally see the way I do.” Chandler thinks of himself and his editors as “centrists.”5

  The top news executives are subject to the judgments of the ruling corporate directors and owners who exercise financial power over the organization and, if they so choose, final judgment over the news itself and over who is hired or fired at lower levels. When the Du Ponts owned the largest newspapers in Delaware they blatantly suppressed news reports and editorials that did not suit their ideological proclivities.6 When Walter Annenberg owned the Philadelphia Inquirer, he regularly prohibited his editors from running stories that mentioned the names of persons he disliked, including individuals normally reported in the news. He also used the paper to attack a gubernatorial candidate who advocated policies that might infringe upon his own railroad interests in Pennsylvania—without ever informing readers that he had such interests.7

  C. Peter Jorgensen, publisher of Century Newspapers Inc., advised all editors of his three Boston-area weeklies that he did

  not intend to pay for paper and ink, or staff time and effort, to print news or opinion pieces which in any way might be construed to lend support, comfort, assistance, or aid to political candidates who are opposed by Republican candidates in the November election. You are specifically instructed to submit any and all political stories which mention any candidate in any race and any photographs, letters, editorials, cutlines, or any other kind of written material whatsoever relative to the election or elected officials and their record, to the publisher prior to publication... . If this is unclear in any way, resolve every question in your mind with a decision NOT to print.8

  No state censor could have been more thorough.

  Owners often make a show of not interfering, but “the suggestions of powerful superiors are, in fact, thinly veiled orders, requiring circumlocutions in which commands are phrased as requests.”9 Sometimes suggestions made by owners can be brushed aside by editors, but not too often. And if the owner insists, then the editor obeys. Herbert Gans writes: “Older journalists at Time told me that Henry Luce used to flood them with story suggestions, many of which were ignored; but those he deemed most important and urgent were not.”10

  If an editor proves recalcitrant, the owner’s velvet glove comes off. In the early 1950s Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch decided his liberal editors were being too critical of the anticommunist witch-hunting escapades of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Eventually Pulitzer’s requests that his editors “lay off the McCarthy hearings” were replaced by a direct and silencing command: “I must ask that the words ‘McCarthy’ or ‘McCarthyism’ or any oblique reference to either shall not appear on the editorial page without my specific approval ...” 11

  Les Brown’s observations about the ideological underpinnings of local TV stations holds for local radio and newspapers as well:

  Many of the stations are owned by persons of hard right-wing bias who are pillars of the local power structure and who believe their public service obligations to be met by promoting love for the flag. They would have networks concentrate on spreading patriotism and ... would keep the air waves free from the voices of dissent.12

  CALLING THE TUNE: ADVERTISERS

  Owners themselves must have a care not to offend other large financial interests, especially those of big corporate advertisers. Todd Gitlin reports:

  The knowledge of who pays the bills can’t be dispelled, even though it doesn’t always rise to consciousness. Network executives internalize the desires of advertisers. CBS’s Herman Keld ... didn’t qualify his answer when 1 asked him whether ad agencies—and affiliates—are taken into account in programming decisions. “I would say they are always taken into account. Always taken into account... .”13

  The notion that the media are manipulated by big moneyed interests is dismissed by some as a “conspiracy theory.” But there is nothing conspiratorial about it. Because they pay the bills, advertisers regard their influence over media content as something of a “right.” And media executives seem to agree. As erstwhile CBS president Frank Stanton said: “Since we are advertiser-supported we must take into account the general objective and desires of advertisers as a whole.”14

  Consider how, during the early 1970s, the New York limes covered the issues of auto safety and auto pollution. Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger openly admitted that he urged his editors to favor the automotive industry’s position so as not to “affect the advertising.” The industry was one of the Times's biggest accounts at that time.15

  Advertisers are not hesitant to exert pressure. Mobil Oil urged PBS to suppress a film that would offend its oil partner, Saudi Arabia.16

  Tobacco companies withdrew their ads from Mother Jones after the magazine ran articles citing cigarettes as a major cause of lung cancer and heart disease.17 A study of five major women s magazines (which frequently reported on women’s health and also regularly ran cigarette ads) found that they offered not a single article, review, or commentary on any aspect of the dangers of smoking. Ix When NBC ran a documentary on the terrible conditions endured by migrant workers, citing the abuses perpetrated by Coca-Cola Food Company, Coca-Cola sharply denounced the show, and the network was unable to find a single corporate sponsor for the program.19 NBC was less courageous when its “Today” show managed to report a boycott without once mentioning GE even though the corporation was a major target of the boycott. As already noted, GE owns NBC.20

  Locally owned media are also vulnerable to the pressures of advertisers and other business interests. While working for a paper in an Ohio mill town many years ago, Art Shields was cautioned by his editor to report nothing that might offend the town’s merchants and brewers: “We can’t live without their good will. Be especia
lly careful when you write about the brewery. It’s our best advertiser.” Shields was further warned to check with the management of the big steel plant before reporting about it: “The steel mill runs this town,” said the editor.21

  A reporter for the Willamette Week in Portland, Oregon, was told by her editor that “business is where the power is and we have to rub their backs.” She noted that “numerous articles containing mildly critical information on business” were rewritten because the editor wanted only “positive” pieces.22 A study of how absentee mine owners dominated an impoverished Appalachian valley found that the media in the area never questioned the power of the coal company nor the baneful effects that the company’s policies had on the local citizenry.23 After reviewing many county weeklies published in the United States, one writer concluded that very few “ever print anything that might cause discomfort to anyone with any economic power.”24

  Advertisers will cancel ads when they feel the reporting reflects unfavorably on their own product or industry. But they just as frequently withdraw financial support because they dislike the “liberal biases” they think are creeping into the news.25 Thus when the New Haven Advocate ran an article containing some positive things about revolutionary Grenada, a large department store responded by canceling its advertising account with the paper.26 Years ago the owners of Esquire started Ken, “a magazine of liberal idealism” that attracted a good deal of reader interest. But big corporations unfriendly to the liberal views in its articles refused to advertise in the new publication and even threatened to withdraw their ads from Esquire. So the Esquire owners killed Ken even though it had met its circulation plans.27

  Business viewpoints are abundantly represented with TV shows like “Nightly Business Report,” “Wall Street Week,” and “Adam Smith’s Money World”—all of which have corporate backing. This country’s most far-reaching wire service, Associated Press (AP), is also its most conservative.28 AP is owned by big companies like Merrill Lynch. Corporate support also explains the plethora of conservative commentators such as Robert Novak, William Buckley, and John McLaughlin on political talk shows and the absence of progressive ones. The backing of rich sponsors explains the transformation of McLaughlin “from a fringe right-wing columnist in the late 1970s to one of the most prominent faces on public affairs TV.”29 In contrast, progressive commentators such as Jonathan Kwitny and Jesse Jackson— deprived of major advertisers—do not last long on public television, let alone on commercial outlets. Likewise, without big advertising support, progressive publications like the Nation and the Guardian are always facing insolvency, never able to launch the kind of massive mainstream promotional campaigns that might win the attention of larger publics.