Eric Schmidt

76-100 M

December 6, 1996

Sauer

How objectively does the media in the United States portray the news? This question is one of much argument and debate, and does not suggest a simple answer. In order to reach a convincing conclusion, several factors must be considered. First, it is necessary to create an ideal situation with which to compare the current state of news-media in this country. Here, the concept of media neutrality, presented by Newton (4), will be used. It will follow from this model definition of the media that the many political influences and government influences may be necessary in order to create a well-rounded presentation of the news. But how exactly do politics and the government influence the media? This is the question to be considered in this essay. While some political figures have direct access to the news-media, many political views are also expressed by news editors, anchors, writers, and reporters, whose political bias shows in their commentary and analysis of newsworthy events. More importantly, however, is the ownership of media corporations, which must be examined as well. These media corporations can be divided into two distinct categories: aired, or electronic media, such as television and radio, and printed media, such as newspapers and magazines. The national and local governments also play a large part in determining what information is presented in the news-media. Besides imposing public regulations--the FCC, for instance, regulates nearly all aired media--the government can influence the media through personal and business relationships with reporters, writers, and editors, and has control over when and if certain information will be "leaked" to news services. Before the question of process is examined, however, the concept of media neutrality needs to be examined further.

Media neutrality, taken literally, would suggest a non-biased, neutral media. This is not the case. It is relatively inconceivable that every story presented in the news would have no bias whatsoever. The first amendment, which provides freedom of press to all media, means that no reporter, writer, editor, or the like, must conform to following strict rules about the opinions they choose to include while presenting the news. This is not to say that the people who present the news should be as biased as they wish--It is important for the interpretation and commentary associated with the news to be clearly separated from the story itself (Newton 5). Instead, we consider a variety of contradicting viewpoints which should provide enough information for each individual to draw their own conclusions from what they read and hear (Newton 6). This concept of media neutrality is summed up by Newton:

"...the neutrality of the media as a whole consists of a range and diversity of news and opinion--a range of different and conflicting views. In this case the hallmark of news media neutrality is not a monotone (or monotonous) uniformity, but a variety and diversity, with the news being treated from an assortment of cultural and political perspectives." (6)

This theory provides the path by which political influence enters the media. However, it can be argued that news media almost always diverges from the ideal situation of media neutrality. Consider:

"It would be unrealistic to expect anything like a complete range of opinion to appear in each and every organ of the media... Given the wide range of views on almost all important matters, as well as the complexity of many issues and interpretations of them, we must expect...that the media as a whole should present the public with a full range of news and commentary." (Newton 5-6)

The difference between "full range" and "complete range" becomes the crux of this argument. While media in the United States does provide a full range of opinions in the presentation of the news, it is far from complete. Some leftist authors argue that the owners of large media corporations, such as television broadcasting companies and newspaper companies, control the news so that only conservative opinions are presented. Michael Parenti argues the following point:

"Whichever newspaper one reads or television station 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 controlled, centralized, national news industry that is in sharp contrast to the 'pluralistic diversity' of opinion that is said to prevail in the United States" (Parenti 31)

While this is an extreme view, it still reflects the opinion of some people that the political views in the media are one-sided and do not establish the "complete range" of viewpoints as expressed in the definition of media neutrality.

But there is another side to this argument. If the rights of property are extended to the owners of news media sources , then it would be their right to make news however they wish to present it (Newton 10). Owners of media sources are only providing the goods that are desired by the general public. It is each person's own choice as to whether or not to subscribe to a particular newspaper or magazine or to watch a particular news broadcast. Obviously, the media sources which present the news with the most objectivity, keeping commentary and political opinions separate from presentation of the news itself, will become the most popular. This would most closely match the needs of a majority of the general public.

It still follows that, because the news media is privately owned by a large number of people, a wide variety of opinions will always be presented, and this is how media neutrality is conceivably achieved. But even if a wide variety of viewpoints are offered, the only way the average person will obtain a fair presentation of the news would be through careful examination of all sources. This is likely the case for only a select few individuals. In even the most perfectly competitive system of media presentation, most individuals may restrict themselves to a limited number of biased news sources (Newton 15). In this case media neutrality suffers greatly. Now, let's examine more closely the ways in which political views affect different parts of the media.

Newspapers and magazines are probably the most common format for the presentation of news and political views. Such magazines as Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, and major newspapers like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune sell millions of copies every day, all over the United States. Unfortunately, the ownership of printed media, newspapers especially, has become more concentrated over the years, leading to a decline in variety of political diversity.

By 1970, nearly half of the 1800 daily newspapers in the United States were controlled by only ten companies(Newton 17). Four of these companies accounted for 22% of all sales nationwide (Newton 17). It follows from this that a large portion of national newspapers are subject to the same political influences, the ones ingrained by the owners of these few companies, and diversity suffers. When the theory of media neutrality is applied to this scenario, the following conclusions may be obtained: First, it is less likely that a wide range of political viewpoints will be expressed, and a greater opportunity that bias will go unchecked. Second, because there are fewer presentations of the same event, it is more likely that the general public will be mislead into believing a false interpretation of the event. These are very disturbing scenarios indeed. Bagdikian reaches this disturbing conclusion:

"As the world becomes more volatile, as changes accelerate and create new problems that demand new solutions, there is an urgent need for broader and more diverse sources of public information. But the reverse is happening." (4)

The magazine business has also been concentrated, through the formation of multi-media companies, which are part of giant conglomerate corporati11ons (Newton 17). Such corporations include Time Warner and CBS. There are at least 10,830 magazines in the US, and just twenty corporations constitute 50% of the total annual sales(Bagdikian 10). These magazines compile a varied and distinct range of subject matter. But these twenty companies embody only 1% of all magazine companies (Bagdikian 14). As with newspapers, a severe disproportion of power exists, and these companies are the same companies which control not only other forms of media, but other industries as well. Parenti cites one example:

"...the Ford Motor Company--already exercising a palpable influence on American society with an annual business of $43 billion--has directors on the corporate boards of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times."(29)

Bagdikian argues further:

"Today there is hardly an American industry that does not own major media outlet, or a major media outlet grown so large that it does not own a firm in a major industry. These media report the news of industries in which they either are owners or share directors and policies."(4)

There is clearly a problem with the way news media is controlled, and the results of this problem may very likely cause serious problems in society.

Examination of the electronic media, made up of television and radio companies, leads us to similar discoveries. There are three major privately owned broadcast corporations in the United States. These networks dominate the American television audience, which consists of 98% of all households in this country and in which the average television is in use for six and one half hours each day (Bagdikian 14). As stated above, one of these networks, NBC, is owned by General Electric. Another, ABC, is owned by Capital City. The third, CBS, is a major media conglomerate controlling not only a television network, but also 5 television stations, 14 radio stations, 22 magazines, Columbia Records, and several major publishing houses (Newton 17). Other large corporations tend to be major stockholders in these media superpowers (Newton 17), so it would follow that the networks owned by the media superpowers would present a favorable view of such corporations when presenting information concerning them. Cohen and Solomon write:

"Big media outlets are intertwined with--or owned outright by--huge corporations. A major toxic dumper and despoiler of waterways, General Electric, owns NBC. Other large firms are mega-buck investors in media, and frequently spend huge sums to advertise on the airwaves and in print."(45)

Cohen and Solomon also cite an example, concerning public television stations:

"On so-called 'public [television],' a dozen big corporate polluters--including BASF, Goodyear, and Mobil--polish their images by underwriting nature shows. Environmentalists refer to these commercials as ecopornography." (45)

It is conceivable, then, that these large corporate foundations could influence politically the broadcast of news on television as well. If ownership of a major network lies in the hands of a company which is under national scrutiny for some particular incident, then it is likely that the news programs on that network would not air a truthful portrayal of the incident. Instead, it would provide one in which the company would be placed at little or no fault for the incident.

For nearly 2 decades, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite would end his evening news broadcast with the words, "and that's the way it is". Consider this statement made by him on the day of his retirement after 20 years of service with CBS, in which he admitted that isn't the way it is (Parenti 6):

"My lips have been somewhat buttoned for almost twenty years.... CBS News doesn't really believe in commentary."

The owners of the large corporations which control the media have much more control than most people would think.

We now consider a few actual methods by which politics influence news media and create political bias. To examine the dynamic process of constructing political meaning it is necessary to examine both the content and the construction and the presentation of political messages. Issues vary in their salience to members of the public, the media, or political decision makers (Crigler 9). Important stories may be hidden, downplayed, made obscure so that meaning is lost, or lied about all together in order to create news that positively endorses a particular political view. Cohen and Solomon refer to the savings and loan crisis during the Reagan administration as a case in point:

"The [New York] Times and other newspapers reported warning signs year after year during the mid-1980s--but usually far from front pages. One survey, by the Chicago Media Critic newsletter, concluded: 'More than 85 percent of all the S&L stories we saw in the papers we monitored were hidden in the business sections.'" (76)

The press, influenced by the conservative political views of the White House, downplayed important information in order to present a view that more closely followed a conservative agenda. Another view is that the interest in political news causes the mass-media to concentrate only on political news and little else. Consider this statement made by Kerbel, concerning a twenty-four hour period surrounding a presidential debate for the 1992 election:

"Rather than offer diversity, many of the outlets providing political information reinforce each other in a perplexing blur of news.... Cable and network television offered a continuous supply of reporters and handlers interchangeably offering their insight, first on how they predicted the debate would go, then on how they thought it had gone. The reporters appeared for ratings, the operatives for favorable spin, but the story they told was the same." (134)

Politics , therefore, can also influence the media by forcing it to cover one particular political event so closely, in order to receive ratings, that it manages to completely ignore all other newsworthy information.

The government, while contributing the kinds of political influences mentioned before, can influence the news-media in a few additional ways: the government imposes certain regulations on the media, through the government-run FCC; members of our national government can carry a great deal of influence with the owners/important figures of news corporations, and use this influence to impose certain views; and the installation of public broadcasting services. The FCC, or Federal Communications Commission, places certain loose regulations on the press. The following statement by Kaplar and Maines exhibits one example of how the FCC can influence the news:

"One of the prerogatives of the air waves' overseers [the FCC] is the ability to impose ethical standards on broadcasters that favor politicians' own political interests." (43)

Since deregulation of mass media in the early 1980s, the FCC has lost some of it's power, but it still plays an important role in news media. The government can also affect the media through personal intervention. Powerful political figures in government carry a great deal of influence on the important figures in media corporations. Consider this example:

"The [Washington] Post carries enormous weight within the U.S. government...and vise versa. Officials often float their trial balloons and selective leaks via the Post, which routinely draws its hot stories from unnamed sources in high places." (Cohen and Solomon 8)

These "leaks" are an ingenious way for politicians to spread hand picked tidbits of information throughout the media in order to create a specific political result.

Public television receives its funds partially through government sponsoring. This is yet another method by which politicians can insert various political viewpoints into the news media, in the same manner in which politicians gain access to other news mediums. Parenti questions the government's strong influence over news media:

"Along with owners and advertisers, political rulers exercise a substantial influence over what becomes news. We have now seen how shifts in official policy are faithfully reflected in media coverage and editorial opinion. How is such a confluence achieved between a supposedly democratic government and a pluralistic press that is neither formally owned nor officially censored by state?"(228)

The news media in the United States has been affected by the concentration of media into fewer and fewer companies. A few extremely large companies control every large percentage of the magazines, newspapers, television, and radio stations. At the same time, these companies own shares in other industries as well. Because a relatively small number of people own such a large portion of the media, it can be extrapolated that it is more likely for certain political opinions to be more widespread among the media. It is also more likely for a powerful political figure to gain influence in the news media, through personal association with the persons who control these large corporations. If the political views presented by each separate component of the media, for instance one particular television news broadcast or one particular newspaper, do not continue to remain diverse and well-rounded, then we will have failed the theory of media neutrality. No argument has been presented, however, that would lead to this conclusion. Even though ownership of the media has become more concentrated, there is no evidence that it is becoming one-sided. While each particular viewpoint of the news is not perfectly objective, it can still be concluded that the media as a whole, if an "average" viewpoint is taken from all possible viewpoints, provides a sensible prospective of the events taking place all across the land.

If you have comments or suggestions, email me at eschmidt@andrew.cmu.edu