By: Sophie McAdam,
True Activist.
A
poll
last year showed that trust in the mainstream media is increasing,
which should worry all of us who value truth, integrity and press
freedom. Why? Here are 10 disturbing things everyone needs to know about
the global media giants who control our supply of information, wielding
immense power over the people- and even over the government.
1. Mainstream media exists solely to make profit
Murdoch: Evil wizard
Image Credit: ♥ photofairy
What´s the purpose of the mainstream media? Saying that the press
exists to inform, educate or entertain is like saying Apple
corporation´s primary function is to make technology which will enrich
our lives. Actually, the mass media industry is the same as any other in
a capitalist society: it exists to make profit.
Medialens, a British campaigning site which critiques mainstream (or corporate) journalism,
quoted
business journalist Marjorie Kelly as saying that all corporations,
including those dealing with media, exist only to maximize returns to
their shareholders. This is, she said, ´the law of the land…universally
accepted as a kind of divine, unchallengeable truth´. Without pleasing
shareholders and a board of directors, mass media enterprises simply
would not exist. And once you understand this, you´ll never watch the
news in the same way again.
´journalist´ Andrew Ross Sorkin and the Goldman Sachs connection
Flickr / WilliamBanzai7/Colonel Flick
2. Advertisers dictate content
So how does the pursuit of profit affect the news we consume? Media
corporations make the vast majority (typically around 75%) of their
profit from advertising, meaning it´s advertisers themselves that
dictate content-
not journalists, and certainly not consumers.
Imagine you are editor of a successful newspaper or TV channel with high
circulation or viewing figures. You attract revenue from big brands and
multinational corporations such as BP, Monsanto and UAE airlines. How
could you then tackle important topics such as climate change, GM food
or disastrous oil spills in a way that is both honest to your audience
and favorable to your clients? The simple answer is you can´t. This
might explain why Andrew Ross Sorkin of the
New York Times- sponsored by Goldman Sachs- is so keen to
defend the crooked corporation.
Andrew Marr, a political correspondent for the
BBC, sums up the dilemma in his
autobiography:
´The biggest question is whether advertising limits and reshapes the
news agenda. It does, of course. It’s hard to make the sums add up when
you are kicking the people who write the cheques.´ Enough said…
3. Billionaire tycoons & media monopolies threaten real journalism
Image Credit – Flickr / Mike Licht
The monopolization of the press (fewer individuals or organizations controlling increasing shares of the mass media) is
growing year by year, and this is a grave danger to press ethics and diversity. Media mogul Rupert
Murdoch´s neo-liberal personal
politics
are reflected in his 175 newspapers and endorsed by pundits (see Fox
news) on the 123 TV channels he owns in the USA alone. Anyone who isn´t
worried by this one man´s view of the world being consumed by millions
of people across the globe- from the USA to the UK, New Zealand to Asia,
Europe to Australia- isn´t thinking hard enough about the consequences.
It´s a grotesquely all-encompassing monopoly, leaving no doubt that
Murdoch is one of the most powerful men in the world. But as the News
International phone hacking
scandal showed, he´s certainly not the most honorable or ethical. Neither is Alexander
Lebedev, a former KGB spy and politician who bought British newspaper
The Independent
in 2010. With Lebedev´s fingers in so many pies (the billionaire
oligarch is into everything from investment banking to airlines), can we
really expect news coverage from this once well-respected publication
to continue in the same vein? Obviously not: the paper had always
carried a banner on its front page declaring itself ´free from party
political bias, free from proprietorial influence´, but interestingly
this was dropped in September 2011.
4. Corporate press is in bed with the government
British Prime Minister David Cameron partying with Rebekah Brooks
Photo: Dafydd Jones (telegraph.co.uk)
Aside from the obvious, one of the most disturbing facts to emerge
from Murdoch´s News International phone hacking scandal (background
information
here ) was the exposure of shady
connections between top government officials and press tycoons. During the scandal, and throughout the subsequent Leveson
inquiry into British press ethics (or lack of them), we learned of secret
meetings,
threats by Murdoch to politicians who didn´t do as he wanted, and that Prime Minister David Cameron has a
very close friendship with The Sun´s then editor-in-chief (and CEO of News International) Rebekah
Brooks.
How can journalists do their job of holding politicians to account when
they are vacationing together or rubbing shoulders at private dinner
parties? Clearly, they don´t intend to. But the support works both ways-
Cameron´s government tried to
help Murdoch´s son win a bid for
BSkyB,
while bizarrely, warmongering ex Prime Minister Tony Blair is
godfather to Murdoch´s daughter Grace. As well as ensuring an
overwhelming bias in news coverage and election campaigns, flooding
newspapers with cheap and easy articles from unquestioned government
sources, and gagging writers from criticizing those in power, these
secret connections also account for much of the corporate media´s
incessant peddling of the patriotism
lie- especially in the lead-up to attacks on other countries. Here´s an interesting
analysis of
The New York Times´s
coverage of the current Syria situation for example, demonstrating how
corporate journalists are failing to reflect public feeling on the issue
of a full-scale attack on Assad by the US and its allies.
Image Credit: heavy.com
5. Important stories are overshadowed by trivia
You could be forgiven for assuming that the most interesting part of
Edward Snowden´s status as a whistleblower was his plane ride from Hong
Kong to Russia, or his lengthy stint waiting in Moscow airport for
someone-
anyone- to offer him asylum. Because with the exception of
The Guardian who published the leaks (read them in full
here),
the media has generally preferred not to focus on Snowden´s damning
revelations about freedom and tyranny, but rather on banal
trivia
– his personality and background, whether his girlfriend misses him,
whether he is actually a Chinese spy, and ahhh, didn´t he remind us all
of
Where´s Waldo as he flitted across the globe as a wanted
fugitive? The same could be said of Bradley Manning´s gender
re-assignment, which conveniently
overshadowed the enormous injustice of his sentence. And what of Julian Assange? His
profile on the globally-respected BBC
is dedicated almost entirely to a subtle smearing of character, rather than detailing
Wikileaks´s
profound impact on our view of the world. In every case, the principal
stories are forgotten as our attention, lost in a sea of trivia, is
expertly diverted from the real issues at hand: those which invariably,
the government wants us to forget.
6. Mainstream media doesn´t ask questions
Image Credit / web.archive.org
´Check your sources, check your facts´ are golden rules in journalism
101, but you wouldn´t guess that from reading the mainstream press or
watching corporate TV channels. At the time of writing, Obama is beating
the war drums over Syria. Following accusations by the US and Britain
that Assad was responsible for a nerve gas attack on his own civilians
last month, most mainstream newspapers- like the afore-mentioned
New York Times- have
failed
to demand evidence or call for restraint on a full-scale attack. But
there are several good reasons why journalists should question the
official story. Firstly, British right-wing newspaper
The Daily Mail actually ran a
news
piece back in January this year, publishing leaked emails from a
British arms company showing the US was planning a false flag chemical
attack on Syria´s civilians. They would then blame it on Assad to gain
public support for a subsequent full-scale invasion. The article was
hastily deleted but a cached version still
exists.
Other recent evidence lends support to the unthinkable. It has emerged
that the chemicals used to make the nerve gas were indeed
shipped from Britain, and German intelligence
insists
Assad was not responsible for the chemical attack. Meanwhile, a
hacktivist has come forward with alleged evidence of US intelligence
agencies´ involvement in the massacre (download it for yourself
here ), with a
growing
body of evidence suggesting this vile plot was hatched by Western
powers. Never overlook the corporate media´s ties to big business and
big government before accepting what you are told- because if journalism
is dead, you have a right and a duty to ask your own questions.
7. Corporate journalists hate real journalists
Michael Grunwald, senior national correspondent of
Time,
tweeted that he ´can´t wait to write a defense of the drone that takes out Julian Assange.´
Salon writer David
Image Credit / intellectualrevolution.tv
Sirota rightly points out the
irony
of this: ´Here we have a reporter expressing excitement at the prospect
of the government executing the publisher of information that became
the basis for some of the most important journalism in the last decade.´
Sirota goes on to note various examples of what he calls the
´Journalists against Journalism
club´, and gives several
examples of how
The Guardian columnist
Glenn Greenwald has been attacked by the corporate press for publishing Snowden´s leaks.
The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin called for Greenwald’s
arrest, while
NBC’s David Gregory´s
declared
that Greenwald has ´aided and abetted Snowden´. As for the question of
whether journalists can indeed be outspoken, Sirota accurately notes
that it all depends on whether their opinions serve or challenge the
status quo, and goes on to
list
the hypocrisy of Greenwald´s critics in depth: ´Grunwald has
saber-rattling opinions that proudly support the government’s drone
strikes and surveillance. Sorkin’s opinions promote Wall Street’s
interests. (
The Washington Post´s David) Broder had opinions that supported, among other things, the government’s corporate-serving “free” trade agenda. (
The Washington Post´s Bob) Woodward has opinions backing an ever-bigger Pentagon budget that enriches defense contractors. (
The Atlantic´s Jeffrey) Goldberg promotes the Military-Industrial Complex’s generally pro-war opinions. (
The New York Times´s
Thomas) Friedman is all of them combined, promoting both “free” trade
and “suck on this” militarism. Because these voices loyally promote the
unstated assumptions that serve the power structure and that dominate
American politics, all of their particular opinions aren’t even
typically portrayed as opinions; they are usually portrayed as
noncontroversial objectivity.´
8. Bad news sells, good news is censored, and celebrity gossip trumps important issues
Justin Bieber – Image Credit / Wikimedia
It´s sad but true: bad news really does sell more newspapers. But
why? Are we really so pessimistic? Do we relish the suffering of others?
Are we secretly glad that something terrible happened to someone else,
not us? Reading the corporate press as an alien visiting Earth you might
assume so. Generally, news coverage is sensationalist and depressing as
hell, with so many pages dedicated to murder, rape and pedophilia and
yet none to the billions of good deeds and amazingly inspirational
movements taking place every minute of every day all over the planet.
But the
reasons
we consume bad news are perfectly logical. In times of harmony and
peace, people simply don´t feel the need to educate themselves as much
as they do in times of crises. That´s good news for anyone beginning to
despair that humans are apathetic, hateful and dumb, and it could even
be argued that this sobering and simple fact is a great incentive for
the mass media industry to do something worthwhile. They could start
offering the positive and hopeful angle for a change. They could use
dark periods of increased public interest to convey a message of peace
and justice. They could reflect humanity´s desire for solutions and our
urgent concerns for the environment. They could act as the voice of a
global population who has had enough of violence and lies to campaign
for transparency, equality, freedom, truth, and real democracy. Would
that sell newspapers? I think so. They could even hold a few politicians
to account on behalf of the people, wouldn´t that be something? But for
the foreseeable future, it´s likely the corporate press will just
distract our attention with another picture of Rhianna´s butt, another
rumor about Justin Bieber´s coke habit, or another article about Kim
Kardashian (who is she again?) wearing perspex heels with swollen ankles
while pregnant. Who cares about the
missing $21 trillion, what was she
thinking?
9. Whoever controls language controls the population
Flickr / Jason Ilagan
Have you read George Orwell´s classic novel
1984 yet? It´s become a clichéd reference in today´s dystopia, that´s true, but with good reason. There are many-
too
many- parallels between Orwell´s dark imaginary future and our current
reality, but one important part of his vision concerned language. Orwell
coined the word ´
Newspeak´
to describe a simplistic version of the English language with the aim
of limiting free thought on issues that would challenge the status quo
(creativity, peace, and individualism for example). The concept of
Newspeak includes what Orwell called ´DoubleThink´- how language is
made ambiguous or even inverted to convey the opposite of what is true.
In his book, the Ministry of War is known as the Ministry of Love, for
example, while the Ministry of Truth deals with propaganda and
entertainment. Sound familiar yet? Another book that delves into this
topic deeper is
Unspeak,
a must-read for anyone interested in language and power and
specifically how words are distorted for political ends. Terms such as
´peace keeping missiles´, ´extremists´ and ´no-fly zones´, weapons being
referred to as ´assets´, or misleading business euphemisms such as
´downsizing´ for redundancy and ´sunset´ for termination- these, and
hundreds of other examples, demonstrate how powerful language can be. In
a world of growing corporate media monopolization, those who wield this
power can manipulate words and therefore public reaction, to encourage
compliance, uphold the status quo, or provoke fear.
10. Freedom of the press no longer exists
Flickr / watchingfrogsboil
The only press that is currently free (at least for now) is the
independent publication with no corporate advertisers, board of
directors, shareholders or CEOs. Details of how the state has redefined
journalism are noted
here and are mentioned in #7, but the best recent example would be the government´s treatment of
The Guardian
over its publication of the Snowden leaks. As a side note, it´s
possible this paper plays us as well as any other- The Guardian Media
Group
isn´t small fry, after all. But on the other hand- bearing in mind
points 1 to 9- why should we find it hard to believe that after the NSA
files were published, editor Alan Rusbridge was
told by the powers that be ´you´ve had your fun, now return the files´, that government officials stormed his newsroom and
smashed up hard drives, or that Greenwald´s partner David Miranda was
detained
for 9 hours in a London airport under the Terrorism Act as he delivered
documents related to the columnist´s story? Journalism, Alan Rusbridge
lamented, ´may be facing a kind of existential threat.´ As CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather
wrote:
‘We have few princes and earls today, but we surely have their
modern-day equivalents in the very wealthy who seek to manage the news,
make unsavory facts disappear and elect representatives who are in
service to their own economic and social agenda… The “free press” is no
longer a check on power. It has instead become part of the power
apparatus itself.’
Sophie is a staff writer for True Activist and a freelance
feature writer for various publications on society, activism and other
topics. You can read more of her stuff here.
Read more
http://www.trueactivist.com/10-disturbing-facts-about-the-mainstream-media/
