COLUMN: Corporate ownership of media places profits above quality


by Massoud Javadi

IT WAS quite an arresting claim to make. At the bottom of a full page ad in Monday's New York Times , the stylishly choppy slogan of a new 24-hour news network was legible: "Introducing the Fox News Channel. Politics without spin. Information without opinion. News without bias."

If the reader had managed to make it to page C9 in the back of the Times , he or she would have been pleasantly surprised to see that this newly launched enterprise, that esteemed objectivity so highly, had none other than Roger Ailes as CEO and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation as its parent company. Ailes is better known as one of the top Republican strategists in the Reagan years, while Murdoch's deep pockets have supported a variety of conservative political causes throughout the United States.

Political affiliation, however, is less relevant now than it ever was. The age when tycoons like Henry Luce and William Hearst could exert personal control over sizable media holdings is gone. Today, they have been replaced by immense corporations which are capable only of thinking in terms of profits.

A quick review of the facts:

* NBC has been owned by General Electric since 1986.

* CBS has been owned by Westinghouse since 1995.

* ABC has been owned by Disney since 1995.

* The Time Warner-Turner Broadcasting(including CNN) merger is awaiting final approval.

* In 1982, over half of all media concerns were controlled by 50 corporations.

* In 1986, over half of all media concerns were controlled by 29 corporations.

* By 1995, over half of all media concerns were controlled by 20 corporations.

* Of 1,700 daily papers in the U.S., 98 percent are local monopolies.

* Fewer than 15 corporations control over 50 percent of all print circulation.

Is the concentration of the nation's primary sources of news in the hands of a few large corporations a dangerous trend? You bet. Not only does the quality of the news suffer, but conflicts of interest surface in journalists' work.

The biggest problem we face as a reading public is the diminishing breadth and depth of news coverage. Because the parent corporations put quarterly profits above all else, news staffs at the networks and newspapers are often slashed, with the remaining efforts directed at attracting a larger audience by any means.

The results can be ugly; last spring's sweeps week presented the spectacle of a local reporter using mace on himself (twice) in a cheap ploy for ratings.

The old system, characterized by family- and locally-owned companies, allowed journalists and editors to escape from the endless drive for profits that is common today.

The Houston Post , owned for many years by the Hobby family, often presented a point of view or irreverent attitude that is sorely missed now that we are left with only its erstwhile competitor, the moribund Houston Chronicle .

With less competition in the news industry, the products become homogenized and pre-digested for the consumers' presumed benefit.

Newspapers and TV networks also face problems in areas where their news coverage conflicts with their parent companies' interests.

NBC's "Today Show" has repeatedly shelved various reports because of material deemed critical of GE. Adding to headaches at CBS is the reality that Westinghouse is a top designer of nuclear power plants worldwide (along with GE) and the third-largest producer of nuclear arms for the U.S. government. This is not to say that direct censorship is imposed by the parent companies, but evidence shows that the media is extremely wary of attacking close to home.

Are there solutions? Many of the sources I used, like The Nation and EXTRA! , advocate pressure on the government to enforce the anti-trust laws already on the books. More practical, in these anti-government times, is for us to recognize the way the system works. And while Rupert Murdoch would like to hand us all rose-tinted spectacles to watch his channel with, we're better off without them.

Massoud Javadi is a Wiess College senior.


This item appeared in the Opinion section of the October 11, 1996 issue.


Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.


THRESHER ONLINE HOME 
PAGE The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu