Six giant media corporations control most of what Americans watch, read and hear. These business behemoths produce more than 90 percent of all news and entertainment available in the United States. As a result, consumers are left with the illusion of choice instead of real alternatives.
As recently as 1983, roughly 90 percent of the American media was owned by 50 companies. In the intervening years, waves of mergers and acquisitions have produced a near monopoly. Meanwhile, federal regulators napped through the sea change without raising an eyebrow.
The mammoth media and entertainment firms are: Comcast, Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS Corporation. The companies' annual revenues collectively are more than $100 billion. Total market capitalization for the firms is about $500 billion.
These jumbo corporations own NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, ABC, ESPN, Fox, DreamWorks Animation, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, CBS, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, TNT and Warner Brothers Pictures, to mention just a few assets.
There is not enough room in this space to list every media and entertainment company the six own. Included in the asset mix are magazines, book publishers, children's television channels, amusement parks, professional sports teams, websites, radio stations and music production companies.
The concentration of power is unprecedented. You wind up with about 300 executives at six Herculean conglomerates making all the decisions about the information and entertainment that influences many Americans' political and social attitudes.
Having such a monopoly clustered in relatively few hands might not be bad if they acted and reported independently. The reality is that the six march in lockstep with each other, particularly when it comes to political agenda. Fox may be the lone exception, but be advised to reserve judgement.
Research reveals the political action committees and corporate executives at the super-sized six favor Democratic candidates and their positions. Comcast Corporation, perhaps the most politically active of the bunch, has been a regular contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
Comcast, which owns NBC and the Spanish language network Telemundo, has dished out more than $31 million in political contributions since 1990, including $7 million in 2016. The size of its political largess dwarfs the other five members of the Big Six Club.
Time Warner, which owns CNN and HBO, doled out $2.3 million in 2016 in political donations, almost exclusively to Democrats. The company padded Ms. Clinton's campaign coffers with $550,000 and raised $2.2 million for Barrack Obama's two campaigns.
CBS and Disney hand out political donations through their Political Action Committees (PAC). Both are spendthrifts compared to Time Warner and Comcast, each totaling about $200,000 in donations. A review of their reports reveals both have overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.
The surprise of the lot is 21st Century Fox. James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of the enterprise, has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. However, in the most recent election cycle the Fox PAC spent $325,000, with the GOP getting 55 percent.
(As a side note, James and brother Lachlan Murdoch will one day inherit the mantle of leadership at Fox when their 84-year old father Rupert steps down. The brothers are far more liberal than Rupert and some analysts are predicting Fox News will join the Democrat echo chamber in the media.)
For the record, the contribution figures cited above were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, independent non-profit that collects and disseminates information on the influence of money on politics and national policy. The center also tracks companies' lobbying costs.
Each one of the elephantine outfits has influential lobbying organizations which actively exert pressure on Congress and the executive branch.
The Samson Six have logged nearly $500 million in lobbying expenses since 1990. Comcast is the biggest spender, reporting $167 million in lobby costs during that time frame. Since 2009, Time Warner has ponied up $80 million to lobby in Washington.
This toxic mix of media and political cash should concern Americans worried about unbiased news reporting. Media businesses have the same right as other firms to be involved in the political process. Nonetheless, their activities still raise questions about political advocacy prejudicing media decisions.
Showing posts with label Media & Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media & Politics. Show all posts
Monday, May 8, 2017
Monday, February 3, 2014
Hillary And Christie: A Bridge Too Far
If there ever was a scintilla of doubt about the American media's blatant bias, look no further for proof than The New York Times' coverage accorded New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over recent months.
Both politicians landed on The Times front pages after scandals threatened to weaken their nascent presidential chances. However, in the case of Clinton the apparatchik media has tried to cover up the Benghazi conspiracy that may yet torpedo her presidential campaign before it lifts off the launch pad.
On the other hand, the rotund governor has been vilified in The Times after charges surfaced that his administration plotted closures of access lanes to one of the nation's busiest bridges. Swirling allegations claimed the episode was political payback to a mayor who refused to endorse Christie.
After the news became public, an angry Christie fired his deputy chief of staff, who allegedly orchestrated the closures. The governor publicly apologized and he repeatedly denied knowing anything about the plan concocted by his deputy.
The New York Times erupted in indignation. Christie became a target of its investigative reporters and fodder for its opinion columnists. The Times hinted at a cover-up and labeled the governor a bully. The self-anointed "newspaper of record" fished for allegations, prompting Christie to castigate its "sloppy reporting."
Just for the record, no one died as a result of the lane closures. No one was injured. Traffic was snarled and thousands of New Jersey residents were late for work, missed appointments or arrived late for dinner. No matter how minor the consequences, the Christie administration deserved its media black eye.
By comparison, Clinton has skirted any blame for the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012, in a murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, she has steadfastly refused to clear up conflicting reports about what happened that night even though her department had responsibility for the embassy.
During her appearance before a House committee, Clinton famously stiff-armed Republicans when they pressed her on the administration's claims the deadly attacks were sparked by a spontaneous protest. A flustered Clinton pouted, "What difference at this point does it make?"
Despite obvious security lapses at the embassy and Clinton's misrepresentations of the facts, The Times has buried its head in the sand. There have been no Clinton investigations. Neither has anyone been fired from the state department for dereliction of duty or for ignoring pleas to beef up embassy security.
The same New York Times that has crucified Christie tried to whitewash the Benghazi episode in an editorial posted online on December 30. The newspaper said its faux investigation turned up "no evidence" that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had any role in the assault.
The newspaper resurrected the counterfeit claim that the mob's motivation was "fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." The writer scolded Republicans for their "obsessive effort" to discredit Clinton. The editorial signaled the paper was drawing the curtains on its Benghazi coverage.
Less than a month after its sermonizing, The Times' investigation was thoroughly discredited when Fox News revealed that General Carter Ham told a House Committee that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was informed immediately on September 11 that the embassy attack was carried out by terrorists.
A transcript of General Ham's testimony, whose command included Libya, shows he told the committee that it was known "very quickly" that the ruckus at the embassy was "not a demonstration." He labeled the deadly incident a "terrorist attack."
Despite the contradiction, Clinton has remained mum on the subject. However, she obviously is starting to feel the heat. The former Secretary of State was heckled last week about Benghazi during a speech at the University of Buffalo. At another appearance, she called the attacks "my biggest regret," but ducked any responsibility.
Meanwhile, the lapdog Times continues to hound Christie, now accusing him of lying about his knowledge of the bridge closing.Taking a page from the Clinton playbook, a sullen Christie should whine, "What difference at this point does it make?" Surely, The Times will stand down as it did with Clinton.
Fairness and objectivity were once pillars of American journalism, including at the formerly venerable New York Times. Now they are bridges too far for The Times and its partisan apostles in the media.
Both politicians landed on The Times front pages after scandals threatened to weaken their nascent presidential chances. However, in the case of Clinton the apparatchik media has tried to cover up the Benghazi conspiracy that may yet torpedo her presidential campaign before it lifts off the launch pad.
On the other hand, the rotund governor has been vilified in The Times after charges surfaced that his administration plotted closures of access lanes to one of the nation's busiest bridges. Swirling allegations claimed the episode was political payback to a mayor who refused to endorse Christie.
After the news became public, an angry Christie fired his deputy chief of staff, who allegedly orchestrated the closures. The governor publicly apologized and he repeatedly denied knowing anything about the plan concocted by his deputy.
The New York Times erupted in indignation. Christie became a target of its investigative reporters and fodder for its opinion columnists. The Times hinted at a cover-up and labeled the governor a bully. The self-anointed "newspaper of record" fished for allegations, prompting Christie to castigate its "sloppy reporting."
Just for the record, no one died as a result of the lane closures. No one was injured. Traffic was snarled and thousands of New Jersey residents were late for work, missed appointments or arrived late for dinner. No matter how minor the consequences, the Christie administration deserved its media black eye.
By comparison, Clinton has skirted any blame for the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012, in a murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, she has steadfastly refused to clear up conflicting reports about what happened that night even though her department had responsibility for the embassy.
During her appearance before a House committee, Clinton famously stiff-armed Republicans when they pressed her on the administration's claims the deadly attacks were sparked by a spontaneous protest. A flustered Clinton pouted, "What difference at this point does it make?"
Despite obvious security lapses at the embassy and Clinton's misrepresentations of the facts, The Times has buried its head in the sand. There have been no Clinton investigations. Neither has anyone been fired from the state department for dereliction of duty or for ignoring pleas to beef up embassy security.
The same New York Times that has crucified Christie tried to whitewash the Benghazi episode in an editorial posted online on December 30. The newspaper said its faux investigation turned up "no evidence" that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had any role in the assault.
The newspaper resurrected the counterfeit claim that the mob's motivation was "fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." The writer scolded Republicans for their "obsessive effort" to discredit Clinton. The editorial signaled the paper was drawing the curtains on its Benghazi coverage.
Less than a month after its sermonizing, The Times' investigation was thoroughly discredited when Fox News revealed that General Carter Ham told a House Committee that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was informed immediately on September 11 that the embassy attack was carried out by terrorists.
A transcript of General Ham's testimony, whose command included Libya, shows he told the committee that it was known "very quickly" that the ruckus at the embassy was "not a demonstration." He labeled the deadly incident a "terrorist attack."
Despite the contradiction, Clinton has remained mum on the subject. However, she obviously is starting to feel the heat. The former Secretary of State was heckled last week about Benghazi during a speech at the University of Buffalo. At another appearance, she called the attacks "my biggest regret," but ducked any responsibility.
Meanwhile, the lapdog Times continues to hound Christie, now accusing him of lying about his knowledge of the bridge closing.Taking a page from the Clinton playbook, a sullen Christie should whine, "What difference at this point does it make?" Surely, The Times will stand down as it did with Clinton.
Fairness and objectivity were once pillars of American journalism, including at the formerly venerable New York Times. Now they are bridges too far for The Times and its partisan apostles in the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)