# Corporate Media is Good **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414 "2003-07-18T15:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/41 "2003-07-24T17:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*There is no proof whatsoever that I can see that the “corporate media” shows a bias towards the corporations that own them. I don’t think controlling corporations attempt to influence the journalists working for them. Anybody who thinks otherwise: Cite please! However, even if this was the case, having the government own all the media would be worse. \*\* So, you don’t see how a corporation would have trouble covering itself without bias? Well, not only do they consistently show problems in this area, the corporations will get in bed with other corporations, influencing their coverage of those corporations, also. Some cites: [This one about CBS reporting on cigarette taxes.](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940720.html) > [@](#): > > So biased was the America Tonight segment that it was hard not to recall the controversial 1989 moonlighting appearance by co-host Deborah Norville (then a TV anchor for another network) at a Philip Morris USA convention in Hawaii. She was paid to anchor a mock TV show: “Norville tossed soft questions at Philip Morris executives and read promotional copy,” reported the New York Times. > > Also unmentioned on the broadcast was the fact that CBS is owned by tobacco tycoon Laurence Tisch. This cite is [mmm, mmm good](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/001221.html), with P.U.-litzers presented to questionable media reporting. > [@](#): > > SWALLOW THE MONEY PRIZE – Barbara Walters and ABC > > The panel on “The View” program broke into a chorus of the “M’m M’m good” jingle when Walters asked, “Didn’t we grow up eating Campbell’s soup?” It was all according to plan. In November, blurring the line between programming and advertising, parts of eight episodes of ABC’s daytime chat show became paid infomercials for Campbell’s. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Walters and her panel agreed to “try to weave a soup message into their regular on-air banter.” An ABC News executive defended the hucksterism of Walters, a news personality, by saying that “The View” is an entertainment show and that “people wear many hats.” > [@](#): > > GOING FOR THE GOLD – NBC NEWS > > News executives indignantly deny that the economic interests of corporate owners influence their coverage. But in 2000 (as in previous years) journalists at the TV network airing the Olympics found the games to be much more newsworthy. NBC – which had broadcasting rights to the summer Olympics – aired 83 minutes of “news” about the Olympics on its weekday nightly newscasts. The contrast was sharp at rival networks: only 16 minutes on ABC and five minutes on CBS. > [@](#): > > MICKEY MOUSE JOURNALISM PRIZE – ABC News > > Reporting that journalists at Disney-owned ABC News had decided to avoid stories on a cruise ship line (partly because Disney owned a rival line) and on the hit movie “Chicken Run” (produced by a rival movie studio), the New Yorker magazine quoted an ABC News producer who said that steering clear of Disney “comes up all the time.” Explained a producer: “No one here wants to piss off the bosses.” > [@](#): > > BUZZED JOURNALISM PRIZE – The New York Times and Starbucks > > In October, the New York Times and Starbucks consummated their “strategic relationship.” The mega-chain of about 3,000 Starbucks coffee shops sells the Times – while refusing to offer any other national newspaper on the premises. In return for its exclusionary privilege, the Times provides a national advertising campaign hawking Starbucks stores and products. [This from another P.U.-litzer column:](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/991216.html) (This quote here admittedly has just one unnamed insider source. It alludes to the need for corporations to protect capitalism.) > [@](#): > > CORPORATE PARANOIA PRIZE-- CNBC > Charles Grodin’s nightly talk show on CNBC was known mainly for fixations on O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky. Once every blue moon, however, Grodin veered from CNBC-preferred subjects to issues of consumer rights and the impact of draconian drug laws on poor people. These occasional, off-key topics were apparently too much for network bosses. In June, when CNBC cancelled the show, Variety reported: “One insider says the network finally got fed up with Grodin’s nightly denunciations of the capitalist system.” Grodin later returned to TV, confined to weekends on MSNBC. Anyway, I can find some more cites, but I think this proves that corporate media can be affected by the corporations that own them. To me, it’s just self-evident, but there’s been plenty of documented instances. I worked for a smaller market newspaper, and it happened all the time. It was an eye opener, since I thought that people in the business of journalism were supposed to be above “biased” reporting. Turns out, though, they’re just regular people, and there’s no way they can avoid biases. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/42 "2003-07-24T18:04:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*There is no proof whatsoever that I can see that the “corporate media” shows a bias towards the corporations that own them. I don’t think controlling corporations attempt to influence the journalists working for them. Anybody who thinks otherwise: Cite please! However, even if this was the case, having the government own all the media would be worse. \*\* So, you don’t see how a corporation would have trouble covering itself without bias? Well, not only do they consistently show problems in this area, the corporations will get in bed with other corporations, influencing their coverage of those corporations, also. Some cites: [This one about CBS reporting on cigarette taxes.](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940720.html) > [@](#): > > So biased was the America Tonight segment that it was hard not to recall the controversial 1989 moonlighting appearance by co-host Deborah Norville (then a TV anchor for another network) at a Philip Morris USA convention in Hawaii. She was paid to anchor a mock TV show: “Norville tossed soft questions at Philip Morris executives and read promotional copy,” reported the New York Times. > > Also unmentioned on the broadcast was the fact that CBS is owned by tobacco tycoon Laurence Tisch. This cite is [mmm, mmm good](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/001221.html), with P.U.-litzers presented to questionable media reporting. > [@](#): > > SWALLOW THE MONEY PRIZE – Barbara Walters and ABC > > The panel on “The View” program broke into a chorus of the “M’m M’m good” jingle when Walters asked, “Didn’t we grow up eating Campbell’s soup?” It was all according to plan. In November, blurring the line between programming and advertising, parts of eight episodes of ABC’s daytime chat show became paid infomercials for Campbell’s. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Walters and her panel agreed to “try to weave a soup message into their regular on-air banter.” An ABC News executive defended the hucksterism of Walters, a news personality, by saying that “The View” is an entertainment show and that “people wear many hats.” > [@](#): > > GOING FOR THE GOLD – NBC NEWS > > News executives indignantly deny that the economic interests of corporate owners influence their coverage. But in 2000 (as in previous years) journalists at the TV network airing the Olympics found the games to be much more newsworthy. NBC – which had broadcasting rights to the summer Olympics – aired 83 minutes of “news” about the Olympics on its weekday nightly newscasts. The contrast was sharp at rival networks: only 16 minutes on ABC and five minutes on CBS. > [@](#): > > MICKEY MOUSE JOURNALISM PRIZE – ABC News > > Reporting that journalists at Disney-owned ABC News had decided to avoid stories on a cruise ship line (partly because Disney owned a rival line) and on the hit movie “Chicken Run” (produced by a rival movie studio), the New Yorker magazine quoted an ABC News producer who said that steering clear of Disney “comes up all the time.” Explained a producer: “No one here wants to piss off the bosses.” > [@](#): > > BUZZED JOURNALISM PRIZE – The New York Times and Starbucks > > In October, the New York Times and Starbucks consummated their “strategic relationship.” The mega-chain of about 3,000 Starbucks coffee shops sells the Times – while refusing to offer any other national newspaper on the premises. In return for its exclusionary privilege, the Times provides a national advertising campaign hawking Starbucks stores and products. [This from another P.U.-litzer column:](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/991216.html) (This quote here admittedly has just one unnamed insider source. It alludes to the need for corporations to protect capitalism.) > [@](#): > > CORPORATE PARANOIA PRIZE-- CNBC > Charles Grodin’s nightly talk show on CNBC was known mainly for fixations on O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky. Once every blue moon, however, Grodin veered from CNBC-preferred subjects to issues of consumer rights and the impact of draconian drug laws on poor people. These occasional, off-key topics were apparently too much for network bosses. In June, when CNBC cancelled the show, Variety reported: “One insider says the network finally got fed up with Grodin’s nightly denunciations of the capitalist system.” Grodin later returned to TV, confined to weekends on MSNBC. Anyway, I can find some more cites, but I think this proves that corporate media can be affected by the corporations that own them. To me, it’s just self-evident, but there’s been plenty of documented instances. I worked for a smaller market newspaper, and it happened all the time. It was an eye opener, since I thought that people in the business of journalism were supposed to be above “biased” reporting. Turns out, though, they’re just regular people, and there’s no way they can avoid biases. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/43 "2003-07-24T22:06:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > **Debaser** , I’m not arguing for the media to be exclusively publicly-owned. I don’t think anyone else is either. You are arguing against a strawman. Good point. However, with all the ‘corporate media’ bashing that was going on I would be surprised if all here feel as you do. > [@](#): > > However, this does not mean that an adequately funded public broadcaster cannot be operated in competition with corporate media, offering a viewpoint that need not contort to the whims of a parent corporation. My problem with this is that I am forced to pay for this with my tax dollars. If the women on the view are promoting Cambells soup and you don’t like it you can choose not to watch. If enough people do this then they will change the behavior pr go off the air. However, if a publicly funded media like PBS leans to heavily to one side or the other, not only is there no control but we all have to pay for these biased views. > [@](#): > > As I have stated in this thread, both Australia and the UK have public broadcasters that do not experience this problem. This is true. You make a good point. However, two examples does not mean that’s the way it always would be. Especially if the government owned media was the only one available. > [@](#): > > I’ll get back to you on your request of controlling corporations attempting to influence journalists working for them; it’s a little late at night for me to begin looking around. However, I will remind you that prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, every single News Ltd newspaper in the world (over 200, I believe) carried an editorial supporting the war. Coincidence? Clucky has come up with some good examples. However, I don’t see the problem as being that significant if we are only talking about Cambels soup and Starbucks having a newpaper in the coffee shop. I simply cannot resist. Cite x 200 ? 🙂 AKAIK many if not most newspapers were against the war. However, I cannot recall seeing an analysis that broke it down in a list format. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/44 "2003-07-25T13:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Clucky has come up with some good examples. However, I don’t see the problem as being that significant if we are only talking about Cambels soup and Starbucks having a newpaper in the coffee shop. > > I simply cannot resist. Cite x 200 ? 🙂 > > AKAIK many if not most newspapers were against the war. However, I cannot recall seeing an analysis that broke it down in a list format. \*\* While you may not see a problem with hucksterism for the Campbell’s and Starbucks of the world, it’s alarming to me because it shows that the media have no problem crossing over from the advertising to the journalism side. That line between the two is hard to see these days. If they’re crossing the line for revenue gain, don’t you think they’d have no problem crossing the line for their pet political issues/stances? Btw, I challenge the notion that most newspapers were against the war. I might do some research about this issue later. Feel free to support your viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/45 "2003-07-25T17:15:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Clucky \* > Btw, I challenge the notion that most newspapers were against the war. I might do some research about this issue later. Feel free to support your viewpoint. **gex gex** made the claim. “I will remind you that prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, every single News Ltd newspaper in the world (over 200, I believe) carried an editorial supporting the war.” It’s up to him/her to prove it. If I had to guess, I would say that over 50% of US newspapers were against the war. However, I wouldn’t know where to find figures on such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/46 "2003-07-25T18:05:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > “I will remind you that prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, every single News Ltd newspaper in the world (over 200, I believe) carried an editorial supporting the war.” > > It’s up to him/her to prove it. Dunno how it works in your neck of the woods, but all the major newspapers I’ve read tend to carry editorials supporting all sides of whatever the _issue du jour_ is. Most of the time, these editorials are simply syndicated copies of other outlets’ writers. So, given how loosy-goosy of a definition “carried an editorial” is, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that _all_ major newspapers in the US carried at least one editorial supporting the war during the months prior. What would be more interesting is to see the ratio of pro-war/anti-war editorials carried by the papers, as well as the papers’ own editorial stance on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/47 "2003-07-26T01:24:20Z")
I follow a more narrow definition of “newspaper editorial”: An unsigned opinion piece crafted and approved by the editorial board of _that_ particular newspaper. All other opinion pieces are “guest editorials”, “[syndicated] columnists”, “letters to the editor”, or “op-ed pieces”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414/48 "2003-07-26T11:51:10Z")
The answer is that we need, and have, many different viewpoints. The “corporate” media is not monolithic, there is plenty of diversity. And then you have the internet, which enables a single individual to post their own takes on the news and get thousands of views a day if they are any good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-media-is-good/189414.md?page=2)