Ownership of American media has been consolidating for many years, but the pace has been accelerating rapidly at an alarming rate: Collection and dissemination of what passes for "news" and "information" are increasingly in the control of fewer and fewer hands -- primarily large corporations, virtually all of which have inherent conflicts of interests vs. full and complete dissemination and disclosure: They have good reason to lie or fudge the truth, misinform, cover up and otherwise hide information from the public and their own employees that could adversely affect their businesses (see examples below) or political agendas -- which are often one and the same. Some media leaders have even gone so far in the current wartime situation to say that consolidation should FURTHER be allowed because the cost of covering the military battles are too expensive for individual networks to bear -- papering over the whole issue of assuring diversity in voices and coverage.
This is not to say that the major media congloms ALWAYS lie and mislead or even that they do so on a regular basis. Indeed, they regularly argue that they could LOSE business if they DON'T fully report news and information because they would thus lose the public's trust and therefore audiences that advertisers seek. But how does the public KNOW the news media outlets are fully reporting and disclosing? When does "news" and "coverage" actually become mantra vs. true reporting? While media outlets claim to be open and honest, they aren't usually vigorous about watchdogging each other (let alone themselves), being self-critical, or regularly allowing outsiders into their decision-making processes.
They don't do so for various reasons: They don't want to incur the wrath of their "competitors" (especially if they're in bed with them; see below regarding MediaNews and the L.A. Times) and thus encourage the competitors to examine them as well; they're lazy; they're often best friends with each other and thus turn a blind eye to the other's transgressions; etc. Another common excuse has been their claim that the public doesn't care -- it's too "inside." Well, the public does care -- this site was started by consumers of news media -- because the news media informs us about what is going on in our democracy: If we don't know what the MEDIA is up to, how are we to make FULLY informed decisions about the information being presented BY that very same media? Sorry, media, the line of "Oh, just trust us" no longer washes.
JOURNALISTS VS. OWNERS OF "JOURNALISTIC ENTERPRISES"
The reports and overviews below are about the corporations and companies,
etc., that own and/or run news outlets (or what purport to be news outlets),
not the workers of such entities. The below is not intended to question the
integrity, skill or trustworthiness of media employees, particularly
journalists. Nor should the below be taken as blanket indictments of media
owners. Rather, the below indicates as a whole two things:
(1) that news media consumers should constantly (or at least regularly) question whether they are getting a complete, fair and accurate picture: What perspectives and points of view aren't being heard from? Is the overall coverage skewed in some particular way rather than balanced? Is there a corporate agenda that is not being acknowledged? Is there full disclosure to the media consumer?
and
(2) that journalists and other media workers should think twice about working for and lending their good names to questionable enterprises, and at the very least realize that they could easily be muzzled or stopped from fully reporting the news (see examples below). One way to guard against abuses is to have Newspaper Guild contracts in place that allow for strikes and the voluntary withholding of bylines if reporters and editors find their work has been altered and distorted by management from the truth.
PRIVATE ENTITIES BUT PUBLIC TRUSTS & COMMUNITY
INSTITUTIONS
While virtually all media are privately owned in America (albeit many if not
most of them are part of multinational corporations and/or have stocks that
are traded on public exchanges), their newsgathering arms are very much also
public trusts and community institutions, particularly longtime daily
newspapers. Papers often are as old as the cities they serve, sometimes
older, and are part of the community fabric, with loyal readerships that
pass on that loyalty from generation to generation; the outlets have
nurtured that allegiance over the years, generally under the same local
ownership. But increasingly those "local" papers are answerable to far-off
owners who only care about the bottom line. Not that this is anything new,
as readers of Hearst papers and others can attest, but to betray that
loyalty and trust in this day and age is foolhardy and goes beyond the pale,
as the below examples demonstrate.
DIVERSITY OF VOICES, VIEWS AND BEST PRACTICES
There are fewer watchdogs and more chance to conceal and obfuscate; when
news outlets are beholden more to quarterly profits, shareholder value and
financial bottom lines and less to societal needs, community concerns and
full disclsoure, they run the risk of protecting themselves at the expense
of truth, candor and perspective, and thus censor their own reporters and
editors -- and thereby deceive the public. When news media outlets cover up
or outright lie, they lower their credibility and thus impact the
believability of their own reporters, editors and content, diminishing their
vital role in the community.
For all the above reasons, the Southern California Media Guild (now merged into CWA Local 9400, AFL-CIO) and concerned individuals established the Concerned Readers Committee (now the Concerned Media Consumers Committee and Credibility Watch) to advocate for -- and demand -- full disclosure by the media and full trustworthiness. Consider the profiles listed at left -- again keeping in mind that they deal with the integrity and veracity of the companies, not the workers, the vast majority of whom are dedicated to their chosen profession: After all, for what they're paid, they're certainly not in it for the money! -- but neither did they take vows of poverty when they accepted these jobs, nor did they anticipate the lack of fairness they often confront in the workplace.