In Comcast We Trust?

The United States was founded on a wide variety of freedoms entailed in the Bill of Rights. One of the first of these, the freedom of the press, was deeply controversial across the Western world at the time of its passage. Despite its protection, freedom of the press has constantly faced challenges from restless government, fears of sedition, and authoritarians of all stripes. While many of the original newspapers were partisan and directly (or indirectly) owned by the two major political parties, freedom to publish continued. The freedom of the press has survived every major tribulation it has faced. The public continues to consume media from just about every source, with cable news viewership expanding in every time slot in 2016 from 2015 (Matsa). Despite censorship, political opposition, and a public with a short attention span, the press has continued to have nearly unlimited latitude in its coverage of the news.

However, the statistics about 2016’s massive growth in news consumption bring up yet another hurdle for the freedom of the press. The companies who own cable news networks have invested more in their news bureaus and profited more from them in 2016 than ever before (Matsa). While this may not be shocking, especially considering the enthralling nature of the 2016 election cycle, these massive profits were not spread across many investors and dozens of different companies. As of 2012, “6 media giants [controlled] a staggering 90%” (Lutz) of the American media. This shocking figure continues when you find out that these same media companies control 70% of cable, News Corp. owns newspapers on three different continents, and Clear Channel owns 1200 radio stations, exceeding a 1995 FCC limit by 2900% (Lutz). Similarly, it can also be shocking to see companies like Time Warner and Comcast, who are regularly in hot water for lobbying against net neutrality and antitrust legislation, own such networks as CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and NBC news (Freepress.net). These facts, as well as these companies’ consolidation of media in other areas, illustrate that a new threat is coming for the Fourth estate’s role in the public discourse.

The news media has many responsibilities which corporate ownership can easily influence. As we discussed in class, the media is responsible for presenting the events the public should care about, presenting policy, and shaping opinion with as little bias and corporate influence as possible. This role has never been fully and completely executed, as can clearly be seen by looking at the so-called “Yellow journalism” of the turn of the century, which used bellicose language and (occasionally) outright mistruths to persuade the public to go to war with Spain. However, the consolidation of media under corporate owners presents a clear threat towards honest journalism. Firstly, if a station (such as Fox News or MSNBC) is constrained by profit margins, there is clear incentive for them to cater to their audience and deviate from honest journalism to make more money. In a similar manner, a news bureau or produced may be obligated to avoid coverage of a scandal or negative news event about the company which owns the network (such as the controversy surrounding the Time Warner/Comcast merger) in an attempt to save face. This can be seen any time the networks cover their parent company, which they will often disclose for the sake of “full disclosure.” In the end, this corporate ownership presents several clear challenges to the media’s place in public discourse and its ability to fairly cover all issues.

Works Cited

Lutz, Ashley. “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 14 June 2012, www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6.

Matsa, Katerina Eva. “Cable News Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, Pew Research Center, 1 June 2017, www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/cable-news/.

“Who Owns the Media?” Free Press, Free Press, www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.

4 Responses to "In Comcast We Trust?"

Spencer Yacos says:

October 27, 2017 at 3:36 pm

What’s important to remember is that, as we learned from class, there was a time when the media was far MORE corporate and political than it is today. If you don’t believe me, just look at the biography of William Randolph Hearst – a man who not only owned a monopoly of newspapers across the US but also pressed the country into war using yellow journalism. Heck, he was even elected to the house of representatives and tried to run for president. Whatever your opinion of Rupert Murdoch is and how he tries to circumvent the laws at least he isn’t trying to run for office, too.
Could we be slipping down that road of partisanship and Yellow Journalism that dominated the early 1900’s? Indicators seem to be there, but in the end it’s hard to say. With the deregulation happening in Washington one has to remember that we are still coming off of the most progressive era in modern times under President Obama, so there was destined to be a backlash towards SOME of the regulations. With the advent of New Media and the Internet, people are also bound to see other sources and points of view, not just the print on a newspaper.

https://www.biography.com/people/william-randolph-hearst-9332973
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/yellow-journalism-modern-age
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/07/16/reliable-sources-zurawik-epshteyn-sinclair.cnn
Lilly Alemayehu says:

October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm

think this topic is very valuable to understanding why the news is how it is. Firstly, when considering the profit motives of news sources, there is a clear correlation between the funding of news sources and which issues they choose to cover. Obviously, with profit being the sole goal of media, the credibility and effectivity of news media in the context of our government is becoming less and less. It is increasingly troubling to me that so few companies own such a large majority of news sources. This seems to me as an impediment on the prospect of free press. Considering our government was built on this principle, as you stated in your post, it seems like that sentiment is almost a falsehood when you consider the under-representation of so many important issues, ideologies, and groups of people in news coverage. This is due to the limitation of having such few groups in control of what people are exposed to in the news. I think this is why so many people are turning to online news sources and blogs to see their ideologies represented in modern context along with day to day events. It is important that people have media sources that are catering to what people need to hear about and know in order to be informed citizens rather than the media telling the people what they should think.
Montgomery Thornburn says:

October 29, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Despite the fact that so much of our news is controlled by a small number of corporations I think that we still are receiving a wide range of opinions and information from mainstream media outlets alone, which when supplemented by the growing number of online sources that are not owned by corporations gives us plenty of information to use to help make decisions in elections and about policy in general. While variety in the media is important it also can make stories and events more confusing when so many different sources cover the same thing but seem to tell different stories. This flood of information can make it difficult to understand what is actually important and newsworthy compared to what is not. This flood of information, along with the increase in “fake news” that often found its way into the media during the 2016 election makes it hard for citizens to understand candidates and potential policy thus stopping the media from carrying out its responsibilities to the public. I believe part of the reason that we have the issue with “fake news” is that the internet is still a frontier in the sense that there isn’t any rules. Anyone who wants to start a blog can do so for little cost and then they can say whatever they want no matter if it’s true or not. Understandably, this causes a lot of skepticism towards online sources and muddies the water of news media.
Camryn Travis says:

October 29, 2017 at 11:52 pm

Although news media may not be as corrupt or bais today as it was in the 1990’s, our news media has reached a crippled level of incapacitation. As many other people have mentioned, news media has a level of importance in modern American politics that can be equatied to the three branches of government. The news media is supposed to serve as an accurate source of unbiased information that can help the American population better understand the policies and politicians affecting their lives. In both local and national news, within recent years, there has been a rise in not only bias news stories, but entire news stations that lean one way or another. The problem with the growth of bias in the news media is that there is no incentives of truth or unbiased broadcasting to counteract the growing persuasion involved with the news media. There is no such thing as a “news police” that can warrant a news segment as unlawful or inaccurate for airing. News stations are able to promote in agenda that best suits the stations fiscal needs, leaving viewers vulnerable to inaccurate or bias news. This in turn may result in misinformed citizens that vote against their actual political interests. An example of that can be seen when people say they hate Obamacare, but find the Affordable Care Act to be essential for their personal survival. The media coverage and key name associated with Obamacare prevented people from actually understanding that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing.

Comments are closed.