Women's Institute for
Freedom of the Press
Corporate Mass Media
Contents:
Introduction: WIFP Founder Donna Allen Spoke Out About Media Control / Ownership in the 1960s.
Who Owns the Mass Media? Statistics and more. . .
Corporations and Corporate Media Intertwined
Impact of Mass Media Ownership & Control
Differences Between Mass Media "Journalism" and Individuals Communicating Their News, Information and Perspectives
Heading Back Toward "Freedom of the Press" for Individuals (vs. Corporations)
Normalizing Function of the Mass Media: Cosmetic Foot Surgery, by Sena Christian
Just a few of the links to groups dealing with the issue of corporate media
Articles of interest
Introduction
WIFP founder Donna Allen began speaking out about the mass media in the mid-1960s. A progressive activist, she saw how people's lack of a means of communication affected all peace and justice issues. In 1967, newly elected to the Board of Directors of National Conference for New Politics, Donna spoke at its major convention in Chicago. Several thousand attended this convention. Donna gave a talk on the media.
From that point on, her speeches were all focused on the role of mass media. In addition to the National Conference for New Politics, she gave media-related speeches at peace demonstrations in Washington, the Jeannette Rankin Brigade in January 1968 and at the Peace and Freedom Party convention in New York in June of 1968.
"I had come to the conclusion", she wrote, "that even when using all forms of communication that we could devise, and despite great numbers, we still could not match the number of people that the relatively few mass media owners could reach with their information and opinions.
"It was more than clear to me out of my experience that their vastly superior ability to reach the majority of the public 24 hours a day gave them the power to disseminate name-calling and successfully persuade the public not to listen to our information, opinions and facts. Their news stories gave little or no space to the message our activities were trying to convey but a great deal of space for attacks on us . . . Mechanics of demonstrations, numbers of people, police actions, were reported but not our message. These media were not 'our free press'; they did not speak for us or report our news. Our press conferences were usually ignored, and when they weren't the coverage was often derogatory."
In July of 1968, Donna published an article in The Liberated Voice, entitled: "Up Against the Media." In this article she critiqued the media, discussing its concentration in the hands of a few and its effect on democracy. "Only a few thousand out of 200 million people, less than a hundredth of 1% of our population, now have the sole power to reach large numbers of the public with their viewpoints," she wrote.
These wealthy individuals with a monopoly control over the only means of reaching the American people are therefore in a position to persuade Americans that they have been given all the essential facts upon which to make their judgments and political decisions. Other views, they tell us, are only minority views, less important, extremist, or unpatriotic. In fact, to give these other views a hearing at all, they say, is proof of how fair the media are. This situation describes not a free press but a controlled press -- a press controlled by a handful of very wealthy individuals representing a single economic class. They assume (whether they really believe it or not) that the interests of other Americans are identical to their own. But what are their interests? Profit-making and the control of ideas to maintain the status quo.
Donna documented the concentration of ownership in print, radio, television, and in the news services. She wrote about how the mass media silenced criticism of the status quo and of U.S. policies. "If the only way to reach the majority of the American people is through the mass media and the facts and opinions of large numbers of Americans are either not presented or not presented fairly," she wrote, "then we have effectively silenced criticism."
In May of 1969, Donna addressed a March and Rally for Peace and Justice in Pittsburgh. The title of her speech was "The Mass Media Monopoly."
Donna talked about the consolidation of media ownership in fewer and fewer, yet increasingly wealthy, hands. She described the history of the press in America. She discussed how profitable media ownership is and how media networks own other businesses, including those with war contracts. "At what point will we begin to do something about it?" she asked. "I suggest that the time is now."
In 1968 Donna had organized a women's media group called Americans for Equal Access to the Media. She soon realized, however, that she did not want to be working for access to the mass media. She wanted people to be able to speak for themselves in their own media, rather than seeking access to someone else's media. In her experience, men, even those who were her allies, resisted the ideas she discussed and tried to argue with her. She found that women, on the other hand, responded enthusiastically, understanding the need for people to be able to speak for themselves, rather than have others portray them.
Donna had been a feminist all her life, but it wasn't until the second half of the sixties that she consciously entered the women's movement. Her leadership in Women Strike for Peace and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom was a sign of her belief that women had something to say and changes to make in the world. Her involvement in the male-dominated leftist organizations made her realize that even progressive men were not giving women credit for their ideas, and were not ready to treat them as equals. She had gone to the first demonstration of the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City and written for early women's media such as No More Fun and Games, A Journal of Female Liberation. She did not want to be dependent on the male-owned mass media.
Donna obtained a second Masters, this time in history, and in 1971 received her Ph.D. in that field at Howard University in Washington. By 1972 Donna was ready to embark on her life's work fighting for media democracy. That was the year she founded the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press.
to top of page
Who Owns the Mass Media?
Sara Friedman, WIFP June 14, 2010
Most of the mass media is owned by consolidated media corporations. According to FORTUNE 550, the following corporations are the largest in the industry.
1. Walt Disney Corporation
2. News Corporation
3. Time Warner
4. Viacom
5. CBS Corporation
THE BIG FIVE
· Walt Disney Corporation: 2009 revenues $36.1 billion. Disney is the largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world. They own and operate the ABC Television Network in addition to Disney Channel, ESPN, and Lifetime. Along with its production studios and theme parks, Disney has acquired Marvel Entertainment. Its radio network, Radio Disney, is broadcasts on radio stations in different areas across the U.S.
· News Corporation: 2009 revenues $30.4 billion. News Corp. is the world’s second-largest media conglomerate. With Rupert Murdoch as its founder and CEO, News Corp. has made quite a name for itself since its start in 1979. The corporation owns and operates 20th Century Fox Production Company along with its subsidiaries including the Fox Broadcasting Company, FX, and National Geographic. They own a number of newspapers including the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal as well as HarperCollins Publishers.
· Time Warner: 2009 revenues $ 28.8 billion. Time Warner is the third largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue. They own and operate four major business, Home Box Office, Turner Broadcasting System, Time Inc., and Warner Bros. Entertainment. Time Warner owns The CW Television Network in conjunction with the CBS Corporation.
· Viacom: 2009 revenues $13.6 billion. Viacom is also one of the world’s largest media conglomerates. They own and operate MTV Networks, BET Networks, and the Paramount Pictures Corporation. Some of their subsidiaries include Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and Spike TV.
· CBS Corporation: 2009 revenues $13 billion. CBS is another large media conglomerate. CBS Corporation is the parent company for CBS Broadcasting Inc. In addition, they own The CW Television Network in conjunction with Time Warner. CBS also owns Simon & Schuster and CBS Films.
Other Important Media Corporations:
· Bertelsmann AG: Bertelsmann is a transnational media corporation based in Gutersloh, Germany. The company operates in 63 countries. It owns the RTL Group, Gruner + Jahr, Random House, Direct Group and Arvato.
· CC Media Holdings: CC Media Holdings is the parent company for Clear Channel Communications, Inc. Clear Channel is the largest owner of full-power AM, FM and shortwave radio stations and twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio.
· Gannett: Gannett is one of the United States’ largest newspaper publishers. It operates dozens of newspapers, local TV stations and news websites. Among them are some of the biggest including USA Today and its affiliated website.
· General Electric: GE is one of the largest multinational technology and services conglomerate with interests in a wide range of industries including aviation, medical imaging, financial services, renewable energy and media and entertainment. GE owns NBC Universal and Telemundo Communications Group.
· Hearst Corporation: Hearst is one of the world’s biggest media companies and one of the largest privately held companies of any kind. They own a number of newspapers, local TV stations and magazines.
· The Tribune Company: The Tribune Company was founded in 1847 with the launch of the Chicago Tribute. It expanded into television in 1948 when it established WGN-TV in Chicago. Today, it owns many newspapers including Los Angeles Times and The Sun as well as many local TV stations.
Major Trends in News Media
1. Consumers are looking for specific news on specific topics which makes it more difficult for news outlets to report the news to niche audiences.
2. The future of New and Old Media are more tied together than some may think.
3. The notion that the news media are shrinking is mistaken.
4. Technology is further shifting power to newsmakers, and the newest way is through their ability to control the initial accounts of events.
5. The ranks of self-interested information providers are now growing rapidly and news organizations must define their relationship to them.
6. When it comes to audience numbers online, traditional media content still prevails, which means the cutbacks in old media heavily impact what the public is learning through the news.
Source: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_major_trends.php
Some other groups dealing with the issue of corporate media:
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR): http://www.fair.org/index.php
FAIR is a national media watch group, which has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. FAIR works with both activists and journalists. They believe that structural reform is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. FAIR publishes Extra!, an awarding winning magazine of media criticism as well as a weekly radio program called CounterSpin.
Media Reform Information Center: http://www.corporations.org/media/
This website provides resources for advocacy groups, articles, radio, alternative media, investigative journalism and other links that relate to media reform.
The State of the News Media 2010: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/
The State of the News Media 2010 is the seventh edition of the annual report on the health and status of American journalism by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. The report includes major trends in the field of news media as well as essays and statistics for each of the areas considered to be part of the news media.
Corporations and Corporate Media
Corporate Boards of National and International Corporations Interlock with Corporate Media
New York Times:
Carlyle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
Washington Post:
Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Invenstments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
Knight-Ridder:
Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times):
3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
News Corp (Fox):
British Airways, Rothschild Investments
GE (NBC):
Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
Disney (ABC):
Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
Viacom (CBS):
American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
Gannett:
AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
AOL-Time Warner (CNN):
Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
"A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of directors of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. . . . It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other."
--Peter Phillips, Project Censored Rising Justice, Fall 2005
* Corporate influence on domestic and foreign policy
* Corporate influence on who can get elected to office: type of coverage and level of coverage
* Portrayal of information and people: a communication system where people cannot speak for themselves
* Exclusion of information and perspectives that don't fit with the interests of corporate media owners
* With greater concentration of mass media in fewer hands, local news and information is sacrificed
* FEMALE JOURNALISM IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT: Three Principles of Feminist Journalism click here
* WIFP's Seven Realities for a Respectful and Peaceful Communications System: A New Philosophy of Communications click here
* History of Women's Media click here
* Six Point Communications Program for Restructuring the World's Communications System on the Basis of Democracy click here
* Radical Feminist Analysis of the Mass Media click here
Heading Back Toward "Freedom of the Press" for Individuals Rather Than Corporations
* Importance of People Being Able to Speak for Themselves Rather Than Having Others Portray Them or Give Their Information.
People being able to speak for themselves is more accurate and more respectful. No one can really speak fully for anyone else even under the best situations. Corporations do not have the same interests and perspectives as ordinary people. Nor do men have the same information, experiences, and perspectives as women. People of color cannot rely of whites to communicate for them - indeed, Black Americans were among the first in the U.S. to begin publishing their own independent press to express their information and perspectives. "We wish to plead our own cause. Too long has the publick [sic] been deceived by misrepresentations, in things which concern us dearly," wrote editors John Russwurm and Samuel Cornish in 1827 in Freedom's Journal, the first black newspaper in the United States, published in New York. Russwurm and Cornish launched their journal after repeated attempts to get letters to the editor published in response to vile attacks against blacks in the New York Enquirer and several other New York City papers. When they were unable to obtain access to the mass media, they began their own periodical. Although they would be unable to reach such a large, diverse audience for their information and perspectives, at least they would be able to get their message out and it would be in their own words. In 1847 Frederick Douglass established the North Star to allow blacks a voice independent of the white abolitionists. Although by the end of the Civil War only 24 black journals were still being published, between 1865 and 1900 almost 1,200 new black periodicals emerged, indicating the birth of a significant and growing communication network among black Americans. With the twentieth century came the continued growth of the black press. In 1905 W.E.B. DuBois began the first of five periodicals he would publish in the cause of justice and equality for blacks. In 1910 Dubois began his 24-year association with The Crisis, the official journal of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, beginning with a press run of 500, and reaching a peak circulation of 100,000 by 1918. The same year DuBois began publishing, Robert S. Abbott founded the Chicago Defender. Within ten years the Defender had more than 200,000 subscribers in both the North and the South. After Abbott's death in 1940, his nephew John Sengstacke took over as publisher, making it a part of the largest Black newspaper group in America. By the mid-1970's, more than 200 black weekly newspapers were reaching 4.3 million readers, and there were five dailies and approximately 175 magazines, according to Lauren Kessler in The Dissident Press. While the figures fell to fewer than 100 weeklies and only one daily by 1980, there nevertheless exists a strong communication network among black Americans and a recognized need for efforts to strengthen and expand a voice for blacks independent of white control. -- from Allen's chapter one
People being able to speak for themselves is more accurate and more respectful. No one can really speak fully for anyone else even under the best situations. Corporations do not have the same interests and perspectives as ordinary people. Nor do men have the same information, experiences, and perspectives as women. People of color cannot rely of whites to communicate for them - indeed, Black Americans were among the first in the U.S. to begin publishing their own independent press to express their information and perspectives.
"We wish to plead our own cause. Too long has the publick [sic] been deceived by misrepresentations, in things which concern us dearly," wrote editors John Russwurm and Samuel Cornish in 1827 in Freedom's Journal, the first black newspaper in the United States, published in New York. Russwurm and Cornish launched their journal after repeated attempts to get letters to the editor published in response to vile attacks against blacks in the New York Enquirer and several other New York City papers. When they were unable to obtain access to the mass media, they began their own periodical. Although they would be unable to reach such a large, diverse audience for their information and perspectives, at least they would be able to get their message out and it would be in their own words. In 1847 Frederick Douglass established the North Star to allow blacks a voice independent of the white abolitionists. Although by the end of the Civil War only 24 black journals were still being published, between 1865 and 1900 almost 1,200 new black periodicals emerged, indicating the birth of a significant and growing communication network among black Americans. With the twentieth century came the continued growth of the black press. In 1905 W.E.B. DuBois began the first of five periodicals he would publish in the cause of justice and equality for blacks. In 1910 Dubois began his 24-year association with The Crisis, the official journal of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, beginning with a press run of 500, and reaching a peak circulation of 100,000 by 1918. The same year DuBois began publishing, Robert S. Abbott founded the Chicago Defender. Within ten years the Defender had more than 200,000 subscribers in both the North and the South. After Abbott's death in 1940, his nephew John Sengstacke took over as publisher, making it a part of the largest Black newspaper group in America. By the mid-1970's, more than 200 black weekly newspapers were reaching 4.3 million readers, and there were five dailies and approximately 175 magazines, according to Lauren Kessler in The Dissident Press. While the figures fell to fewer than 100 weeklies and only one daily by 1980, there nevertheless exists a strong communication network among black Americans and a recognized need for efforts to strengthen and expand a voice for blacks independent of white control. -- from Allen's chapter one
"We wish to plead our own cause. Too long has the publick [sic] been deceived by misrepresentations, in things which concern us dearly," wrote editors John Russwurm and Samuel Cornish in 1827 in Freedom's Journal, the first black newspaper in the United States, published in New York. Russwurm and Cornish launched their journal after repeated attempts to get letters to the editor published in response to vile attacks against blacks in the New York Enquirer and several other New York City papers. When they were unable to obtain access to the mass media, they began their own periodical. Although they would be unable to reach such a large, diverse audience for their information and perspectives, at least they would be able to get their message out and it would be in their own words. In 1847 Frederick Douglass established the North Star to allow blacks a voice independent of the white abolitionists. Although by the end of the Civil War only 24 black journals were still being published, between 1865 and 1900 almost 1,200 new black periodicals emerged, indicating the birth of a significant and growing communication network among black Americans. With the twentieth century came the continued growth of the black press. In 1905 W.E.B. DuBois began the first of five periodicals he would publish in the cause of justice and equality for blacks. In 1910 Dubois began his 24-year association with The Crisis, the official journal of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, beginning with a press run of 500, and reaching a peak circulation of 100,000 by 1918. The same year DuBois began publishing, Robert S. Abbott founded the Chicago Defender. Within ten years the Defender had more than 200,000 subscribers in both the North and the South. After Abbott's death in 1940, his nephew John Sengstacke took over as publisher, making it a part of the largest Black newspaper group in America. By the mid-1970's, more than 200 black weekly newspapers were reaching 4.3 million readers, and there were five dailies and approximately 175 magazines, according to Lauren Kessler in The Dissident Press. While the figures fell to fewer than 100 weeklies and only one daily by 1980, there nevertheless exists a strong communication network among black Americans and a recognized need for efforts to strengthen and expand a voice for blacks independent of white control.
-- from Allen's chapter one
Normalizing Function of the Mass Media: Cosmetic Foot Surgery
By Sena Christian WIFP Associate
Foot binding in China was seen as a crime against women. It was a crime that occurred for over a thousand years, deforming and disabling an estimated one million women. Even though it was outlawed in 1911, foot binding continues to occur to a far lesser degree in China. Now thousands of miles away, in a troubling phenomena reminiscent of ancient foot-binding practices in China, women in the U.S. are voluntarily mutilating their feet for the latest fashion trend.
Women in the U.S. are risking permanent disabilities through toe shortening and foot narrowing surgeries in an effort to fit into designer high heels and to emphasize "toe cleavage." Doctors report having their offices filled with women suffering from failed cosmetic foot procedures. Sadly, this new form of cosmetic surgery is not very surprising when you consider that several times a week the American television viewing public can witness women (and men) putting their faces and bodies under the knife in a painful sacrifice to "beauty."
The mass media serves a normalizing function in the U.S., normalizing even the most extreme and detrimental behavior and perspectives. "Extreme Makeover," for instance, claims to be "A real life fairy tale in which [people's] wishes comes true, not just to change their looks, but their lives and destinies." Each week the show features two individuals who undergo several surgeries all over their faces and bodies, getting everything from chin implants to tummy tucks. MTV's "I Want a Famous Face" shows painful and risky reconstructive surgery undergone by people who want to look like a celebrity. MTV implies that it is basically performing a public service need by "documenting this new phenomenon." These shows make it acceptable for viewers to comment on every physical aspect of other people. Women especially, are supposed to meet certain standards, look a particular way, and if they do not, they are expected and encouraged to alter themselves.
Undoubtedly, the messages and images portrayed through the mass media have played a significant role in the recent cosmetic foot surgery phenomena. Everyday viewers see and hear messages that normalize unrealistic beauty expectations, promoting the notion that cosmetic surgery is common. How often can these messages be relayed without being absorbed?
Women and men have gotten the idea that it is acceptable and expected that women-primarily-undergo drastic measures to meet certain unrealistic standards of beauty. The most obvious reason for this is the mainstream media's production of shows such as "Extreme Makeover" and "I Want a Famous Face," normalizing cosmetic surgery as a realistic, reasonable and expected procedure and option for the American public. The media is an integral part of the everyday lives and culture of a large segment of the American public. As such, it is part of our socialization process in the U.S.. There have been endless debates as to whether or not what we see and hear on television affects us as individuals and a society. Violent images on TV and subsequent violent tendencies of viewers is usually at the center of the debate; however we need to look at the more subtle and indirect ways in which the images and representations portrayed in the media-particularly those involving gender roles and expectations-reflect and/or determine our realities, our desires, our expectations and our perceptions.
Americans live in a society which considers it desirable for women to chop off their toes and narrow their feet to emphasize toe cleavage, and which regards high heels as sexy. These preferences suggest more than just fashion, they reflect gender roles and expectations in our society. Cosmetic foot surgery and high heels make women vulnerable, require women to rely on male assistance, immobilize women and keep them in "their place." Indeed, this recent phenomena in the U.S. brings to mind the ancient custom of Chinese foot binding. According to Janet Chen who has written on foot binding, "Because of this custom, women became totally dependent on male relatives, thus reinforcing their subordinate positions in life. Women stayed at home, unable to work or to have any sort of public life. The practice was an ingenious, as well as cruel, method of social control over generations of women, keeping them from seeking independence and liberation."
As one woman writes in an article condemning cosmetic foot surgery, "Where can a woman go in such shoes? Not far. How fast can a woman travel in such shoes? Not very. How long can a woman stand in them? It depends, I guess, on how long a woman is willing to suffer."
The increase of cosmetic foot surgeries in the U.S. has developed out of societal pressure on women to conform to the latest fashion trends, regardless of the effects on women's bodies, health or minds. These are pressures and trends which have been normalized, spread and perpetuated through the mass media. Women are expected to want to meet societal and media-established standards of beauty; if they do not, they are subject to suspicion and ridicule. It is believed that women should want to masochistically cut off their toes to fit more easily into painful high heels. Women should want to suffer pain and sacrifice to appeal to men and heterosexual standards of beauty. Afterall, as Suzanne M. Levine, M.D., a New York podiatrist told the New York Times, "Take your average woman and give her heels instead of flats and she'll suddenly get whistles on the street... I do everything I can to get them back into their shoes."
The ancient custom of foot binding began in China during the Sung dynasty as an imitation of an imperial concubine who was required to dance before the emperor with bound feet. Foot binding requires a tight binding of the toes and feet using bandages in order to keep the feet as small as three inches long. While at first the practice was seen as a status symbol for only the rich, the practice quickly spread until all but the very poor bound the feet of their daughters. Daughters with bound feet symbolized the wealth of the family and the suitability of the daughter for marriage. In addition, foot binding was "partly powered by a sexual fetish among Chinese men... The small, unsure steps of a woman with lotus feet were considered very feminine, while the inability to walk long distances helped ensure the girl's virginity, as she could not leave home."
Mention the ancient custom of Chinese foot binding today and most Americans would shake their heads in disbelief; yet how would these same people respond to TV shows like "Extreme Makeover" or coverage of the cosmetic foot surgery trend? As Adele Horin writes, "If it happened in Afghanistan [or China] we'd call it barbaric. In the West we call it fashion."
Just a few of the links to groups dealing with the issue of corporate media:
Media Giants "The past decade's wave of media mergers has produced a complex web of business relationships that now defines America's media and popular culture. These relationships offer a massive opportunity for cross promotion and selling of talent and products among different companies owned by the same powerful parent corporation."
Stop Big Media "The StopBigMedia.com Coalition is an alliance of consumer, public interest, media reform, organized labor and other groups that have joined together to fight runaway media consolidation and urge the FCC to put public service before the self-interest of large media corporations. We believe that a free and vibrant media, full of diverse and competing voices, is the lifeblood of America's democracy. We're working together to see that our media system remains, in the words of the Supreme Court, 'an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail.'"
Articles of interest:
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEDIA: FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
More articles on these links:
http://wifp.org/communicationnews.html
http://wifp.org/pccomm2.html
