Mickey Mouse is creepy. Walter Issacson is a boob. And General Electric makes too many war machines to be in the television news business.
I am able to freely express these brash opinions through the First Amendment and the newsprint paid for by The Daily Pennsylvanian. Unfortunately, I am a dying breed -- a member of the media who doesn't answer to one of the monolithic corporate conglomerates that control the flow of information throughout the world.
Now this isn't going to be your typical look-at-me-solemnly-watching-out-for-the-truth-now-aren't-I-cool columns. I realize that journalism has always been caught up in partisanship and commerce. Even back when the Federalists and the Jeffersonians each had their own papers, the name of the game was selling copies.
I don't think our government or our citizenry can do much of anything to make the kind of journalism one finds on TV fresh and clean. Rather, I simply think it's a shame that the vast majority of Americans get their news from sources which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of huge corporate entities that can do nothing but toe a pro-status-quo, pro-big-business line.
The lion's share of the media racket is governed by 10 untrustworthy families, and things may still worsen in the information cosa nostra.
The liberal magazine The Nation devoted its Jan. 7 edition to the topic of these corporate conglomerates, and its reporting deserves your attention. Even if you don't read the magazine, take a look at its alluring centerfold -- a chart entitled "The Big Ten."
This is the name given to the 10 corporate giants that dominate the media, and their various holdings are laid out in a menacing series of color-coded bubbles. The thing really does resemble a law enforcement chart of New York's old crime families, except names like Gambino and Genovese have been supplanted by ones like Bertelsmann, AOL/Time Warner, Vivendi and Viacom.
Some may look at this chart and let out a hearty "So what!". Media outlets are like any other business. Other businesses need to consolidate in order to thrive today. Why shouldn't the media?
That argument has its place, but it fails to take into account the undeniable harm that these conglomerates have already done to objective journalism.
Take the case of CNN, a network once lauded for its hard-hitting reporting. Currently under the towering corporate umbrella of AOL/Time Warner and the guidance of former Time Managing Editor Walter Issacson, Saddam Hussein's choice for television news becomes more of an info-tainment dealer every day.
According to The Nation, Issacson recently distributed a memo at CNN which told staffers that news broadcasts should be sugarcoated to maintain support for the President and his war -- this to a network whose flag-waving was already becoming pathological.
As if we needed another sign of CNN's trek from Atlanta to Hollywood, Issacson and Co. this week were forced to apologize for a promotional ad that called anchor Paula Zahn "sexy."
Anyone who thinks that the objectivity of news sources isn't threatened by corporate ownership is out of his mind. One need look no further than the the link between General Electric and the NBC family of networks for a perfect example.
In addition to its TV networks and sports teams, GE is one of the nation's largest defense contractors. Focusing mostly on the construction of aircraft engines, GE's profits certainly get a boost during wartime. In 2000, 8 percent of the company's $129.9 billion total revenue came from defense contracts, and that's sure to jump after Sept. 11.
How can the public really expect NBC, MSNBC and CNBC to fairly and accurately report all of the news about a war from which their corporate parent derives financial benefit?
Obviously, most of the ways in which the media cartel filters news aren't overt. The most damage will be done by the tendency of these corporate intersts to filter out news items that challenge and vex the average citizen. That's because a fuzzy, coherent depiction of world events sells more diapers.
As a paradigmatic example, take a Nov. 4 survey by the Sunday Times of London which found that "four out of every 10 British Muslims believe Osama bin Laden is justified in mounting his war against the United States."
This survey, conducted by a reputable London newspaper, certainly clouds the picture of Britain as indefatigable ally that has been presented by major news sources. It's an item worth considering, but just the sort of item that doesn't find its way into the news these days.
Will Ulrich is a senior Philosophy major from the Brox, N.Y.
