HOME
your socialist home on the internet
ABOUT US
who we are, our politics, and what we do
GET ACTIVE!
joining ysa, getting active locally, making a difference
NEWS & VIEWS
articles, fliers, statements and opinions
THEORY
what is socialism, reading lists and study guides
CONTACT US
our email, snail mail, phone number and club directory
LINKS
socialist, youth, activist, labor, feminist, anti-racist, and other important sites
WHAT'S NEW
listing of what's been recently added
money & the mass media
A Supreme Court decision once referred to the various forms of communication as providing a “marketplace of ideas.” The phrase suggests a village at which humble artisans come to sell their products, and shrewd buyers are able to choose from a great array of wares.
Actually, communications have become highly monopolized, with small publications eking out a marginal existence. Only 4 percent of the cities in the United States have newspapers under more than one ownership.
Most large-circulation newspapers are owned by chains such as Gannet, Knight-Ridder, and Newhouse. If newspapers are not members of a chain, they carry syndicated columns and news services.
For most readers, the choice in the “marketplace of ideas” offered by the press is like the choice between McDonald’s and Burger King. A very few newspapers, such as The New York Times, provide more substantial fare – but they are written for an elite. One must know how to sift through them for significant facts and how to take into account their class bias and self-imposed restrictions.
The TV Monopoly
Television, from which 80 percent of all Americans are said to get most of their news, is even more monopolized. Controlling shares of NBC, CBS and ABC are owned by Chase Manhattan Bank, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Bank of New York, Bankers Trust, and Citibank – that is by the Rockefeller and Morgan empires.
Eighty percent of the “independent” stations are network affiliates and get most of their programs, except for the nightly local news, from the networks. The networks compete for “ratings,” which determine the amount of money they can get from sponsors. But like competing politicians, there is really little difference between the networks.
Television presents events as disconnected happenings. It then calls upon “experts” to comment on the chaotic flow of images. Viewers are made to feel powerless in their bewilderment and dependent upon the “expert,” who will tell them what to think and how to respond.
Although the viewer is often cynical about television – which one moment tells how his or her life will be altered by political events and another moment how it will be altered by buying the right deodorant – the authoritative voice of the “expert” has its unrecognized effect.
A Biased Vocabulary
The underlying assumption in news accounts and commentary are indicated in phrases as “our investments abroad” and “our markets.” But most Americans do not either own anything or sell anything abroad.
A few huge corporations are identified with the whole country. It is taken for granted that what is good for them is good for the country, something that is by no means obvious, especially when “our boys” are sent to fight for the “our interests.”
The bias of the media is revealed in the use of the word “terrorist” for the Irish Republican Army and the Palestine Liberation Organization. However, the violence of the IRA against the minority Protestant regime and the British occupying forces, and of the PLO against the settlers in the country from which the Palestinians were disposed is far exceeded by the violence of the Contras – who have systematically killed thousands of peasants, coffee-harvesters, and educational and health workers.
This bias is revealed too, in the habitual use of the word “surrogate” to define the relation of Cuba to the Soviet Union but not to define the relation of Honduras to the United States – which uses Honduras as a base for the Contras.
It is revealed, finally, in the habitual use of the word “satellites” for the Eastern European states but not for the Central American states. Romania, however, has a higher degree of independence than El Salvador has.
Despite the common assumptions that prevail, television stations make a great point of “fairness” and “balance.” What this means is that the commentators on their programs run the gamut of opinion from A to B. The moderator of a panel of commentators implicitly suggests that the truth lies somewhere between A and B. The other letters of the alphabet are disregarded.
Radical critics of the status quo, including those with numerous books and articles and impressive academic credentials, do not qualify as experts for television.
CBS and General Westmoreland
Ultra-conservatives often inveigh against the “liberal media.” They want to have as commentators only those of category A, not of category B. The difference between the ultra-conservatives and the media was indicated in the law suit by General Westmoreland – backed by these ultra-conservatives – against CBS.
The network had shown a documentary claiming that Westmoreland deliberately deceived Johnson about the strength of the Vietnamese during the war. Westmoreland’s lawyers were able to show how CBS, by editing interviews, was able to slant them. They exposed the network’s techniques not just on this occasion but in its general practice.
On the other hand, CBS was able to present such damaging evidence against Westmoreland that the doughty general had to beat a retreat and settle out of court for a CBS statement that praised him for his patriotism but did not retract the charge that he was a liar.
The issue, however, of how much Westmoreland deceived Johnson in the narrow interests of the military establishment is not of the first importance to the American people. What is really important to them is how they were deceived by Johnson aided by the military.
Johnson had been able to get Congress to pass virtually unanimously the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The government used the resolution to unconstitutionally carry on an undeclared war – on the pretext that North Vietnam had sought to torpedo an American warship.
There was no evidence, as sober historians now acknowledge, that North Vietnam had really taken this action so obviously opposed to its own interest. But neither Congress, the “free press,” nor the “liberal” TV commentators questioned the allegation then – or since that time.
Money Talks in Elections
Through the monopolized media and the entire political set-up, money talks in the election campaigns. Sometimes is whispers insinuatingly so that people are influenced subliminally without realizing it. Other times it bellows. Radical parties are like soap-box orators in a public park where a competing public address system drowns them out.
In addition to the free publicity the Republicans and Democratic parties get in the media, they buy 30-second TV “spots” that sell candidates the way commercials tell you that Fab is better than Tide or vice versa.
The same techniques – the hypnotic repetition of slogans and catch-words devoid of content, the killing of critical faculties through irrational appeals, the attractive packaging of the product – are used in selling politicians who have little difference to offer from each other.
This was not what Thomas Jefferson meant when he spoke of an informed citizenry being the basis of a healthy democracy.
Election campaigns are not political processes in which the masses of people actively participate. They are like wrestling matches which leave a lot of people indifferent but which a lot of others find exciting to watch – even though they suspect the grunts and grimaces are more acting than reality.
The culmination of the campaigns is the TV presidential “debates.” Here the object is not to inform and reason. It is to project an image of knowledge, self-assurance, coolness under stress, amiability, patriotism, and so forth.
Americans are Deceived
A Reagan official speaking not for attribution told a reporter, “You can say anything you want during a debate and 80 million people will hear it.” The next day, reporters document what are charitably described as misstatements, he added, “So what? Maybe 200 people read it, or 2000 or 20,000.”
Although Americans may be deceived by this lying and manipulation, they are also to one degree or another aware of it. This contributes to cynicism and a sense of powerlessness.
Many feel that it doesn’t make much difference if they cast a vote. The poor especially have this feeling. In recent years, 60 percent to 65 percent of those eligible do not vote in congressional and state elections, and 40 to 50 percent do not vote in presidential elections.
Nevertheless, although the freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the right to engage in electoral campaigns are vitiated by the economic and political power of the monopoly capitalists, they remain conquests that must be defended.
The roar of the mass media is mighty and the sense of powerlessness is paralyzing. But especially in times of social crisis, life itself impels people in the direction which socialists are pointing – the construction of a new and more genuine democratic order.
The above essay was written by Paul Siegel as part of a larger pamphlet, “Democracy in America: Fact and Fiction.” This pamphlet is available from Walnut Publishing and Socialist Action.
