ARTICLES
Descriptions
and links to various articles on media bias, censorship and
the link between war coverage and media ownership.
•
Corporate Media Interests & War
•
Fox Effect
•
NBC
•
ClearChannel
•
Failure of US Journalism
•
Anti-war Censorship
BACKGROUND LINKS
Anti-war
Links
Philadelphia
Regional Anti-war Network
MoveOn
Nonviolence.org
- Iraq crisis antiwar homepage
Not
in Our Name
United
for Peace and Justice
Media
Ownership Links
FCC's
Media Ownership Page
Media
Tank Ownership Page
Center
for Digital Democracy
Free
Press Media Reform
Reclaim
the Media
Media
Ownership Lists and Charts
Columbia
Journalism Review
The
Nation
Corporations.org
Connections
& Conflicts of Interest
Media
Transparency - the money behind the media
Cursor
- media and politics
They
Rule - Interlocking Boards of Directors
Fairness
and Accuracy in Reporting - Media board of directors
Adbusters
- Who owns what
Open
Secrets - guide to money in U.S. elections
PR
Watch
Political
Research Associates
Project
Censored
Back
to top
ARTICLE
LINKS
Note: some of these links may be expired
Corporate
Media Interests & War
War
coverage could alter U.S. media policy
By Andrew Ratner, Baltimore Sun, 3/30/03
News coverage of the war in Iraq, unprecedented in its frequency
and immediacy, may influence something long after the war concludes:
Who gets to own the media that provide the news? The FCC has
been ordered by Congress and the U.S. Court of Appeals to re-examine
its rules on media concentration. Its convergence with the U.S.-led
attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein is purely coincidental.
But the coverage from Iraq is apt to loom large in the debate,
with one side arguing that it proves the boundless diversity
of information in the Internet age and the other claiming that
American media have been rendered timid by the creeping consolidation
in the industry.
How
war coverage helped put Murdoch on a media roll in Bush's America
By Andrew Gumbel, UK Independent, 4/16/03
This is a very good time to be alive if you happen to be Rupert
Murdoch. He has just realised his long-held ambition to break
into the US satellite television market, securing the purchase
of DirecTV after three years of negotiations with its owner,
General Motors. His cable news channel, Fox News, meanwhile,
has come out of the Iraq war stronger than ever with its rabble-rousing
style and deferential approach to the Bush administration's
every move. Mr Murdoch's long-standing campaign to deregulate
the media landscape could soon come to glorious fruition in
the US, thanks to the FCC and its chairman, Michael Powell.
For
Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays
By Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 3/28/03
Now, apparently, is the time for all good radio and TV stations
to come to the aid of their country's war. That is the message
pushed by broadcast news consultants, who've been advising news
and talk stations across the nation to wave the flag and downplay
protest against the war. "Get the following production pieces
in the studio NOW: ...Patriotic music that makes you cry, salute,
get cold chills! Go for the emotion," advised McVay Media, a
Cleveland-based consultant. The influential television-news
consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates recently put it in
even starker terms: Covering war protests may be harmful to
a station's bottom line. The research's implied message reinforces
antiwar activists' assertion that media outlets have marginalized
opposing voices.
Media
Consolidation May Find Us at Loss for Words
By Brooks Boliek, Reuters, 4/8/03
The incredibly graphic images from the war that are beamed into
our homes every day are not the only reminders of the power
of the media in general and television in particular. When asked
about the Iraqi regime's continued ability to make use of television,
Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, "The regime determined early
on that one of its primary mechanisms for controlling the population
and exerting coercion is through its media, and it has a very
redundant system." Of course, in this country the government
doesn't "use those mechanisms to control the population." The
First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from doing
so. All this is being played out at the same time the government
is attempting to decide if mega-media conglomerates should be
allowed to grow bigger. Will the government's domestic media
policy agree most with those who cheer loudest in support of
the government's foreign policy, or will the government remember
that the First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech?
Back
to top
FOX
EFFECT
Cable's
War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television
By Jim Rutenberg, NY Times, 4/16/03
The Fox News Channel, owned by News Corp. has emerged as the
most-watched source of cable news, with anchors and commentators
who skewer the mainstream media, disparage the French and flay
anybody else who questions President Bush's war effort. Fox's
formula had already proved there were huge ratings in opinionated
news with an America-first flair. But Fox has brought prominence
to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional
notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews
the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.
How
Fox is winning the war
By Steve Johnson, Chicago Tribune, 4/4/03
They report. We deride. We deride Fox for playing ratings politics
with the news, turning Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers'
public call Tuesday for media to be "fair and balanced" into
a back-door endorsement, pointing out that the general had echoed
a Fox News marketing slogan. And we deride the channel for the
infamous and canny "we report; you decide" slogan, because,
I learned all over again after watching five straight hours
of Fox News earlier this week, there isn't, comparatively speaking,
that much reporting, and because the channel's very point seems
to be to reaffirm the opinions of people who have long since
decided.
The
Death of Local News
By Paul Schmelzer, AlterNet, 4/22/03
Tune into Madison, Wisconsin's Fox TV affiliate and behold the
future of local news. In the
program's concluding segment, "The Point," Mark Hyman rants
against peace activists ("wack-jobs"), the French ("cheese-eating
surrender monkeys"), progressives ("loony left") and the so-called
liberal media, usually referred to as the "hate-America crowd."
Fox 47's right-wing rants may be the future of hometown news,
but here's the real problem: Hyman isn't the station manager,
a local crank, or even a journalist. He is the VP of Corporate
Communications for the station's owner, the Sinclair Broadcast
Group. And this segment of the local news isn't exactly local.
Sinclair's "NewsCentral" is very likely to spell the demise
of local news as we know it.
A
Media Empire's Injustices
By Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, 4/22/03
Since 1917 the Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded to encourage
excellence in journalism. I happen to think that more could
be accomplished with a prize for the worst in journalism. It
should be called the Murdoch. The first Murdoch would go to
Rupert Murdoch himself, a media mogul who has single-handedly
lowered the standards of journalism wherever he has gone. No
single column could do justice to the injustices of the Murdoch
empire. [though this one comes close!]
Appellate
Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy, Sierra Times, 2/28/03
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information
by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000
jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she
was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air
what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling
basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule,
or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television
broadcast.
Back
to top
NBC
Phil
Donahue Strikes Back at MSNBC
By David Bauder, AP via Yahoo!, 2/26/03
Phil Donahue struck back at MSNBC on Wednesday for his firing,
suggesting the network was too quick to pull the trigger and
that it might be trying to "out-fox Fox" with conservative voices.
Donahue's political talk show, a distant third in the cable
news ratings in his time slot, was abruptly pulled from the
air after Monday's show. Donahue, a liberal who stumped for
Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy in 2000, said he had been
hoping "to break through the noisy drums of war on cable" and
become a responsible platform for both sides of the issue.
Arnett
fired by NBC after Iraqi TV outburst
By Claire Cozens Monday, The Guardian, 3/31/03
NBC has fired the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Peter Arnett
after he gave a controversial interview to Iraqi state television
in which he said American military plans had failed. The US
broadcaster initially supported Arnett, saying he had given
the interview as a professional courtesy. But it confirmed this
morning it would no longer be working with him. "It was wrong
for Mr Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi
TV, especially at a time of war," said an NBC spokeswoman. "And
it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and
opinions in that interview."
CLEARCHANNEL
Media
giant's rally sponsorship raises questions
By Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune, 3/19/03
Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President
Bush's strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread
linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's
largest owner of radio stations. In a move that has raised eyebrows
in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio
stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and
other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000
people. "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's
obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of
the news," said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen
Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia.
War
Puts Radio Giant on the Defensive
By John Schwartz and Geraldine Fabrikant, NY Times, 3/31/03
Clear Channel Communications has long been the company that
the music industry loves to loathe, so aggressively dominant
as the nation's biggest radio broadcaster that some critics
refer to it as the Microsoft of music. Now, though, Clear Channel
finds itself fending off a new set of accusations: that the
company is using its considerable market power to drum up support
for the war in Iraq, while muzzling musicians who oppose it.
Company executives insist they have no political agenda, but
criticism has grown sufficiently loud that Clear Channel hired
a crisis communications firm to help handle the uproar.
Back
to top
FAILURE
OF U.S. JOURNALISM
US
broadcasters' war stance under scrutiny
By Annie Lawson, UK Guardian, 4/14/03
Rupert Murdoch's Fox network is among the US media giants accused
of tailoring its war coverage to curry favour with Michael Powell,
the George Bush-appointed chairman of America's media regulator
who is facing mounting pressure to scrap media ownership rules.
Mr Powell, the son of US secretary of state Colin Powell, is
under intense lobbying pressure from the US broadcasting industry
to abolish safeguards that restrict limits on the number of
TV and radio stations a company can own in a market. Fox, together
with network heavyweights CBS and NBC, is pressing the FCC to
dump rules that prevent a TV broadcaster from owning another
network or a radio station and newspaper in the same market.
Dyke
attacks 'unquestioning' US media
Dominic Timms, UK Guardian, 4/24/03
BBC director general Greg Dyke has delivered a stinging rebuke
to the US media over its "unquestioning" coverage of the war
in Iraq and warned the government against allowing the UK media
to become "Americanised". Mr Dyke said he was "shocked" to hear
US radio giant Clear Channel had organised pro-war rallies in
the US and urged the UK government to ensure new media laws
did not allow American media companies to undermine the impartiality
of the British media.
Polls
Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War Coverage
By Ari Berman, Editor and Publisher, 03/26/03
Thousands of American soldiers have marched into Iraq, bombs
are falling, and oil fields are ablaze. After the shooting stops,
press attention probably will focus on our pursuit of Saddam
Hussein's henchmen, our search for hidden stocks of weapons
of mass destruction, and our "securing the peace" for a democratic
Iraq. But when the war dies down, editors and media analysts
should catch their breath and ask themselves: How much did press
coverage (or lack of coverage) contribute to the public backing
for a pre-emptive invasion without the support of the United
Nations?
Iraq
gets sympathetic press around the world; International media
wary of U.S. reporting
By Marco R. della Cava, USA Today, 4/2/03
Global media reportage these days is all war, all the time.
Although such saturation coverage of the war in Iraq wouldn't
surprise most Americans, the tone of these reports might. From
Britain's BBC to Germany's ZDF, or newspapers from Spain to
Bangkok, one finds stories that tilt noticeably against the
war and in favor of besieged Iraqi civilians. Often these are
emotional first-person accounts of hospitals or bombed-out apartments,
accompanied by graphic photos of the dead and dying that would
never appear in U.S. outlets. ''Most Europeans do not support
this war, and so the coverage is simply a reflection of that,''
says Giuseppe Zaffuto, project director at the European Journalism
Center. A recent critique of coverage in the English-language
South China Morning Post ran under the headline ''U.S. television
networks losing the fight against biased coverage.''
Independents
'frozen out' by armed forces
By Ciar Byrne, The Guardian, 4/3/02
The British and US forces have created a "caste system" of journalists,
giving preference to those that accompany troops and freezing
out correspondents operating independently, the European Broadcasting
Union has claimed. News organisations from countries that have
decided not to side with the US and Britain in the Gulf conflict
are being particularly disadvantaged, the EBU has claimed in
a strongly-worded statement protesting at journalists' treatment
in Iraq. "US central command policy is now actively restricting
independent newsgathering from southern Iraq," said Jean Stock,
the EBU secretary general.
White
House prepares to feed 24-hour news cycle
By Douglas Quenqua, PR Week, 3/24/03
The eruption of war in Iraq set in motion a massive global PR
network, cultivated by the Bush administration during the months-long
buildup of forces. The network is intended not only to disseminate,
but also to dominate news of the conflict around the world.
The White House Office of Global Communication (OGC), an office
born out of post-September-11 efforts to combat anti-American
news stories emerging from Arab countries, will be key in keeping
all US spokespeople on message. Each night, US embassies around
the world, along with all federal departments in DC, will receive
a "Global Messenger" e-mail containing talking points and ready-to-use
quotes. In a dramatic shift from past conflicts, administration
officials have made it clear they'll rely on independent journalists,
"embedded" by the Pentagon with military units, to act as one
of their most reliable PR vehicles.
Back
to top
ANTI-WAR CENSORSHIP
Protesters blast news media coverage of
events in Iraq
By Rachel Uranga, LA Daily News, 3/22/03
Protesting what they called the broadcast media's uncritical
coverage of the Iraq war, thousands of anti-war protesters streamed
through the streets of Hollywood on Saturday, on their way to
CNN's Los Angeles high-rise. Protesters gathered at the 24-hour
news agency's Sunset Boulevard office building decried the Bush
administration's policy of pre-emptive strikes in Iraq and railed
against the media's "cheerleading coverage." "We feel that CNN
and all the major broadcasters act as the information ministry
for the government," said James Lafferty, a lead organizer and
executive director of the National Lawyers Guild.
Antiwar
Message Has Tough Time Being Heard in Media
By Steve James and Mark Weinraub, Reuters, 4/8/03
Groups opposed to the U.S.-led campaign against Baghdad complain
they have been blocked from airing anti-war advertisements on
broadcast media increasingly dominated by giant corporations.
News Corp.'s Fox network has a long-standing policy of not accepting
so-called advocacy ads; AOL Time Warner's CNN does not take
advocacy ads about regions in conflict. A spokesman for Not
In Our Name, said the anti-war group had a 30-second spot turned
down by MTV, which cited its policy of not allowing partisan
advertising. He noted that the network ran recruitment ads for
the U.S. military. A spokeswoman for MTV, part of Viacom Inc.'s
entertainment empire, said recruitment ads for the military
did not fall under the definition of advocacy advertising.
