|
|
|
**This section is currently in development. Please
check back for updates and send comments to info@mediatank.org.**
Ties That
Bind
An Assortment of Interlocking Interests
This section of the Media & War Resource Center examines eight
of the largest media companies in the U.S. for potential conflicts
and connections with the U.S. military and the occupations of
Iraq and Afghanistan: Clear Channel, Disney, Gannett, General
Electric, the New York Times Co., News Corp., TimeWarner and CBS
Corp. (formerly Viacom). Select one of the companies from the
menu to see a partial listing of each conglomerate's media holdings,
and documents the overlapping interests of its board members,
executives, owners and other controlling parties.
Read on to learn more about the nature of these connections and
relationships and how they can cause conflicts of interest.
Many of the men and women who run America's largest news media
outlets have ties to other corporations and to various government
officials and politicians. These ties take several forms and structures:
| • Cross-Ownership.
The conglomerates that own some of the world's largest news
outlets also own companies that profit directly from war.
The classic example of this is NBC's parent company, General
Electric, which builds engines for F-16 fighter planes and
Apeche helicopters used by the U.S. military. |
| • Boards
of Directors. Directors that oversee the operations
of major news corporations often also serve on the boards
of other companies. As directors, their purpose is to maximize
the profits of each company they direct. Whenever a potential
news story threatens the potential profits of another company
that one of the board members sit on, there is a conflict
of interests. |
| • Friends
and Colleagues. Many directors of the nation's television
networks, radio stations, newspapers and maazines have personal
friendships and/or business relationships with the president
and other members of the Bush aministration. Media owners
and executives also gain financially from favorable telecommunications
regulations and other policies set by their associates in
government. |
| • Advertising.
Although not a particular focus of this project, it should
go without saying that many of the advertisers who provide
major sources of revenue for the media business—oil
companies, banks, military contractors—stand to gain
considerably from wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Other advertisers
certainly look forward to the ability to enter new markets |
These overlapping, sometimes interlocking interests have a great
potential to create conflicts whenever someone stands to profit—financially
or politically—from war and military activity. Are the
people in charge of America's media outlets duty-bound to provide
"balanced" and "objective" pictures of war
through their news programming, or are they duty-bound to maximize
shareholder profits and to advance their own political agendas?
Traditional journalistic standards would argue that the media's
role is one of government watchdog. But this role for journalists
has been put in peril by, among other things, the increasing
consolidation of media ownership into the hands of fewer and
fewer corporations.
Obvious conflicts can be found in number of areas:
| • Military
Contractors . Through cross-ownership
and diectorships, many media outlets have ties to war profiteers.
For example, Gannett Chairman, President and CEO Douglas
McCorkindale also serves on the board of missile-producer
Lockheed Martin. |
| • Government.
Many media directors once worked in government positions
that put them in close contact with many of today's government's
leading war advocates. For example, Viet Dinh, a Georgetown
Law professor who sits on News Corp.'s board, is a former
Assistant Attorney General and foreign policy adviser for
President Bush. According to the Georgetown website he "played
a key role in developing the USA Patriot Act and revising
the Attorney General's Guidelines." |
| • Political.
Many media higher-ups have other connections to members
of the Bush administration. For example, Tom Hicks, former
Vice Chair of Clear Channel is a long-time friend and contributor
of George W. Bush. Bush made millions of dollars when Hicks
purchased the Texas Rangers in 1998 and the two were also
at the center of a University of Texas investment scandal. |
| • Finance.
Some of the people who control media corporations also control
companies that finance military contractors and other corporations
involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. William Kennard, a board
member at the New York Times Co., is not only a former FCC
Chairman, but also sits on the board at the Carlyle Group,
a private equity firm that has invested billions of dollars
in the aerospace and defense industry. This type of connection
is not uncommon among board members of these media companies. |
• Think
Tanks. Some media owners and directors are members
of pro-military think tanks that pushed for an invasion
of Iraq long before 2003. For instance, Time Warner board
member Carla Hills is a trustee at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, and serves
as the Vice Chair at the Council
of Foreign Relations, two conservative think tanks
that focus on foreign policy and defense.
|
| • Oil Companies.
Almost all mainstream media companies profit from the advertising
dollars of oil corporations which have a vested interest
in both Iraq and Afghanistan. TimeWarner Chairman and CEO
previously held both those positions at ChevronTexaco. Current
Chevron board members include Carla Hills and General Electric
director and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn. |
Of course, the types of conflicts detailed above are by no means
a problem exclusive to the eight conglomerates examined here.
The pattern of interlocking corporate boards of directors, for
instance, is one that extends far and wide. Most mainstream
news media are in some way connected with those businesses and
politicians that stand to profit most from U.S. wars.
|
|
|
COMPANY
INDEX |
Select a corporation from
the list below to learn more about the conflicts of interest
that they face when covering war.
|
|
Frontlines,
Headlines and Bottom Lines