Some reasons as to why some news reports might be filtered or shelved. Public issues and the media.
In the United States we live under the pretense of Democracy. Yet, newscasters are discouraged from airing things as they are, because some CEO will be upset. Under this Democracy there is freedom of speech which is becoming more and more like a pipe dream, and so is the so-called freedom of press. Freedom of press seems to be when the wealthy will nod approvingly at a potential story. Wealthy meaning big corporations which take control of the media outlets. When that happens that media has to adhere to what the corporation that owns them says. Corporations have far too much of a say as to what a news station may, or may not, report. This means that if a news station has come across a story that is important for the general public, but yet harms a corporation that is sponsoring them, the story is thrown out. This issue of corporations controlling the media is a major problem. Our media, our only source for information, is now becoming more biased year by year. When our source of information becomes biased, then our knowledge becomes limited. These corporations are not here to help the news become more accurate. Instead they want to limit the bad exposure that might occur when a wrong is committed. This practice is just as wrong as bribery, because these sources for our news are being bribed with money, bought off for their silence. What is worse is that this is occurring in matters that are imperative that the public knows about.
Since the year 1983 the number of corporations that controlled the media have decreased from fifty all the way to five or six. That might sound like a good thing, but in actuality it is not. Now only a small handful of conglomerate corporations control the media. There are five main corporations now control the media, as of 2004, to be precise, this means that we have the news being obscured to benefit the wealthy owners. The news outlet is in essence to only report what is not on a sort of black list. Each corporation has an image to watch out for and to keep the pretence going. To keep this image as squeaky clean as possible the corporations start buying up media outlets. Anything from news stations, to radio stations, not just air waves, but also in print such as magazines. Imagine, with all the different news sources out there, almost all of the publicized ones are being controlled by corporations as if they are puppets.
For example, General Electric owns NBC, this means certain reporting is absolutely off limits. GE being “one of the largest corporations in the world” (Sanders) has of course many interests in wanting to control what is aired and what is published. GE being involved in anti-union activity would of course want any stories relating to this issue shelved or have a blind eye turned towards it. The Republican party also has GE involved with promoting it's right-wing views. GE is one of the major contributors to the Republican party, and “has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing finance, nuclear power and many other industries” (Sanders). NBC is only one example of corporate controlled media. Another well known news station is FOX News which is watched by much of the American populous. This station is owned by a right-wing Australian man that already has sunk his fingers in a significant percentage of the world's media, this man is known as Rupert Murdoch. Another interesting thing is that this corporate owner of FOX, much like the corporate owner of NBC, is also tied to the Republican Party. In actuality, it is Murdoch's network that has ties with the Republican Party. There is plenty of exposure to the right wing perspective, but practically none for the leftist perspective. A few of those that drill the right wing ideals on the airwaves are Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, and Alan Keyes just to name a few. Now, one might think well so what, there are still many “free-media” outlets. As true as that is, these outlets are not known by everyone. Even if they are well known the popular media networks spread slander about them. This slander can be simply saying that this “free-media” outlet supports a certain group that is viewed as bad.
An example of this is Al-Jazeera, this is an Arabic language news network. On the American news channels all that is heard about this network is how it is a supporter of terrorists. The American government is trying to shut it down, or at the very least pressure it to change the type of reporting being done. The concept of freedom of speech in America has never been as false as it is now.
The spiraling of what we used to call free media truly has an impact on our lives. This monopoly of our media is a serious matter since this narrows the scope of what we know about what is happening in our own communities. Corporate control of the media having a negative impact on us is best stated by Tux Turkel, “[corporate control of media] stifles controversial coverage that conflicts with corporate interests.” The ability of corporate conglomerates to control our media is truly sickening. Even more so when this control exceeds reasonability. When health agencies are unable publicize important bulletins out to the public, due to the media not cooperating since it conflicts with the interests of the company that owns them, is terrifying. One example is when Mr. Blethen referred to one case in particular. This is where one truly sees the so-called pledge to report topics of high interest is sold short:
“In January 2002, when a train carrying 10,000 gallons of ammonia derailed in Minot, N.D., causing a spill and a toxic cloud. Authorities wanted to warn residents to stay indoors, but when they called six of the seven radio stations in town, no one answered. It turned out Texas-based Clear Channel Communications owned all six stations and no local staff was available at the time.”
In this case the publics health was at stake, but the corporation owning these radio stations must have placed a form of a gag order on these stations. They must have known what was going on hence not picking up the line. This not only is an immoral issue but also a dangerous one.
Frankly speaking this monopoly over the media must stop, sooner or later everything will be owned by one corporation. Then what will happen if a catastrophe occurs where that corporation's interests are threatened? This is a dire issue that congress must address soon. People need wake up to what is happening around them and do something. This does not mean to only find alternative news sources, but also to try to put an end or at least slow down this imminent monopoly of the news broadcasting, and reporting by one person.
