How have corporations infiltrated partisan media to perpetuate

capitalism?

Mya Oyler

Senior Project Advisor: Kyle Edmondson

Abstract

As we have moved into the 21st century, journalism has undergone a massive change that has led
to corporations having an extreme amount of influence on the media we consume. This has
increased bias in the media which ultimately poses a threat to our democracy because it subtly
limits access to information. In this paper, I explore the symbiotic relationship between news
media and corporate conglomerates. Because of loosening regulations of ownership by the
Federal Communications Commission, companies are able to covertly and overtly fund and
profit from news media. They are able to accomplish this by funding think tanks which set the
agenda for what is marketed in the media. This gives them the control to censor or promote
information that benefits them, which is profoundly against fair journalistic practices. Journalism
is also corporate. Majority of major news outlets are owned by corporate conglomerates whose
priority is profit. This makes it so integral journalism is no longer center focus but rather the
companies profit. In a democratic society, journalism is incredibly important as it informs the
public on the candidates and policies that they could vote for, and when this access is controlled,
the public can no longer have a fair chance to have their views represented in their selected
candidate. Therefore, American citizens have a responsibility to fact check what they are
consuming as well as view things with a critical eye.

12th Grade Humanities

Animas High School
4 April 2022

1
2
 Part I - Introduction

If you are consuming news, there is a 90% chance that the source you are using is owned

by one of six major corporate conglomerates. According to a 2012 article posted by Business

Insider, these conglomerates include Comcast, Walt Disney, Time Warner, AT&T, ViacomCBS,

and News Corp. This is a massive increase from earlier days of journalism where in 1983 90% of

all media in the United States was owned by 50 companies. The media that comes out of major

news outlets is funded primarily by major corporations which means that the content holds a bias

towards the company of ownership which poses a threat to democracy.

The drive for money and power in our society has created discrepancies in our

democracy. This power is often manifested by unethically influencing the public agenda. A

prime example of this is the corporate infiltration of news media. They have been allowed to set

these agendas in multiple ways, the primary way being through funding think tanks and research

institutes and media conglomeration and ownership. The money from wealthy individuals and

organizations is what keeps the news afloat, so there is a covert agreement to downplay criticism

of capitalism and corporate interest. Instead of pushing Americans to think critically about the

systems we have in place and the detrimental effects they have, our vitriolic reflexes are fueled

by artificial displays of political discourse. Filling mainstream media with staged content makes

good television which in turn creates profit for the corporate conglomerates funding it. To

maximize profit, the news media uses propaganda and overdramatic reporting which takes away

from the serious and critical sentiments that need to be seen in news. Many can recognize that

partisan media holds a bias towards whichever side it is aligned with, but there is little consensus

that there is a bias towards corporations as well as promoting a chauvinistic and procapitalist

view of the United States on both sides.

3
 Part II - Historical Context

Journalism in the United States in the sixties and seventies was perceived to be

dominated by democrats and leftward thinkers. The location of major news networks that were

primarily located in larger cities like New York and Los Angeles tended to be more left leaning.

Another factor that contributed to the leftist slant in news was simply those who decided to get

involved in journalism. In a journal titled “How Fox News changed American Media and

Political Dynamics” Bruce Bartlett explained the reasoning for this phenomenon explaining that

more left leaning people were gravitating towards careers in journalism whereas right leaning

people were tending more towards careers in law enforcement, military, and business. (Bartlett 2)

Despite the dominance of democratic views during this time, there were conservative

voices that felt like their perspectives were being under represented. There were efforts made

towards creating more conservative media as a counter to the liberal dominance, however the

resources did not fully exist to enable the success of this. Cable television was far from in its

prime and resources like the internet did not exist. There were some outlets for differing opinions

like radio and magazines, but they did not have the same ability to access people all over the

country.

Equal representation of viewpoints was only made possible by the “Fairness Doctrine”

which was put in place in 1949 by the United States Federal Communications Commission

(FCC). This regulation required broadcasters utilizing public radio and television airwaves to

present controversial issues in a way that adequately represented a variety of different public

opinions. This was to ensure equal political representation that allowed for a wide view of claims

to be promoted. Because it was a condition of using public airways, the fairness doctrine did not

4
apply to print newspapers; the dominant news source for the majority of the time it was in effect.

Bartlett describes the effects of the fairness doctrine. “This [the fairness doctrine] tended to

eliminate expression of any opinions at all unless they were so close to the conventional wisdom

it was difficult to take issue with them.” (Bartlett 3) In alignment with free market principles and

under pressure from the Regan administration, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine in 1987.

This allowed for radio and television, which were quickly becoming the main forms of media, to

promote news with whatever slant they wanted.

The abolishment of the fairness doctrine was part of a nationwide effort by conservatives

and big business to shift the media tone further to the right. To combat the democratic

dominance, conservative journalists would often invoke claims of unintegral journalism by using

the phrase “liberal media bias”. Liberal media bias is claimed as a way to distract from one's own

bias by bringing in excessive attacks on the integrity of the opposing side. In the book The

Republican Noise Machine David Brock, a former conservative journalist turned democratic

author, explains that in his time writing for a conservative publication, he was trained to use the

phrase liberal media bias as a way to, “deflect attention from [his] own bias and journalistic

lapses and as a rational to justify [his] presence in the mainstream media conversation in the

name of providing ‘balance’ or ‘the other side'”. (Brock 8) By using this attack on the opposite

side, conservatives were able to disacknowledge their own biases which manipulated consumers

into believing that they held no bias, therefore accomplishing the goal of shifting the political

zeitgeist to the right.

Among those critical of the “liberal media bias” was former president Richard Nixon. In

his early presidential campaign, journalists wrote that he appeared “shifty” and would not appeal

to the public enough to win the campaign. To combat this criticism, he hired a team of people to

5
“market” himself to the public. Among the members on this team was Roger Ailes, who would

later work as a media consultant for Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and Rudy Guliani,

as well as go on to found Fox News. As a master marketer, Ailes was able to make Nixon appear

charismatic, therefore appealing to the American voters. One of the goals of the Nixon campaign

was to discredit the dissenting media that made him appear in a negative light. Nixon’s Vice

President Spiro Agnew suggested a more radical approach after a speech by Nixon and he was

criticized harshly in the media. David Brock dissected this stating;

“The networks, Agnew suggested, should not air vigorous criticism of government

policy, show unflattering images of the police, or be entrusted to cover the news as they

saw fit. The network newsmen were reflecting not objective reality in their reportage, but

rather, their own distorted views, be they pro-Communist or anti-police. Yet Angnew

argued not for neutrality but for the idea that the news should reflect the opinions and

tastes of the majority of the public, a profoundly unjournalistic sentiment.” (Brock 26)

The drive from Nixon to discredit left-wing criticism of the right was an idea that would force

the evolution of journalism.

Along with Nixon and Agnew, there was fear brewing within right-wing politicians and

companies that conservative enterprises were being threatened by the democratic press.

Republican politicians began to collaborate with corporations to create a movement that would

echo conservative sentiments and express the necessity for a rightward shift. There was a push

for near Orwellian rhetoric to be propagated to benefit neoconservatism. (Brock)

Neoconservatism, which emphasizes free market capitalism as well as intervention-based foreign

policy, began to dominate among the members of this movement. It should be noted that

neoconservatism is also referred to as neoliberalism on a global scale.

6
 A major advocate for neoconservatism was Lewis Powell, a former United States

supreme court justice. In a now infamous 1971 memo, Powell expressed feelings of attack on the

American free market system and felt the attack was coming from colleges, the church, and most

notably, the media. His goal was to devise a strategy that would shift the political zeitgeist to the

right and align more with neoconservative ideology. As a wealthy corporate lawyer at the time of

the memo, Powell held self interest in the task of shifting public view as well as had the

resources to do so. (Brock) The neoconservative viewpoints that Powell held were echoed by

many people on the right, particularly ones with corporate interests. In the memo, Powell

detailed a plan that would prove to be successful in shifting media agendas to align with

neoconservative view points. David Brock defined this in The Republican Noise Machine:

Powell then laid out the strategy that the right would follow in the coming decades,

whereby conservative business interests would create and under write a ‘movement’ to

front its agenda in the media. Under Powell’s plan, heavily subsidized ‘scholars, writers

and thinkers’ speaking for ‘the movement’ would press for balance and equal time to

penetrate the media, thereby shaping news coverage, reframing issues, influencing the

views of political elites, and changing mass public opinion. (Brock 40)

The Powell memo influenced the infiltration of neoconservative viewpoints into

mainstream media. The basic definition of a think tank is a group of experts that brainstorm

advice and ideas to solve political and economic issues. In a 2015 article entitled What are Think

Tanks Good For published by the United Nations University Center for Policy Research, think

tanks are defined as such. “At their best, think tanks possess the ability to capture the political

7
imagination by brokering ideas, stimulating public debate, and offering creative yet practical

solutions to tackle the world’s most pressing problems.” (United) Think tanks are the fuel behind

the content that is promoted in mainstream news media. They are often privately funded entities

that are also not for-profit. Majority of think tanks are not directly proffitting, but many are still

accomplishing pushing an agenda that allows for them to profit. Think tanks were originally

intended to serve as organizations to inform the public, but they have become marketing

strategists serving in the interest of the companies that they are funded by. They often fall under

the label of activism groups and advocate for a specific cause. Think tanks with both leftist and

conservative ideology exist and advocate for a wide range of topics. There is nothing inherently

wrong with having an activism group for a cause, but when money is involved, many of these

groups will present ulterior motives. They become power hungry and will use their resources to

set a public agenda that supports themselves, not the public.

Part III - Research and Analysis

Corporations Have the Power to Influence News

The rise of think tanks allowed for companies to hold more direct power to influence

agendas. The think tanks with the most power ended up being the ones that represented

neoconservative ideology because they received the most funding from wealthy, procapitalist

entities. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) there is a disproportionate

amount of neoconservative think tanks being cited in the media. FAIR explained that the

Heritage Foundation -- a conservative think tank that originated in the time of the Powell memo

-- was cited 1,813 times in the media in 1997. This trumps the top progressive think tanks by a

long shot. The Urban Institute, the top progressive think tank in the US was cited only a mere

8
610 times. The over usage of neoconservative based think tanks is beneficial to a capitalistically

controlled media system. In What are Think Tanks Good for? published by the United Nations

Center for Policy Research the potential problems with think tanks are explained:

There is a flip-side to the inherent unpredictability of the policy process, which is that

good ideas do not always win out. Unfortunately, there have been instances when

ideologically driven think tanks supported misguided ideas that shaped how governments

understood the world, assessed their options, and acted to great detriment. (What)

The negative influence that think tanks can have can be observed when the news media is not

presenting an ideology that aligns with the public rather one that aligns with their own agenda.

With the amount of money that is dispensed into think tanks, the companies funding them

want the information they come out with to reflect their agendas. David Brock explains how

think tanks funded by corporations drive the research that is done. Brock references Nixon's

Treasury Secretary William E. Simon’s book A Time For Truth where he explains that business is

the driver behind all major movements. Brock describes how this was enabled by think tanks

funding research institutes:

“In addition to underwriting the think tanks, conservative foundations and corporations

have poured millions directly into the academy, chartering conservative research centers

to advance policy objectives in foreign policy, economics, and the law. In this way, the

right has been able to establish strategic beachheads at a host of elite universities, [...]

gaining credibility for ideas that might not otherwise pass muster through the traditional

means of judging scholarly merit, rather than promoting those ideas in the media.”

(Brock 57)

9
This demonstrates the reach that companies truly have in influencing the information that the

public consumes.

The power that think tanks have to influence the framing of issues is strong. In the issue

of climate change, a debate has developed where there is not room to debate. According to

NASA Climate Science, 99% of scientists agree that human induced climate change is

happening, however there is a distinct community of people that dispute this. Think tanks that

are funded by oil and gas companies--a field where it is financially beneficial to deny climate

change--will work to push the argument that climate change is not happening because of humans.

Brock articulated this by explaining that William Simon suggested frankly that through the

power of think tanks, they could buy the debate. This started the funding of research to deny the

existence of climate change. This is a direct example of think tanks exerting their power to

influence public opinion for capital gain.

The capitalist reach goes further than just infiltrating the content promoted; news outlets

are companies themselves. There are six main companies that own the majority of all news

outlets in the US: Comcast, Walt Disney, Time Warner, AT&T, ViacomCBS, and News Corp.

The problem with this consolidation is the lack of diversity in viewpoint. Although different

news outlets within the conglomerates could be promoting somewhat different viewpoints, the

overall ownership will ultimately lead to the promotion of the same agenda. Media

conglomeration has become possible by the Federal Communications Commission’s loosening of

regulations for media ownership. According to an article published in the New York Times in

2003, the regulations were there to, “enhance competition, foster independence and provide the

public with a wider variety of views and perspectives across the media landscape.” (Herbert) The

FCC was enticed to loosen regulations in an unethical manner by corporations who indirectly

10
bribed FCC members with trips. Opinion columnist Bob Herbert explains that in the previous

eight years, there were over 2,500 trips taken by FCC members and commissioners that cost

roughly 2.8 million dollars. The funding for these trips was primarily from massive media

commissioners in an attempt to bribe the FCC; and it worked. The timeline of these flight

records aligns conveniently with some major loosening of regulations for news ownership and

allows for further monopolizing of outlets. The current FCC Media Ownership Rules explained

the policies that are upheld around media conglomeration:

​In December 2017, the commission opened a rulemaking proceeding seeking comments

about whether it should modify or repeal the two rules. If the FCC retains the UHF

(Ultra-High Frequency) discount, evenifit maintains the 39% cap, a single entity could

potentially reach 78% of U.S. television households through its ownership of broadcast

television stations. (FCC 2)

The ownership of media by conglomerates has become a subtle form of censorship where

the ideology promoted in all the media portrayed has overlapping interests. This interest,

regardless if it is reflecting more left or right ideology, is ultimately the promotion of capitalism

and the perpetuation of the systems that allow for large corporations to benefit. One of the issues

with promoting an overtly laissez faire agenda in news is that it is ultimately not what reflects the

views of the people. The views of the American public are much more fiscally liberal than one

might expect. In a study titled “The Implications of Capitalism in Media”, AJ Maguson describes

the views of the public being more liberal than that reflected in the media or by politicians. He

cites Justin Lewis’s Constructing Public Opinion echoing:

11
 Lewis shows that when asked about increased spending, 60% support it for inner cities,

75% for the environment, 75% for health care, 78% for minimum wage, and 75% for

education. He also shows us that 80% support more restrictions on gun control and 80%

support campaign finance reform. (Magnuson 9)

These are ideas that reflect a much more fiscally liberal public than is represented. It should also

be noted that these statistics were taken in 2001 and could have changed since then. In order to

combat the desire for these policies to pass, the public is essentially gaslit into believing that we

are not as leftist as we really are. Corporations twist this narrative in the media and make us

believe that politicians reflect what we desire when they really do not. In the Clinton

administration, many people believed that he was far more fiscally liberal when in reality, he was

very moderate. This is problematic because people are being misled not only by news outlets, but

by the very people that they elected in to represent their viewpoints.

In addition to the covert ways that corporations profit from media, they more obviously

use the information of certain demographics to advertise. Majority of people are aware of this

tactic and buy into it. Advertisers associate themselves with media that they feel reflects their

views as well as will appeal to the demographic that consumes the particular type of news.

Advertisers will pay companies to have on-air time to entice the viewers to buy their products.

This is symbiotic for the media companies and the advertisers because the advertisers will get

more business and the media companies will profit from requiring the advertisers to pay for a

time slot. There is nothing inherently wrong with this process, but it is just one more way that

companies are able to profit from news.

How has journalism adjusted to corporate influence?

12
 Profitable news media is accomplished by siloing media into partisan entities. It is

unrealistic to expect all media to completely lack a bias because everyone holds a natural bias,

however major media outlets often tend to be aggressively left or right wing. For example, two

of the most popular news outlets are Fox News, owned by News Corp, and CNN, owned by

AT&T, are incredibly partisan. Fox News is right wing and CNN is left wing. Companies are

able to exploit this extreme partisanship in news by scapegoating the opposite side. In the book

Hate Inc. author and journalist Matt Taibi explores how journalism in news media has shifted to

align with corporate interest. He describes the phenomenon of extreme partisanship as “the MMA

effect” where television programs as well as modern media are a staged debate between a liberal

and a conservative representative. In reference to a debate show aired on CNN, Taibi explains the

divide of the left and right on TV. “Crossfire solidified the idea that politics is a fight, and that

Democrats and Republicans must never come to an agreement about things, but must debate to

the end in a sports-like forum.” (Taibi 43) Hosting these debates gives the public the impression

that they are consuming news ethically, by consuming information that represents both sides of

the political spectrum, but these programs are really just a superficial display to distract us from

viewing news with a critical eye. When we are bombarded with this type of media, we are made

to be angered by the opposite side and it fuels our vitriolic need for drama. When we continue to

tune in and consume this content, the companies benefit by receiving good ratings and therefore

indirectly profiting from us.

Binary political ideology has become dominant because most of us are deeply ingrained

in either the left or right and there is no cohesion of the two. News has undergone a major shift in

the past 50 years from one that used to value fairness and accuracy to one that now values

entertainment. In Hate Inc., Taibi describes the state that people are in to consume news. “To

13
make money, we’ve had to train the audience to consume news in a certain way. We [the news

media] need you to be anxious, angered, and addicted to conflict.” (Taibi) By conditioning the

audience to react this way, these emotions make them vulnerable to being spoon fed information

and immediately agree with their prospective side. By focusing on the entertainment value of

news, outlets are able to give people an addiction to news and keep them tuning in day after day.

The monopolization of news media has prioritized profit and focused on the amenities that

accomplish this.

The addiction to news has been accomplished by psychological manipulation through

propaganda. Propaganda is defined as buzzwords, phrases, or imagery that is meant to resonate

with the public and influence opinions. Successful propaganda elicits some type of emotion,

whether it be anger, fear, or victory. Propaganda has infiltrated partisan news to set agendas and

make unsubstantiated arguments seem like there's legitimacy to them. It is important to note that

all propaganda is not inherently bad, and can be used to market benign subjects. However when

it is used to influence public opinion, it becomes problematic. In an article titled EM 2: What Is

Propaganda? by Ralph D. Casey, published by the American Historical Association, the author

explains how a self-interested propaganda would use nationalism to set an agenda:

The self-interested propagandist will study public opinion to find out what things people

are “for” or “against” in order to decide on the labels that he will use to bring about

desired reactions. He knows that such words as “justice,” “Constitution,” “Americanism,”

and “law and order,” which arouse favorable attitudes, will serve as a favorable

background for his message, and so he uses them. (Casey)

This type of self interested propaganda can be seen in news media as the outlets will try to push

messaging that is in favor of their ideology.

14
 The propagandist spin that is utilized in major news outlets is not obvious, but rather a

subtle reframing of content to guide the public away from dissenting information. In the book

Manufacturing Consent, authors Noam Chomsky and Edwrd Herman describe how a profit

driven media sacrifices the integrity of journalism by using the shift in angle or controlling what

is mainstream news and what is not. They investigate this idea by utilizing the concept of

“worthy and unworthy victims.” They explain this in the terms of nationalism, but the same

phenomenon can be observed in pro-capitalist media. To define a worthy victim, they used an

example of a preist that was murdered by Soviets because it fueled the anti-communist narrative.

This worthy victim would then be subject to overwhelming media coverage to pull attention

away from the atrocities of the unworthy victim. They used and example of civillians murdered

in the Vietnam War by American entities as unworthy victims. The nature of this crime provides

dissent to the United States so it will not receive the same coverage. The same activity occurs

within a privately funded, pro-capitalist news company. In a summary of the book

Manufacturing Consent, the writer describes how news companies are able to get away with this:

“The authors [Chomsky and Herman] concede that, within very limited boundaries, some

elements of the media—some reporters, some organizations—are allowed to disagree

with the established agenda, but that narrow margin of opposition only creates the

appearance of diversity and is not enough to truly challenge the party line.” (Super 4)

The continuous onslaught on the opposing side started the us versus them narrative that is

overtly present in the media today. The concept of us versus them leads people to believe that the

opposing side of their belief system is always to blame for the problem; a phenomenon that takes

away criticism from the systems of oppression that enable extreme capitalism. Companies

15
benefit from the increasing divide between the left and the right. If a story cannot blame the

opposing side, it won't be in the press. Taibi critiques this idea, listing the bipartisan problems in

our government. “The bloated military budget? Mass surveillance? American support for

dictatorial regimes [...] We just don't do these stories. At least, we don't do them anywhere near

in proportion to their social impact.” (Taibi 50) The current news cycle takes away the

requirement for consumers to think critically about who is to blame for issues. People want an

easy story; something with a clear victim and perpetrator and that can easily be found with

republicans and democrats. This absolves the blame of corporations or issues that can't be diluted

to one side or the other.

Privately owned news organizations are companies that’s ultimate responsibility is profit,

but there is a conflict of interest when there is a simultaneous public responsibility. To achieve

good ratings, news companies utilize strategies that entertain audiences rather than to engage in

critical analysis of current issues. Matt Taibi refers to the state of journalism, specifically around

governmental elections as a “beauty contest”. Coverage has shifted to be superficial and

concerned with the likeability of a candidate instead of their merit or policies. This was a system

that gave free press--whether it be negative or positive--to candidates. This phenomenon can be

observed during the 2016 election. Former president Donald Trump was somewhat of an

outrageous candidate which put him in the spotlight throughout his campaign. Taibi illustrates

how the current news media scope allowed for Trump to get excessive coverage. “Every

narrative involving Trump is perfect: easy enough for the most uneducated audiences to digest

[...] and pre-packaged in crude binary format.” (Taibi 49) The media, no matter which side, got a

story out of him. On the left, there was critique of his absurdity and on the right there was parise

for his authenticity. Taibi delineated the connection between the journalistic model that allowed

16
for his success and the success of news organizations. “Few seemed troubled by the symbiosis

between Trump’s bottom feeding, scandal-a-minute act and the massive boom in profits suddenly

animating our once dying industry.” Through this type of coverage, news companies are

succeeding in their agenda of profiting from content, while the American public is being fed

information that takes away from the critical analysis of Trump’s politics. What comes from this

type of political coverage is an oversimplification of issues and makes things very black and

white. Complexity is lost which makes public perception of issues inaccurate. This is an

unobvious form of censorship that most people will not recognize as such.

An additional factor in the inaccuracy of news is the blur between opinion writing and

feature writing. Opinion is personal takes with an informed stance on a topic whereas feature

writing delivers the facts. These two things have become in many circumstances indiscernible

which manipulates people into thinking one's personal opinion is fact. In many online news sites,

there is not a clear label defining what is opinion and what is fact. This issue becomes more

nuanced when editorial pieces are involved. Although produced by the editing staff of the news

outlet, editorial work still falls under the guise of opinion work. In most cases, the clarification

between opinion and fact is minimal. It relies on the reader to interpret the writing which cannot

be expected. In a 2020 article about opinion versus news wering, author Eliana Miller quotes an

expert writing, “‘In our dream world, opinion content all begins with the word ‘opinion,’ a colon

and then the headline, just to make it absolutely clear,’ said Joy Mayer, founder and director of

Trusting News, a nonprofit helping newsrooms earn trust and credibility. ‘It’s the only clear word

to use.’” (Miller) To ensure that news holds minimal bias, it is vital that there is a clear

discernment of different styles of stories.

17
To ensure that news holds minimal bias, it is vital that there is a clear discernment of different

styles of stories.

How does this threaten democracy?

Monopolized media ownership has allowed for corporate conglomerates to influence the

agendas that are pushed in major news outlets. Massive amounts of private funding has allotted

them the resources to effectively use propaganda to set the public agenda. This poses a threat to

democracy because it covertly censors the information we are exposed to. It is framed in a way

that leads us to believe that we have choice and can understand multiple perspectives, however,

by exposing us to privately owned media, we become complicit to their agendas. News outlets

owned by one of the six major news monopolies naturally hold a neoconservative bias in the way

that it propagates us to direct our criticism to our opposing side instead of the institutions

upholding such systems. In addition to the covert censorship that can be observed in

monopolized ownership, news media outlets have a responsibility to profit and serve the

company before they are obligated to integral news.

One of the key values that upholds a democracy is access to information. Vicki C.

Jackson explains this pillar of democracy in Pillars of Democracy: Law, Representation, and

Knowledge published by Harvard Law School.

Knowledge institutions—universities (including law schools), a free press, and public and

private offices devoted to gathering and disseminating data—are a third pillar of

constitutional democracy. Self-governance requires informed voters, whose opinions rest

on shared knowledge. (Jackson)

18
When the news media we have access to is so monopolized in its ownership, the diversity of

viewpoints that is vital to democracy disappears. Privately owned news companies which are

dominant in the United States, set a neoconservative agenda that is pushed through the means of

the news media. The manipulation tactics used by major news pushes us all to unconsciously

align with these ideals.

Massive amounts of political turmoil has been caused by the vitriolic drama that is

presented in mainstream news. We are trained to blame the opposite side for issues when in

reality it is often a bipartisan issue or one concerning big business. By focusing our attention on

the other side, we become distracted and unable to call out the problems that are apparent

through all sectors of the political spectrum. This makes us unable to develop educated opinions

about issues and therefore influences our voting activity, proving the weaknesses in our

democracy.

Part IV - Discussion and Conclusion

As capitalism has evolved to become more prevalent in our society, privatized news

media has become an outlet to push an agenda to the American public. The implications of

capitalism on journalism have been detrimental. Monopolized media ownership allows for the

same agenda to be pushed through a variety of different news outlets which gives us the

impression that we are consuming a diverse array of information when we are really consuming

the same just under a different station name. The corporations that own news media outlets have

the initial responsibility to profit while simultaneously having a responsibility to integral

journalism. This causes a conflict where the priority of the people does not come first and

corporations will be protected from criticism at all costs. Scapegoating the opposite side in all

19
issues absolves the criticism from big business and puts it back on the people. This prohibits us

from being able to adequately inform ourselves which threatens the integrity of our democracy.

In terms of moving forward from this dire state of journalism, we must begin to prioritize

the production of publicly funded media organizations that do not hold a bias towards a company

of ownership. Only when the ownership is shifted from corporations to the public can the

obligation of integrity be reinstated to the content that we consume. It is vital to our democracy

that we redirect a portion of taxpayer money to publicly funded news so the agendas portrayed

alling in the interest of the public, not for profit. In terms of resources for existing public news,

there is National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service which provide outlets for news

media that are not biased towards corporations.

The loosening of regulations for corporate ownership of media has played a massive role

in enabling media consolidation. To combat this, there must be a smaller cap on the amount of

media one corporation can own. According to current FCC regulations, one corporation can own

up to 39% of media that reaches American televisions. This is almost half of the medida that one

might consume and it will all hold an inherent bias towards neoconservativism even if there is

variety in the content. One conglomerate should not be able to own more than 10% of media so

that the six major corporations of media ownership would be broken up into at least ten different

entities. The result of this would be a more diverse selection of news media that does not

necessarily push the same agenda. Having diversity in news content allows for the public to

make an informed opinion that is not influenced by big business therefore allowing us to critique

the institution which in turn would strengthen our democracy.

Even with these additional regulations, media conglomerates will still exist. To ensure

that there is no strong bias in news, there needs to be a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine,

20
but with revisions. It is important that issues are being examined with multiple perspectives to

ensure that there is no inherent bias. In addition to the existing conditions of the Fairness

Doctrine, it is vital that there is regulation to validate facts and ensure that personal bias is kept

out of media that is promoted as fact. A clear discernment of opinion and fact is important for

news outlets to advertise so that the consumer understands what content holds a bias. Free speech

is important to democracy, so regulating messaging must be done lightly, but a laissez-faire

approach will not allow for ethical, integral journalistic practice.

Although the problems are perpetuated by corporations, there is still a personal

responsibility for the news consumer to think critically about the content that they are consuming

and not take everything at face value. Trusting publicly funded news outlets and using that

information as a baseline will help individuals to develop opinions. It is also vital to understand

that polarization is preconditioned by news outlets and that your opposing political party is not

always to blame, and focuses criticism at the institutions that do this.

Journalism is facing a time where profit is prioritized over the protection of the people

which is profoundly counter-productive to a democratic society. The involvement of capitalism

in news media has been enabled and has become deeply ingrained in our societal norms. We

have gotten to a point in human history where money dominates everything, so we must push for

regulation and not allow for capitalism to control the agendas we assume.

21
 Works Cited

Brock, David. The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How It Corrupts

Democracy. Three Rivers Press, 2005.

“EM 2: What Is Propaganda? (1944): AHA.” EM 2: What Is Propaganda? (1944) | AHA,

www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-ser

ies/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944).

FAIR, fair.org/.

“Federal Communications Commission (FCC).” Dictionary of Marketing Communications,

doi:10.4135/9781452229669.n1276.

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the

Mass Media. Vintage Digital, 2010.

Lutz, Ashley. “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.” Business Insider,

Business Insider, 14 June 2012,

www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-

Miller, Eliana, et al. “Opinion, News or Editorial? Readers Often Can't Tell the Difference.”

Poynter, 14 July 2020,

www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/opinion-news-or-editorial-readers-often-cant-tell-

the-difference/.

“Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming.” NASA, NASA, 18 Jan. 2022,

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

TAIBBI, MATT. HATE, INC.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another. OR BOOKS

LLC, 2021.

22
Theaals. “Pillars of Democracy: Law, Representation, and Knowledge.” Annual Meeting,

am.aals.org/past/am20/theme/.

Unucpr. “What Are Think Tanks Good for?” United Nations University Centre for Policy

Research, cpr.unu.edu/publications/articles/what-are-think-tanks-good-for.html.

23