Can Publishers and Media Owners Change?
Turning The Ship Around
My father served in the U.S. Navy in the 1930s and 40s. I remember one particular story he told me about the different types of ships he served on during those years before, during, and after World War II. He said the largest aircraft carriers took the longest time to change course in the ocean. That was because of both the size and shape of the aircraft carrier compared with other Navy ships of that time.
I often think of that story when I consider how long it will take to change the distrust the public has for journalism. Why is that? I think one reason is how ownership of newspapers, television stations, and networks has changed in the last few decades.
Changing Course
I hope you’ll agree that journalism needs to change course. The purpose of this Real Journalism newsletter is to help that happen. I’ve shared a lot in previous newsletters about what journalists can do to help change the course of journalism, but we need to address what may be the biggest challenge — who owns and controls the news media.
I personally knew most of the owners of the radio and television stations where I worked in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Many of them had offices in the same building, and talking with them was as simple as walking down the hall and knocking on their office door.
Some of them owned multiple stations and lived in a different location, but I would see them often enough to talk about the direction of our news coverage. Because we had a personal relationship, I could pick up the phone and call them about issues impacting news coverage.
However, my experience was different when I wrote for two major metropolitan newspapers and two wire services, and reported for several radio and TV networks. I talked with editors and producers, but not to owners or top-level managers. I had no personal relationship with the owners. That meant that I had no input to the course the newspapers, wire services, or networks were taking journalistically. I was a small part in a big machine. My job was to report stories — nothing else.
That’s how many journalists feel today. Even many news managers no longer have a personal relationship with publishers or media owners. Why? Because much of the news media is now owned by a small number of corporations and billionaires. Many of the stations I worked for years ago are now part of large corporations that own scores, even hundreds of broadcast stations and newspapers. Mergers and media buys have put more and more control of local station and newspapers into the hands of fewer people.
Here are some names you may recognize. These companies and billionaires control much of the news published and broadcast today.
National Amusements
Disney
Comcast
AT&T
Paramount Global
News Corp
Sony
Jeff Bezos (Washington Post, Amazon)
Michael Bloomberg (Bloomberg TV, Bloomberg.com)
While there are more than 170 media companies operating in the U.S., just six control more than 90% of the media. That’s a lot of power in the hands of a small number of people. Is that a good thing?
I don’t think it is a good thing. Big is not always better. Media companies that once had budgets in the millions of dollars now have budgets in the billions. That’s because of all the mergers during the last 40+ years. You may find a graphic published ten years ago interesting as we think about this subject. It’s from BusinessInsider.com. The graphic probably needs to be updated because of more media mergers since 2012, but the point remains true. The number of dominant media companies went from 50 in 1983 to six by 2011. The graphic title is also insightful — Media Consolidation: The Illusion of Choice.
Media consolidation has big benefits for owners and shareholders. Sharing billions of dollars among fewer companies means each company makes more money. It also makes it more difficult for smaller, independent media groups to stay in business. Many sell to the larger media groups, which makes those groups even bigger.
Heeding An Important Warning
I remember watching President Eisenhower’s farewell address on television in 1961. He warned about “unwarranted influence” and the “disastrous rise of misplaced power” of the military-industrial complex. Keep in mind that Eisenhower was a five-star general before becoming president. Here’s what Eisenhower recommended to the American public —
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
How do citizens stay knowledgeable and alert? Through a free, open, and honest press. What happens if the press is not free? What happens if a small group of super-sized corporations control what’s news and how it’s reported? A free society can go sideways quickly. We need journalists to be free to do their jobs as their jobs were meant to be done — gathering, confirming, and reporting the truth about every story — unencumbered by “unwarranted influence” and “misplaced power.”
Big Question — Big Answer?
Can we have true choice in news coverage when just a handful of companies own 90% of the media? What can journalists and news consumers do when so much power is controlled by so few? That’s a big question that needs a big answer. It’s similar to David vs Goliath — the little guy against the giant.
Most professional journalists earn their paycheck by working for media companies. The same is true for news managers. Depending on the size of the company, journalists may have to go through a lengthy process to get a hearing about making changes in news coverage. That’s not easy to do as a journalist until you get into upper management (if you can get there).
Some journalists earn their living now through alternative media outlets (like Substack). Others have joined with like-minded journalists to form small media companies. Neither has the reach or power of the giant media corporations, but it’s one way to make a difference — even if the difference is small at first.
I think news consumers may have more influence on big media companies than the journalists who work for them. News consumers who want change and don’t get it can vote with their hands and feet — they can change where they consume their news and from whom. The number of people dissatisfied with news coverage may move the needle toward a more truthful and objective media — over time.
Another way that news consumers have some influence is with publicly-traded media companies. Check your stock portfolio to see if you are a stockholder of a big media company. If you are, that means you have a voice and a vote in what a company does. The more of their stock you own, the more influence you have. Even a small voice may be better than no voice.
News consumers can also have a voice with media companies by contacting those companies directly. You can send your thoughts to most of the networks and newspapers via email, feedback form, or letter. You can also send emails to the anchors, hosts, and journalists you watch or hear, and to the writers of articles you read. If your comments are going to be mostly negative, try to begin the email or letter with something you find positive about the journalist and/or their coverage. That may give you a better hearing with journalists, managers, or owners.
Just like turning a big ship in a big body of water, a course change will take time and effort. Can publishers and media owners change? Yes, they “can.” It is a physical possibility. Will they change? That’s the real question before us — their will to change. I hope they will.
International Media Concerns
I’ve focused this newsletter on news media concerns in the United States, but we have journalists from many countries reading these newsletters so I want to mention some of the challenges they are having.
A large number are facing some of the same challenges as U.S. journalists. Many media companies have merged and consolidated in different countries, leaving citizens with fewer choices for accurate news. Mergers often lead to near-monopolies. Government-owned and operated media have their own special challenges for journalists. Changes in government leadership often means change in how news is covered in the country. That’s a different kind of news monopoly.
I give similar advice to journalists and news consumers in other countries to what you’ve read previously, “if” there is some agreement about freedom of the press. Journalists and news consumers in countries without that freedom will find it more difficult to effect a course change in news coverage. I admire those journalists who risk their lives to report news accurately in countries where the government opposes free speech and a free press.
Next Newsletter
Since we’re coming down to the wire for voters in the United States, I’m going to share some ideas about how journalists can get to the truth when political candidates make their campaign promises to voters. That’s next Tuesday when we’ll be just five weeks away from the general election.
Comments Welcome
I hope the thoughts shared here are helpful to you as a journalist or news consumer. Please share your comments and I’ll respond as quickly as I can. If you like what we’re doing in this newsletter, please let your friends know about it so they can subscribe.
Newsletter Purpose
The purpose of this newsletter is to help journalists understand how to do real journalism and the public know how they can find news they can trust on a daily basis. It’s a simple purpose, but complicated to accomplish. I’ll do my best to make it as clear as I can in future newsletters.
