Okay, Media Monopoly. What do you think?

[Mycroft]

Don't let me dominate the conversation, I'm only on chapter 5.

 

[CBL4]

I think I am on Chapter five as well.

I think Bagdikian is a poor author with a poor editor. Instead of writing a new book, he keeps peddling the same one through seven editions which leads to some confusion about when "now" is. I forget the details but he talks about something 20 years ago but it occurred in the 60s.

He likes to throw out unsupported arguments and fails to stick to his main thesis which might actually be interesting. He cannot keep to the same topic for even whole chapter - e.g. his chapter entitled the internet contains a long rant against changes in copyright protection and Mickey Mouse. (I agree with him that Mickey Mouse should not be copyrighted forever but what does that have to do with the internet?)

CBL

 

[BPSCG]

I'm going to be late to this party, gentlemen - have to get to the library first.

 

[crimresearch]

I think I am on Chapter five as well.

I think Bagdikian is a poor author with a poor editor. Instead of writing a new book, he keeps peddling the same one through seven editions which leads to some confusion about when "now" is. I forget the details but he talks about something 20 years ago but it occurred in the 60s.

He likes to throw out unsupported arguments and fails to stick to his main thesis which might actually be interesting. He cannot keep to the same topic for even whole chapter - e.g. his chapter entitled the internet contains a long rant against changes in copyright protection and Mickey Mouse. (I agree with him that Mickey Mouse should not be copyrighted forever but what does that have to do with the internet?)

CBL

So are you saying that editorial gaffes in a 7th edition (and how many books get 'peddled' when nobody wants them?) mean that there is no Media Monopoly? Hearst never existed? Sony doesn't control what gets covered in the news?

Those are the ideas that Bagdikian is positing...why the side issues?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Those are the ideas that Bagdikian is positing...why the side issues?

Well, he clubs you over the head with there being only 5 major corporations that combined own the majority of the media, but he's weak on making a case for this being such a bad thing. Further, you get the idea that what he really hates is large corporations, and is only talking about these corporations as a way to narrow the focus.

The chapter on the internet is lame. He can't make a case that it's monopolized by anyone or controlled by big bad corporations, so he just makes a laundry list of gripes. You can get a virus, you get a lot of spam, you can get hacked, and oh by the way, minorities and poor people don't have the same access as us affluent white people do.

He seems to be making the argument that:

People with money are conservative.

The media is owned by people with money.

Therefore the media is conservative.

Only he never gets around to demonstrating this conservative bias except by bashing Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

Yet. I’m only halfway into it.

 

[Kaylee]

I put the book on hold with the library but they inadvertently gave me the 6th instead of the 7th edition. {sigh}. However per CBL4's post, it looks like there may not have been so many changes so I'll risk commenting anyway. In ed. 6, chapt 2 (Public Information as a By-Product) the author gave a few examples of the bad side effects of media monopolies which included:

* In 1973 Sarnoff, chief of all book publishing at Warner Communications chewed out Claude McCaleb the publisher of a subsidiary, Warner Modular Publications, for publishing Counter-Revolutionary Violence. Sarnoff ordered the printer not to release a single copy and the book was not distributed. The 10,000 books that had already been printed were destroyed. Apparently the book was too left wing for the parent company's tastes.

* In 1982 Walter Cronkite and Ed Asner (The Lou Grant Show) had their popular shows canceled after they each made public speeches criticizing aspects of American foreign policy at the time.

* In 1982 the Wall Street Journal fired Earl Golz a reporter (13 years experience) for the Dallas Morning News and his editor, Wayne Epperson, was forced to resign. Earl Golz had reported that a major Dallas bank was in danger of failing and in fact it did fail. But not before the bank complained to the WSJ.

* In 1982 Zilg wrote a book about the DuPonts and their company called DuPont:Behind the Nylon Curtain It was published by Prentice Hall, had good reviews by the New York Times and quickly sold its first printing of 10,000 books. Prentice Hall signed an agreement with Time Inc. to have the book made a selection of the Fortune Book Club (administered by the Book-of-the-Month club). DuPont complained. The contract was canceled and Prentice Hall stopped promoting the book. The author sued both Prentice Hall and DuPont for conspiracy to suppress his book. 4 years later he won his suit against Prentice Hall but not DuPont.

The assumption, presumably, is that none of these things would have occurred if there weren't mega-media parent companies involved.

(I'm in chapter 8.)

 

[CBL4]

I read a few more chapters and it actually is getting better, not good but better. Each time I read a chapter, I feel like I skimmed a entire book. But they at least seem a little more focused.

I think I also misunderstood the point of the book. The part of the media becoming "monopolized" is just one of the parts of the book. The book seems as if it is meant to be an complete overview of the media in the US current and past.

This means that it gives just a cursory glance at everything. If you agree with his ideas and have knowledge about it, this may be fine. If you disagree, he does not present enough information to convince you. Perhaps it could be useful as a source of ideas to explore but it not a useful exploration on its own - so far at least.

I wish I could respond to Shera but I have not read anything about the issues she mentioned.

CBL

 

[Skeptic]

The weak connection here, it seems to me, is that there is an assumption that if there is ECONOMIC uniformity in who owns the media, then there will be a UNIFORMITY OF OPINION. This might very well be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. But more to the point, the internet might not be without its problems, but surely this means that if there is a media monopoly, it is only of a far smaller field than before.

 

[rikzilla]

I've been trying to read this friggin book for 2 weeks! I guess my adult-ADD is kicking in pretty heavy since I also am on chapter 5 and seem very stuck there. The book has an enteresting premise that I am inclined to agree with, but it's so damned boring that it's painful to read!

I'll soldier on tho.....

-z

 

[crimresearch]

I think that one misconception might revolve around the idea that the if the media shows a liberal bias at one point, and a conervative bias elsewhere, that they are not biased.

As a mega-coporation, their bias is profits, and their manipulations are going to favor themselves..not one political party, or one side of a war. And it is a useful and profitable distraction to let people focus on apparent partisanship.

As far as the Internet goes, I am unconvinced that it will remain immune to being absorbed by the for-profit industry in the very ner future.

 

[Kaylee]

I wish I could respond to Shera but I have not read anything about the issues she mentioned.

Hmm, then I guess the author did some serious revisions for the 7trh edition... It's a shame that these examples did not survive. as I thought they were among the more memorable parts of the first 8 chapters of the 6th edition.

 

[Kaylee]

As far as the Internet goes, I am unconvinced that it will remain immune to being absorbed by the for-profit industry in the very ner future.

While I was waiting to meet with someone last winter, I saw an obscure newspaper in their office's waiting room and perused it. One of the articles talked about how Google had won a contract to build a search engine in Chinese from the mainland government. If I remember correctly, the article complained that Google (in order to get the contract) completely sold out and agreed to have their search engine not show certain types of stories and web sites in their search results. The newspaper's review of this almost reminded me of the scene in Orwell's book 1984 where the main character spends his work day going back and eliminating certain people from the newspaper archives and books at Big Brother's request (because these people as a result of certain memos had never existed.)

I wish I could remember the name of the paper. But my point is, that presumably if the search engines available on the internet become fewer in number, that type of problem could even become an issue in democracies. Large corporations would literally have the power to control what could be recalled from the past.

But how do you envision that the internet could change in the near future?

 

[Drooper]

* In 1982 the Wall Street Journal fired Earl Golz a reporter (13 years experience) for the Dallas Morning News and his editor, Wayne Epperson, was forced to resign. Earl Golz had reported that a major Dallas bank was in danger of failing and in fact it did fail. But not before the bank complained to the WSJ.

FYI, this is a sackable offence and not a politically tainted action.

A reputable journalist could cause the collapse of even the most financially sound bank by simply suggesting that it might be in difficulty.

 

[Zep]

FYI, this is a sackable offence and not a politically tainted action.

A reputable journalist could cause the collapse of even the most financially sound bank by simply suggesting that it might be in difficulty.

So if an institution holding many millions of dollars of people's money IS in dire financial difficulty and about to lose the lot, no-one's legally allowed say anything about it?

Isn't that legalised cover-up?

 

[Rob Lister]

So if an institution holding many millions of dollars of people's money IS in dire financial difficulty and about to lose the lot, no-one's legally allowed say anything about it?

Isn't that legalised cover-up?

Legally allowed? You're misreading. (I should refrain from posting in this thread since I'm not reading the book but I wanted to point this out).

If the bank in question can prove that the WSJ article misrepresented the bank in a manner that harmed the bank, then the WSJ can be held libel for the damages. Considering that the business in question is a bank, it could sink the WSJ itself.

 

[Kaylee]

Here is what the author had to say, word for word on page 37 in the 6th edition of the book:

In August 1982, for example, the Wall Street Journal, reported that Earl Golz, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, was fired, although he had worked as a reporter for thirteen years, and his editor, Wayne Epperson, was forced to resign because of a story Golz wrote that offended a major Dallas bank, the Abilene National Bank. Golz's story reported that the bank had loan problems so serious that it was in danger of failing, as another large bank, Penn Square National, had done a few days earlier. The Abilene National Bank chairman reacted with rage and the paper got rid of the reporter and editor. Less than two weeks later the Golz story was confirmed when the bank failed and federal examiners found that the bank had loan losses far beyond its assets. The bank chairman who had denied it all was fired. But the reporter and editor was not rehired. No reporter or editor on that paper -- and perhaps on other papers as well-- will have to be told for a long time what the boss expects. There will be no need for memorandums or spoken words. Subordinates, to be safe, may go even further in self-censorship than the boss requires. But no official intervention will show.

Emphasis added.

One correction of my earlier post: The WSJ was not the owner of the Dallas newspaper -- they reported the story. I will definitely have to stop posting late at night. I checked the rest of my earlier post and AFAIK it's correct.

Drooper -- frankly I don't understand your comment. If the reporter was the sort that would just print anything for a story, than he wouldn't have been reputable. If his story was wrong than all the bank had to do was refer to the pertinent lines in their publicly available financial statements and also point to their quality ratings by the various financial companies that do that sort of thing. And as Rob Lister pointed out, then sue the newspaper for libel. They didn't do any of those things and in fact were in dire financial straits because of their poor decisions.

My understanding is that newspapers often pride themselves as being the guardians of democracy's freedoms and as bearers of shining light on where problems exist. In America most bank accounts are insured by the government agency the FDIC, to the first $100,000 per depositor per bank. There were many bank scandals in the 1980s and the taxpayer ended up footing the bill. Because whenever the government is the insurer it is actually the taxpayer who is paying for it all. I wish there had been more Earl Golz's and earlier in the game, not fewer.*

So, as I said before, I really don't understand Drooper's comment. And how far does this go? If reporters should not report about valid financial problems than should companies like Standard & Poor and Moody's stop rating company's stocks and bonds?

*Note: In the 1980s, Savings and Loans were insured by another government agency called the FSLIC. Details about the bank scandals of the 1980s can also be found by searching under "bank scandals 1980s" or "savings and loans 1980s" in the search engines.

Edited to correct page number.

 

[Mycroft]

In August 1982, for example, the Wall Street Journal, reported that Earl Golz, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, was fired, although he had worked as a reporter for thirteen years, and his editor, Wayne Epperson, was forced to resign because of a story Golz wrote that offended a major Dallas bank, the Abilene National Bank.

Two things come to mind:

First, as others have pointed out, a story like this could cause the collapse of a bank. This could be seen as the journalistic equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I don’t know if this is illegal, but there may well be laws on the books from the great depression when many banks collapsed due to panics created by rumor.

Second, this incident doesn’t really support the premise of the book, which is that nationally there is a problem with corporate ownership of media. Any local business can be influenced by another large local business, but a local independent newspaper is more likely to cave under pressure from a large local business than a local newspaper backed by the deep pockets of a national corporation.

Less than two weeks later the Golz story was confirmed when the bank failed and federal examiners found that the bank had loan losses far beyond its assets. The bank chairman who had denied it all was fired. But the reporter and editor was not rehired.

Again, the reporter may have contributed to the collapse.

No reporter or editor on that paper -- and perhaps on other papers as well-- will have to be told for a long time what the boss expects. There will be no need for memorandums or spoken words. Subordinates, to be safe, may go even further in self-censorship than the boss requires. But no official intervention will show.

Does this make sense? How often do reporters get the opportunity to report on a bank failing? Isn’t this conjecture without substance?

 

[Drooper]

So if an institution holding many millions of dollars of people's money IS in dire financial difficulty and about to lose the lot, no-one's legally allowed say anything about it?

Isn't that legalised cover-up?

You need to be extremely careful.

You're an Aussie of, let's say, a certain maturity. You must remember the bits that hit the fan when John Laws made this very mistake

 

[Drooper]

Here is what the author had to say, word for word on page 37 in the 6th edition of the book:

Emphasis added.

One correction of my earlier post: The WSJ was not the owner of the Dallas newspaper -- they reported the story. I will definitely have to stop posting late at night. I checked the rest of my earlier post and AFAIK it's correct.

Drooper -- frankly I don't understand your comment. If the reporter was the sort that would just print anything for a story, than he wouldn't have been reputable. If his story was wrong than all the bank had to do was refer to the pertinent lines in their publicly available financial statements and also point to their quality ratings by the various financial companies that do that sort of thing. And as Rob Lister pointed out, then sue the newspaper for libel. They didn't do any of those things and in fact were in dire financial straits because of their poor decisions.

My understanding is that newspapers often pride themselves as being the guardians of democracy's freedoms and as bearers of shining light on where problems exist. In America most bank accounts are insured by the government agency the FDIC, to the first $100,000 per depositor per bank. There were many bank scandals in the 1980s and the taxpayer ended up footing the bill. Because whenever the government is the insurer it is actually the taxpayer who is paying for it all. I wish there had been more Earl Golz's and earlier in the game, not fewer.*

So, as I said before, I really don't understand Drooper's comment. And how far does this go? If reporters should not report about valid financial problems than should companies like Standard & Poor and Moody's stop rating company's stocks and bonds?

*Note: In the 1980s, Savings and Loans were insured by another government agency called the FSLIC. Details about the bank scandals of the 1980s can also be found by searching under "bank scandals 1980s" or "savings and loans 1980s" in the search engines.

Edited to correct page number.

eporters need to be very careful with this sort of thing. Sometimes it is not in the interests of those who have the financial exposure to the bank (i.e. the depositers) to just go public with this sort of info. Best go to the Federal Reserve in this instance.

If you say a bank is about to fail and people believe you (it doesn't matter what the bank might say or do), they will run on their deposits. Once a large proportion of depositers demand their savings back at the same time any bank will fail.

You have do deal with the specifics in this particular case. But I would say that it is probably a weak piece of evidence for any media conspiracy theory because the bank could well have have cause to object to a reporter hastening or maybe causing its decline (to the cost of depositers).

 

[Kaylee]

I thought about what both of you, Mycroft and Drooper, had to say on whether the reporter should have written his article about Abilene National Bank.

The first thing that came to mind is that I realized that I probably assumed that as a reputable reporter, he based his information on solid evidence such as financial statements, audit findings, and financial ratings. After rereading your posts, I think your assumptions (Mycroft and Drooper) were that that he based his article on rumor? Well we can't really know what the reporter did, unless perhaps his original article says what precisely his information was and what/who his sources were. I'm not sure any of the New York City libraries would have a 20+ year old Dallas newspaper article on one of their microfiches and regrettably I don't have a free half day or so to find out.

However, my understanding is that banking is not rocket science. It’s a field that has been around for centuries and it's basically understood what the differences are between prudent and risky banking practices. I personally believe in financial transparency and fiduciary responsibility. Banks are highly regulated institutions that are entrusted with other people's money and my understanding is that it's required that their financial statements be audited and publicly available. Many other businesses rate banks and as someone who is in the process of switching banks, I personally appreciate that this information is available. Newspapers claim that it's their responsibility to keep the public informed. It’s just an additional minor step to write about publicly available financial statements and bank ratings.
Bottom line: depositor funds are not a form of corporate welfare. I strongly believe that depositors are entitled to information about the institutions safeguarding their savings.

If newspaper articles on this subject should not be available to the public, than should financial statements and bank ratings no longer be publicly available also? I just can't agree with any of that.

The Abilene National Bank had loan losses far beyond their assets. This problem simply could not have developed over night or in two weeks. Most likely this problem developed over years and for this problem to occur a lot of people had to drop the ball, including bank officers, the board of directors and most likely the CPA firm doing the auditing as well.

As far as bank panics during the 1930s depression goes I think you'll find this article interesting:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n1/deplesson.pdf

"Runs on Banks and the Lessons of the Great Depression"

But new research suggests that the standard interpre-
tation of banking collapse and government intervention
during the Depression needs fundamental revision in
four respects. First, recent research suggests that the
banking crises of the 1930s for the most part were not the
result of depositor confusion and information externali-
ties but rather resulted from observable bank weakness.
Second, new research also suggests that withdrawals of
bank deposits often targeted observably weak banks and
operated as an effective means of depositor discipline.
Third, the conventional view that private coalitions were
unwilling or unable to act effectively to insulate solvent
banks from the threat of unwarranted runs has also been
qualified by evidence of successful collective action in the
most famous case of an identifiable panic--the run on
Chicago banks in June 1932.

Lastly I don't interpret the author as saying that there is an intentional media conspiracy. Merely that media monopolies have bad side effects.

In the 6th edition he talks about the effect of media being supported by advertisers instead of the readers, listeners and/or viewers. He showed examples that backed up his conclusion that this led to the dumbing down of radio shows (this was the media that showed the effect of advertisers the most), the entrenchment of large manufacturers in our economy, and the overpricing of consumer goods. He said that the media claims that readers/viewers/listeners benefit by getting free (broadcast TV and radio) or sharply subsidized newspapers but in fact they end up by paying for their information in increased consumer goods. And because the media is supported primarily by advertisers and not the end consumers, the advertisers' concerns and not the end-consumers' concerns are the media's primary concerns.

Does he talk about this in the 7th edition? If not and if there is interest, I will explain more about what he had to say about the dumbing down of the radio shows as advertisers got more involved in the medium -- I found that particularly interesting.