The Power of the Media Tycoon - Essay Example

The Power of the Media Tycoon When Gutenberg invented the movable type printing system, the power of the press began to have a great impact on the future of mankind. The 19th and 20th centuries saw the rise and fall of media tycoons, mostly in the newspaper business, with political agendas and a hunger for power. The extent of their reach into the molding of society and the shaping of men's minds has been a center of debate for decades. At the beginning of the 21st century, media ownership and control had become even more concentrated and the potential for power was even more magnified. Today, the power of the media and the few people that control it, have been compared to world leaders in their ability to sway opinion and effect change. How does this power compare to the power of a US President While the media tycoons have the legal limitations of any business owner that answers to stockholders and a board of directors, they have the power to move public opinion, initiate social change, and influence foreign policy to an extent greater than any elected public official. In the United States almost all the information available comes from a media outlet. Academic research is generally reserved for the small circle of specialists that have a position that offers them an interest and gives them exposure to the topic. These articles will occasionally get anecdotally quoted by the media, but the reports can be used for the outlet's own self-serving agenda. Selected quotes taken out of context can mislead the viewers in an attempt to sway public opinion. These opinion-centric newscasts exert enormous control over what people think and how they think about it. The ability to slant the news is even more significant in light of the increasing concentration of media ownership. The period of 1984 - 1999 saw the number of major owners go from 50 to 15 (Hasen 1626). The reduced number of outlets translates to an increased numbers of viewers and more influence. Media owners such as Rupert Murdoch can stack the editorial content of their programming by controlling the programming staff. They have control over the hiring and firing of key personnel. By filling these positions with people who are politically in line with the owner, networks can continually portray editorial content as news. Reporters and pundits can be richly rewarded by presenting material in line with the network's political views. They can also be summarily punished and fired for developing a politically unpopular story of a scandal or major corruption. The network owner leverages these strengths to highlight or diminish a story's importance in the viewer's mind. The president is unable to cap a story or keep facts out of the viewer's homes. The recent events surrounding the investigation into the firings of the US Attorneys is evidence of the president's lack of ability to control the news. It is solely in the hands of the network and the network leadership. When comparing a media tycoon's power in regards to public opinion to a president, it is helpful to consider the information disseminated during a national presidential election. Presidents and candidates are limited to advertising and 'free' news spots. They are limited in the amount of time and coverage they can get. News conferences can help a president get exposure for a program or to promote a political stance, but television news can paint the portrayal with an opinionated slant. The news is not simply responding to a market and giving viewers 'what they want'; they are actively promoting a social agenda. During a recent national election, coverage varied widely from Fox to NBC to CBS. They varied in the amount of coverage on issues such as race and gender and according to Larson, "...although network news shows generally compete for the same audience, have the same operating procedures, and have similarly trained workers, their stories differed" (23). News presentation has the ability to focus attention on a given event and make the event important in the mind of the viewer. In the world of network news, the leadership of the news outlet sets the political or social tone that the news takes on. Since his beginnings in broadcasting, Rupert Murdoch has been characterized as, "highly partisan and belligerent in British national elections of the 1970s and 1980s; and Murdoch was no less partisan in city, state and national elections in the US" (Palmer 118). His FOX News Channel (FNC) has long been recognized as a conservative voice and its programming reflects these political values. The days of impartial journalism have reverted to the previous eras of yellow journalism and FOX has made no apologies for taking that approach. Bae reports that, "With regard to the political tone of news reporting, the industry speculated that FNC's reports would have a conservative slant on the news because of the political personalities of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes" (64). Though they may not control the micromanagement of the content, the leadership of the outlet has vast influence on the tone of the finished product. Political influence has certainly been a motivation for owning a news outlet as has been demonstrated by Murdoch and CNN founder Ted Turner. Hasen argues the there is evidence indicating that media owners are "influence maximizers" who could use their position, or more importantly political endorsements, to gain access to elected officials and make a direct case for their position on an issue (Hasen 1640). A political endorsement on a popular conservative news channel may have more influence than a president's power to coerce congressmen on any given issue. While recent months have shown steady erosion of the conservative base of George Bush, FOX News remains the number 1 cable news channel. If people are voting with their remote controls, they are voting decidedly conservative even though FOX has not been able to rescue the current administration. The effect that the media has on the cultural values of Americans can be seen by examining the public's changing views on race and racism. Does the media simply report the state of race in America or can it lead to a fundamental change in attitudes The public has historically cycled between progressive social attitudes and conservative individualism. Kellstedt hypothesized that, "when media coverage demonstrates the inconsistency between America's egalitarian beliefs and their treatment of blacks, it should pull the public toward more liberal views on race policy" (qtd. in Gross 597). Kellstedt's research spanned five decades and concluded that when more socially progressive viewpoints were presented by the media, the public formed significantly more socially liberal views on race policy. (Gross.598). The public's social and political viewpoints are heavily influenced by the presentation of the issue and the political light it is shown in. Media tycoons can also influence the portrayal of events that are outside the borders of the United States. The historical events that took place in Tiananmen Square and at the Berlin Wall were shown almost non-stop on the major news channels. The effect of these broadcasts caused officials and researchers to question how much effect were these outlets having on the formation of foreign policy. Robinson called the phenomena the 'CNN Effect' after the cable network of Ted Turner. It describes how real time communications can motivate public pressure to elicit a response and action to an international event by government officials and political leaders (Robinson 301). This effect is especially marked in the early phases of a crisis when the media pressure forces politicians and leaders to react. Robinson notes that "...when policy is unclear or ill defined the media can indeed have some influence on policy; on the other hand, the media effect on policy decreases as the clarity of strategic interest increases" (305). The ability for Turner or Murdoch to shape public opinion forces immediate and direct pressure upon the government that even the President can not exert. Media giants also have the ability to promote large-scale social and philanthropic programs that the president may be unable or unwilling to accomplish. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, has contributed $1 billion dollars to the United Nation Foundation. The United Nations Foundation, "...supports projects primarily in the fields of environment, children's health, women and population, and peace, security and human rights" (Utting 3). This has established a quasi-governmental program that also is influenced by the donor. As Nelson and Zadek report, "Traditional power hierarchies are being replaced by a more complex, multi-relational balance of power, where citizens and companies are playing an active role in shaping socioeconomic change and addressing problems that were previously the sole responsibility of government" (7). These efforts by media tycoons have an effect that is more direct and lasting than any effort a president could mount. Media mogul Oprah Winfrey has attacked social problems head on in a fashion that no president could take. She is one of television's most popular talk show hosts and head of Harpo productions. In 1992 amid the race riots in Los Angeles surrounding the Rodney King case, Oprah Winfrey devoted several episodes to the issue of race. She says, "We decided to devote one show a month to try and evoke some kind of change in the way people think about the color of each other's skin in this country" (Peck 113, 114). Winfrey has the resources and the airtime available to try to effect social change. Critics, such as Robert Miles in the book Racism, have contended that the time and resources would be better spent on solving the underlying economic and political problems than trying to change minds (cited in Peck 120). Still, Oprah's influence to open the door for political change should not be underestimated. While Oprah uses the airwaves to sway public opinion on issues such as race, she has also weighed in on the value of political endorsements. She recently endorsed Senator Barak Obama for the Democratic nominee for president. Obama was subsequently able to raise unprecedented levels of campaign donations. The president's appearance at a fund-raiser can also raise large amounts of money, but there is a critical difference. The president attracts a few donors willing to give large amounts of money for the opportunity to be seen with the president, while a media owner can mobilize large numbers of people to donate small amounts. This was the phenomena that Oprah was able to influence for the benefit of Obama. The combination of an endorsement and fundraising can give a media owner almost unlimited access to the political process. The minority media in America has also been politically active through the large media outlets such as Univision. Primarily aimed at the Latino community, it has been an instrument to promote immigrant awareness in an attempt to influence public policy. Recently, Hispanic media was able to unite the immigrant and Latino community in protests and economic boycotts in regards to US immigration policy. Greg Barrios, former editor at Rumbo newspapers portrayed the solidarity and wrote, "On May 1 we are all immigrants. And with one united voice, and one united race, we have the power to change the world for the advancement of all people" (qtd. in Shore 8). No other entity inside or outside the government has the ability to mobilize emotions and people to the extent that the controlling interests of Hispanic media can. Critics will contend that the media simply reports the events and issues that the public wants to see. There may be some truth in this as Popkin reports, "Television stations cover officials in proportion to the local interest in politics and hard news. Across markets, the more people who subscribe to Time, the more local TV carries stories about elected officials. Conversely, the more subscriptions to People, the fewer of those TV stories there will be" (331,332). Generally speaking, news outlets are the most persuasive medium due to the public's perceived level of credibility. However, the ability to sway public opinion or mobilize the public to action often takes place in formats that are informational though not news. Political discourse is engaged in "...the new genres of programs-including tabloid shows like Hard Copy or Inside Edition and entertainment shows like Entertainment Tonight..." (Popkin 328). The viewpoints of the network leadership begin to filter into the non-news format and may have an even greater effect on a public that is not aware of the political bias in the content. The effect of impacting public opinion is even more pronounced in non-news venues. When a person is watching a drama or a sit-com, there may be an agenda in the theme of the show. It may be less obvious than in a news show, but will have an impact on the viewer. The viewer will not be able to discern the political message since it is presented in a non-news format. People are less guarded and more open to new ideas and concepts. The president does not have the benefit of promoting his or her political views in this format. They are restricted to a formal and official presentation that becomes a part of the message. In conclusion, it can be said that media tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch exert more political influence than the president. In addition, media tycoons have the ability to advocate social change through financing as well as broadcasting. They can finance programs that may be politically untenable or impractical. The media can make a fundamental change in the political attitudes and social perceptions on issues such as race and gender. No other entity in America, including the president, has any greater access to the American mind than the few leaders of the media conglomerates. They dictate the editorial content by away of their hiring practices and this infuses their political viewpoint into shows as widely diverse as news, informational, and comedy. Works Cited Bae, Hyuhn S. "Product Differentiation in National TV Newscasts." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media (2000): 62-77. EBSCO. 24 Apr. 2007. Gross, Kimberly. "The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes." Rev. of The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes, by Paul M. Kellstedt. Perspectives on Politics 2.3 (2004): 597. EBSCO. 24 Apr. 2007. Hasen, Richard L. "Campaign Finance Laws and the Rupert Murdoch Problem." Texas Law Review 77.7 (1999): 1626-65. JSTOR. 24 Apr. 2007 Larson, Stephanie G. "Network Differences in Public Opinion Coverage During the 1996 Presidential Election." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44.1 (2000): 16-26. EBSCO. 24 Apr. 2007. Nelson, Jane, and Simon Zadek. Partnership Alchemy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Centre, 2000. Palmer, Michael. Media Moguls. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1991 Peck, Janice. "Talk about Racism: Framing a Popular Discourse of Race on Oprah Winfrey." Cultural Critique 27 (1994): 89-126. JSTOR. 24 Apr. 2007. Popkin, Samuel L. "Changing Media, Changing Politics." Perspectives on Politics 4.2 (2006): 327-41. EBSCO. 24 Apr. 2007. Robinson, Piers. "The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy" Review of International Studies 25 (1999): 301-09. EBSCO. 24 Apr. 2007. Shore, Elena. "What is the Role of Hispanic Media in Immigrant Activism." Social Policy (2006): 8-9. EBSCO. 20 Apr. 2007. Utting, Peter. "UN-Business Partnerships: Whose Agenda Counts." Seminar on Partnerships for Development or Privatization of the Multilateral System. North-South Coalition, Oslo, Norway. 8 Dec. 2000. Read More