A Profit-Oriented Media System

By Anonymous / Winter 2020

Todays media comes in many forms. From social media posts, television and internet ads, and up to the most official government broadcasts. Each source has its own bias, but we should not be dissuaded from their content because of this. Understanding and acknowledging media biases allows us to clearly see the narratives being pushed onto us, the effects and potential dangers these biases can create, the role of media in society, and understanding of different viewpoints never considered.

As we discuss the effects of modern-day media, it is important to shed light on the beginnings of mass media manipulation. This can be tracked to the 1930s by fascist leader Adolf Hitler and his use of propaganda. Almost all German society at the time was influenced by propaganda, this includes radio, news coverage, and films. The German people were flooded with targeted Nazi ideology in order to influence and mobilize the population to support its efforts. It is important we remember this use of propaganda because when we look to research on media bias this type of propaganda raised concerns that other countries populations could be brainwashed. Studies were conducted in order to test whether opinions could be changed by introducing different news sources. The findings turned out that people’s viewpoints and opinions were hardly changed. This is because people preferred to stick to media that reinforced their beliefs/existing biases.

We tend to stay away from sources of media that contradict with existing opinions because we are made to think, made to look deeper at an issue. With the advance of the internet we see more people personalizing their media experience. Social media is more tuned to your specific desires. If you don’t want something in your feed, you can filter it out. The news sources you choose are from sites that you like visiting. This segregation of information has caused some people to live in echo chambers. Meaning, people are consuming media and sharing ideas with others that share the same beliefs and have the same perspectives and are regurgitating those same beliefs and perspectives. Essentially reinforcing their existing beliefs. If we continue to live in this segregated way, we introduce dangers to our way of thinking that cause our society to collapse. This selective exposure to media leads to groups becoming more polarized to the point where you can’t stand or completely dismiss the other sides viewpoint. In an article written by Author Garrett titled “Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users” Garrett provides an example of groups sticking to their ideological circles. “For example, conservative Republicans are more likely to read a newspaper that endorsed Bush, to listen to conservative talk radio, to watch FOX News, and to use conservative political Internet sites than are liberal Democrats…. Bush detractors were significantly more likely to have seen Michael Moore's scathing critique of the Bush administration in the 2004 film Fahrenheit 911 than Bush supporters were.” When you selectively choose your sources of media you lose out on different viewpoints and experiences from different groups of people. If we share different experiences in our society, if we explore the biases that the other side perpetuates, we can come to a middle ground or an understanding that allows for a society to communicate within itself.

As we allow our perspectives to be widened, expose ourselves to biases, and consume different sources of media, it is important to understand that every source has its own hidden agenda, its own narrative that’s being pushed on to its consumer. Identifying these narratives allows people to form their own ideas and challenge the narratives being pushed. History allows us to point out key events when narratives were being used in a dangerous way.

Throughout the mid-1900s the tobacco industry had been using extremely deceptive practices in order to continue profiting off their deadly and addictive products. Their marketing campaigns attacked science and misinterpreted medical professionals in order to use their influence to promote their products. Ads were created with misrepresented phrases from doctors that gave the false impression that cigarettes were healthy. In an ad for Camel cigarettes from 1946, it claimed that “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” This phrase it turned out, was produced by sending doctors free packets of Camel cigarettes and surveying them on their preference. This example from history shows the dangers of allowing corporations to have unchecked control over the media they spread to consumers.

A major dilemma presents itself when you look deeper at our media system. Since the end of World War II our media system has collapsed into a near monopolistic structure. Independently owned media outlets have vanished and replaced by large media corporations with strategic partnerships between them. These few corporations influence the whole country with little to no competition and remain out of the spotlight by use of subsidiaries. The danger of this concentrated power comes from the fact that the few billionaires in control can dictate what narratives, content, and ideas can flow to the masses. If few individuals are given this power, they eventually allow their ideas and narratives to infect the democratic process and encroach on individual freedoms.

Under the first amendment of the United States Constitution individuals are given the right of freedom of speech, but what are the limitations of this? If our country’s media is ran by a small minority of wealthy billionaires how can others distribute disruptive views and ideas? Wealthy billionaires will block and suppress any idea that threatens their position, so an individual’s freedom of speech does not reach anyone. Would this still be called freedom of speech if your ideas do not have the platform to reach others? Your ideas can only have an impact if they are given an effective platform to be. With out this your words, your ideas have no worth. Members of our government have expressed concerned for this including Supreme Court justice William Brennan. In a collection of essays titled “Democracy and the Mass Media” Brennan in 1973 wrote “Freedom of speech does not exist in the abstract. On the contrary, the right to speak can flourish only if it is allowed to operate in an effective forum… we have consistently held that the First Amendment embodies, not only the abstract right to be free from censorship, but also the right of an individual to utilize an appropriate and effective medium for the expression of his views.” Although Brennan states that the first amendment covers an individual to utilize an effective medium, media corporations have consistently shown they have the power to suppress any idea not aligned with their own.

A conflict arises when you try to find solutions to corporations’ total control of media. Change usually occurs most effectively when it comes internally. In this case change would be most effective if editors, reporters, and journalists producing content for these giant media corporations recognize and remove bias from content. How can these editors, reporters, and journalists be ethical if their jobs are threatened when they are critical of the large corporations? If media sources are owned and controlled by large corporations how can they be critical of themselves? It is in the interest of corporations to suppress those critiques because it effects their profits. With this paradox media corporations are allowed unchecked power to be unethical and manipulate content.

History offers another example, coming from an executive from a tobacco company called Brown & Williamson. In an internal memo on the industry’s public perception they make the claim that, “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” This quote suggests that by introducing doubt to consumers, facts and scientific data can be overlooked allowing for a narrative that benefits the corporations to be pushed forward. In an article by Lisa A. Bero for the Public Health Chronicles, Lisa explains that “The tobacco industry has devoted enormous resources to attacking and refuting individual scientific studies. In addition, the industry has attempted to manipulate scientific methods and regulatory procedures to its benefit” Lisa gives us an insight on the manipulated narrative that the tobacco industry creates in order to continue making its profit. She continues later by saying “The tobacco industry has realized that the funding of research that supports its interests must be followed by the dissemination of this research in the scientific literature.” Not only were tobacco companies performing selective research that benefited them, they were also selectively dissemination information that reinforced their narrative.

What was the main force driving this narrative? This boils down to profits. The main concern for the tobacco industry was the fact that their product was killing people. Its difficult to continue to sell your product when that product kills your current customers and scares potential ones away. Although we are looking back at history, this example provides us with evidence on the lengths that corporations go in order to maximize profits. If you apply this to today’s corporations, you can only speculate what narratives are secretly being constructed in order to bring in profits.

If all media has its bias and their own narratives, what can you say is it’s intended purpose and what is its current purpose. Authors Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky provides us with their take on the current role of media in their book Manufacturing Consent, “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.” These authors contend that today’s media is nothing more than a propaganda platform for corporations to use to drive profits. If we examine our use of media today you can see the click bait, the constant ad popups, and the push towards entertainment. Every form of today’s media is trying to sell you something. Our media system has turned into a tool to connect corporations and consumers. News media has turned away from informing the public to entertaining the public. This has all been caused by the focus on bringing in profits.

If profits have been the focus of our media system who is benefiting from it? Fist we should ask: Who should our media system benefit? The country and its people should always be the focus of a large system like the mass media. If the public good is at focus, productive and innovative ideas will flourish. Different cultures and religions can come together. The atomization of people is discouraged, and interconnectedness is promoted. When you put profits above all else, media corporations can corrupt our democratic process by spreading disinformation. This may be in response to policies and legislation that negatively effect their profits. Leaders of these massive media corporations also have their own political and cultural ideologies. They can use their massive platforms to spread hate and propaganda. Media corporations that focus on profiteering remind us of the hegemony present. The monopolies that run our mass media benefit from exploiting and manipulating individuals for profit. They also allow the billionaires to create a divide between them and the masses. By creating hateful and polarizing content the elites in power atomize the public turning their attention away from their oppressors towards each other. This allows them to remain in control uncontested.

By focusing on maximizing profits our media system has turned into a business. If we look at the common goals of businesses from different industries, we see that profits are always put first, before anything else including ethics and public good. In the media, specifically the news media, ethics and the public good need to be a priority for biases and narratives to be minimized. If we continue to allow for our media system to be run like a business, we risk conforming to the biases and narratives that corporations want to push onto us.  

Although our media system displays manipulative and dangerous practices, we have the power to create a system that works for us and mitigate the influence of corporate power. By recognizing media biases, we avoid manipulation that leads to atomization. Understanding the role of media in our society reveals the hegemony that corporations create in order to consolidate power and spread their influence. Allowing differing viewpoints and ideas to flourish promotes interconnectedness and understanding of one another. With these perspectives our media system can be reclaimed from media monopolies and serve the public good.

Works Cited

Garrett, R. Kelly. “Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 14, no. 2, 2009, pp. 265–285., doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x.

Bero, Lisa A. “Tobacco industry manipulation of research.” Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) vol. 120,2 (2005): 200-8. doi:10.1177/003335490512000215

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 2002.

Lichtenberg, Judith, editor. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press, 1990.