An international affairs magazine from the next generation of policy makers

Why?   •   Contribute   •   Contact   •   Subscribe   •   Archive

The American Example

One can hardly fail to notice the ease of communication in modern society. Our computers are more and more interconnected through the Internet, our mobile phones can link to the web and to each other, and finally we can watch any programme from any country via satellite television as long as our service provider distributes it. It is this final element on which this article will focus.

The wires and airwaves that carry information belong to private companies whose only priorities are to continue their existence and make a profit. To do this they need the backing of a political entity (China and the Google corporation, for example), without which the corporation cannot even exist. Media corporations and political offices thus go hand in hand, having similar interests. Politicians in democracies want to be re-elected; corporations want to do business. This interconnection is hardly new; but what we may observe in present-day America is the modern economic version of this.

So, who is this whole economy serving, really? Who is profiting from the limiting of our information? And who uses this, to make what kind of choices? Are there any links between the politicians and the media industries? Even if there are not, what are their common goals? As the saying goes, you will find the culprit by finding who profits from the crime. This is what we seek here. First, we have to observe the evolutions of the public relations industry in politics. Can we really know who, and what, we are voting for if media and politics work together?

In the eighties, during the Reagan years, the political machinery of the Republican Party took over aspects of the news industry. There was a great communication effort made at that time, partly to make way for foreign policy towards Central America (the quote "containing Nicaraguan aggressiveness" comes from these policies, for example). Journalism itself was being squeezed under a new ideology which appeared during the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, spreading the ideals of a boundless capitalism that would regulate itself. We already know the implications these policies had, whether on the lower classes of developed countries or as they were applied as part of a global strategy.

Northern England still remembers these days, when the coal mining industry was shut down, when Liverpool dockers rioted, and the unions were made powerless. As for Northern America, the ideology of being as profitable as possible was making its way into country clubs throughout the nation, translating into events such as the closing of General Motors plants in Michigan, the city of Flint especially, an otherwise profitable plant. Unfortunately not profitable enough, however, compared to poorer countries’ minimum wages schemes which were available. Applying this idea of profit, and translating the goods of private ownership into an industry such as journalism, can undermine democracy, as a citizen would not get the information to be able to take an informed choice in the country's political life if the media owner's first interest was to do otherwise: the unaware customers would end up giving their voice to whoever was presented as the most reliable.

The whole industrialization of modern societies rendered efficiency as the number one goal. Politics suffered in the same way. What has happened since the eighties is exactly this: politics seems no longer to be carrying an idea of society, but rather ensuring that individuals get re-elected.

As a result, a new type of advisor has spawned in the recent administrations in charge at the White House, and has flourished within the current Presidency[1]. The power exerted by Washington over the world is now unbalanced, and unquestionable since the 1989 collapse of the Berlin wall which preceded the disintegration of the whole Soviet empire. Since then, plenty of room has been left for officials to imagine and build their designs in the pursuit of the victorious ideology. Hence the expansion of the public relations industry more than eleven fold since the 1980s[2].

The doctrine that goes along with the G. W. Bush administration is the one which had been expressed by the Project for the New American Century in their 1997 statement of principles[3]. We can attribute it to Mr Bush as well, even if he did not personally endorse any of their articles, because we can find in the signatories many of the people that have – or had - a great influence in his administration: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney (Vice President), Paul Wolfowitz (now Chairman of the World Bank), even George Bush's own brother, the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. These people believe in the United States as a beacon for the world, a model we should all emulate, because it is the superior way. They also make clear that whoever serves their interests best is on their side; whoever does not is an enemy.

This might explain why former "friends" have suddenly become unduly dictators.  The most well known by now is Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam was useful as an anticommunist leader at the time of the Afghanistan invasion by the U.S.S.R. who would provide a platform for pro-US sentiment in the region. He was still an ally to the United States during the Iran-Iraq war, and a blind eye was turned to his policy towards the Kurds, as the US administration did not want to offend the leader of a country promising huge markets in terms of post war reconstruction[4]. Once the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, he was no longer useful and became a threat to the United States with respect to his oil and Kuwaiti policies. A story whose stamp can be clearly seen on the political events of today, the consequences and ramifications of these acts look set to continue to shake the global chess board for years to come. Condensing an explanation into only a few lines would oversimplify the problems involved,[5] but most of the major clues we can see in this conflict have a common bottom line: the economy.

The main problem here is the links between the current administration and the corporate world. Corporations are not bad per se, but when their ideals of globalised materialism shape a country’s policies, then they become a danger to the democratic process. Due to their influence on the stock markets of today, and the importance of market growth for the aforementioned companies, we can dread the social and even moral consequences of a country's policies led overwhelmingly by economic growth.

A controversy such as the Enron scandal demonstrates the adoption of economic blinkers which can occur. In this case, the scandal may implicate the most senior people in the White House’s entourage, including Dick Cheney and the President himself. These events occurred, ironically, at the same time as the President was talking about "restoring dignity to the White House”[6]. They are explored further here.

During the autumn of 2001, the Texas-based company Enron collapsed, leading to the unraveling of major accounting malpractice to the tune of millions of dollars. The bankruptcy of the company brought $310 million in compensation to the top executives, and $435 million in stock[7]. In brief, the bankruptcy of the firm brought wealth to the top executives, those in charge who made the collapse possible, whilst employees were left without even savings plans. These plans evaporated with the fall of the stock market: losses for the employees, let alone the common stock owners, totaled more than $1billion[8]. The scandal was played down, and drowned in the media amongst stories of the 9/11 attacks. In 2003, less than two dozen people were charged with confidence crimes; the Enron Chairman Ken Lay was not charged and passed away before being judged. His attorneys are now appealing for the charges to be dropped because of his demise. If that happens we will never know how deep in the political system the corruption charges could go. Who ever hears about this in the normal, accessible media?

One must ask if there is a link between the protection that these people have now, and the $6 million they gave to political parties during their campaign?[9] Is there a connection between this freedom and the fact that 212 out of 248 members of the House and Senate received campaign contributions from the firm?

The links of the current administration with the corporate world run deep. For example, George Bush Sr. serves on the board of directors of Carlyle[10], Dick Cheney has links with the board of directors of Halliburton, whilst Condoleeza Rice has connections with Chevron: she even has an oil-tanker running that bears her name. Are such corporate actors really in a position to run a country?[11]. Considering the strong links of this administration with major national corporations it is legitimate to suggest that their methods are the ones used in the above mentioned companies. This requires a robust public relations strategy to cover up these links to industry, and so hundreds of thousands of dollars are spend on well-trained PR agents.

The Bush administration has used a well-established tool of public relations, "the pre-packaged, ready-to-serve” news[12]. In an article titled "Propaganda Bush Style: A New Age Of Pre-packaged Television News", the New York Times reveals that a "handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government"[13]. Up to $254 million was spent on public relations contracts during the first term of the Bush presidency, close to double that of the Clinton administration[14]. The impact is even more significant when considering the manner in which television journalism is conducted. Networks - usually local TV - get video news releases from agencies, either the government or private corporations. The above mentioned article from the New York Times mentions a story about Medicare drug benefit payments. The journalist we see and hear in the clip, Ms. Karen Ryan, is uncritical of the bill: "all people with Medicare will be able to get coverage which will lower their prescription drug spending", she says. Even the line for the anchor to say just before broadcasting was scripted[15]. The law, at the time, was described as being "an expensive gift to the pharmaceutical industry". The segment was one sided, uncritical, yet succeeded in reaching an audience of millions [16]. At no point was there any mention of the source of the clip: the fact that the government produced it and began distribution to the country's news networks was totally unknown to a public which thought that the segment was actually a journalistic work. It was not. Even Ms. Ryan herself answered to the New York Times reporters when they asked her "if she would have broadcast one of her government reports if she were a local news director" with a conclusive "absolutely not".

We may believe that this one report was highlighted as unethical journalism if we prefer a point of view which minimizes the responsibility of the administration. But hundreds of such reports are broadcast every year on local news channels, though discussions about who produced the report do not attract the attention of the people that watch them. Consequently, they will continue unnoticed as it does not serve any business in the industry to uncover this truth. Such a system serves all the players in this industry; for those with political power, they transmit their message; for the news directors, it lowers costs (the reports being already produced and given free of charge), along with each business that benefits from the positive publicity.

Additionally, when fed with an "everything is alright" attitude, people are more likely to cast their votes for the incumbents. The Nation quotes in its May 9^th 2005[17] edition an anonymous Bush official saying "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times, or Washington Post, or the L.A. Times". Indeed, why would they bother?

With such an insight, we become aware of a change in the way we are being governed. Millions of dollars are spent to influence citizens in the same way tactical marketing schemes are aimed at consumers. The public relations industry has grown at an incredible pace since the eighties, and it seems now to be involved in every layer of society. PR men are the "scientific" salesmen. Considering this particular positioning of theirs, it is very interesting to see the means they are using, and to identify the people who are employing the PR men. Knowing this might assist in drawing up a cast list of those seeking to indoctrinate the public, and in turn make us aware of who is benefiting the current system.

"What differentiates poor people from rich people is lack of voice. The inability to be represented, the inability to convey to the people in authority what it is they think. The inability to have a searchlight put on the conditions of inequality. Free press is absolutely vital to that objective. Freedom of the press is not a luxury. It is not an extra. It is absolutely at the core of equitable development."

I quote here James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, as reported by Bill Kovach[18]. Mr Wolfensohn could not be more explicit. But the latest evolutions in the make-up of the board of the World Bank suggest that this approach could fade in the next few years. Now head of the World Bank is Paul Wolfowitz, one of the signatories of the infamous Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century, the neo conservative think tank that emerged in 1997 and proposes assumed world leadership for the United States. In his position at the World Bank, Wolfowitz, very much in President Bush's team, will seek to push forth their conservative agenda, and to promote US prominence in world affairs.

Conservatives have used the media a great deal, especially since the Reagan years, utilising the airwaves of network radios to express their ideas. The Clear Channel network is one of the gigantic radio media corporations dedicated to the publicity of conservative governments. It is Texas-based and has a long conservative history, having hired hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, an individual not known for his moderation[19].

To prove the network’s connections with the current government is not easy on a personal scale, but consideration of certain political decisions, which seem tailored for certain corporate needs, is striking. In 1996, a Republican Congress passed a landmark Telecommunication Act. Before the law, no one company in the United States owned more than 40 radio stations. Today, the deal is very different.  The largest radio network is Clear Channel, the free speech champions that banned more than a hundred songs from their play lists after September 11th and own more than 1200 radio stations[20]. Eric Sevareid commented on this fact in the light of his experience as a television journalist, saying "the bigger the information media, the less courage and freedom they allow"[21]. And because news media are being treated as normal capitalist businesses that need to please the stock market, such broadcasters would rather not take risky positions.

This Telecommunication Act of 1996 helped companies to merge, creating huge media corporations. Corporations are rarely repulsed by the idea of making as much profit as they can, and hence have to develop links with the world of politics to influence the decisions which might affect them. This complicity between politics and media is typified by Rupert Murdoch, the C.E.O. of News Corporation.

Rupert Murdoch was born an Australian[22], and built up an empire in the world of news. He is nowadays, according to Ted Turner, "the most dangerous man in the world" not only for his political access, but also for his power-hungry attitude towards business[23]. His company now owns television networks on five continents, reaching 130 million subscribers for his pay channels. Most of the British press (from the respected Times to the tabloid The Sun) is part of his empire, as is an increasing part of the American market where he began with the very right-wing tabloid the New York Post. News Corp. is present in 50 nations worldwide and represents 50,000 employees. In 2000 they made $1213million profit[24]. The properties of Mr Murdoch include hundreds of publications worldwide, a dozen TV channels, publishing companies such as Harper Collins, but also the Australian Rugby League, and the baseball club Los Angeles Dodgers.

In a word, Murdoch is at the head of the largest media corporation in the world. He is the number one purveyor of news globally, and the power this gives him is huge. He may decide what angle should be given to a story, how you are supposed to look at it, and he is in a position to connect an event with anything he pleases. As an example of such behaviour, in the early days of the 2003 Iraq War, Fox News Channel was showing in its news reports images of Jacques Chirac shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. These images were taken in the 1970s, and no mention was made of another video showing Donald Rumsfeld in the same position during the more recent Iran-Iraq war [25]. Nor did the network mention the occasion when Saddam was presented with a key of the city of Detroit[26]. In other words, there was an agenda behind the choice of these images.

And it worked rather well, especially as the story was then repeated on the other networks. Indeed, not only has Rupert Murdoch had a great political influence, but he also has a widening professional influence. During a press conference, the CEO of General Electrics, which owns MSNBC and NBC, 'admitted' that the Fox News Channel has better methods with which to function as a business and that others want to be "as interesting as you [Fox News Channel] guys are"[27]. Thus these methods will inspire MSNBC and NBC's newsrooms, and so his model may spread throughout the whole news business. One point which must be acknowledged is that Murdoch's business plan works well, through its use of marketing methods to sell news material, and that he appears to make fair profits from most of the media he oversees. If you add to this his deeply partisan coverage of politics, what you find is a highly successful company, since their lobbying ensures the support of the Administration in charge at Washington, D.C.

Calling Murdoch’s network partisan is not unfair, even if the motto of the Fox News Channel is "Fair & Balanced". A study made by the FAIR organisation over a period of 25 weeks showed that the Republicans were represented five times more than their opponents: 83% of the guests on the channel were Republican when 17% were Democrats. These figures make clear which side Fox is on.  Journalists sent to interview senior figures in the Bush administration, moreover, have been well-known for their close links with the Republican party.[28] In any other news organisation this would have been judged as implicating the interviewer to such an extent that she or he would be unsuitable to interview Bush and his advisors; but this is not deemed to be the case at Fox News Channel.

Here I offer only food for thought: there is always room for hope. A positive step has been taken in the USA lately with both the Senate and the House of Representatives changing sides. But will this really change anything of the current state of affairs? We must not be defeatist, as the way our society evolves on these issues is ultimately down to us through our choices as citizens and through our political involvement.

References

[3] check www.newamericancentury.org

[28] ibid.