October 1997
Prepared by the
Institute for Alternative Journalism
|
The Synergy Report - Overview
The news for the owners of our nation's media is not good. Public dissatisfaction with today's media has reached an all time high. A January, 1997, nationwide Roper survey on public attitudes toward the news media found that 88 percent of respondents said they believed corporate owners improperly influenced news reporting. Ninety percent said the same about advertisers. What follows in these pages is proof that the American public isn't paranoid, there actually is something wrong with today's media system. Crack open any dictionary, and you will find synergy defined as "the action of two or more entities to achieve an effect of which each is individually incapable." Browse your paper's business section and you will find frequent use of the term, generally used to describe the economic and cross-promotional opportunities of today's deregulated media system. From an investor's standpoint, synergy makes sense. It stands to boost earnings, raise stock prices, and effectively market a range of media products. But what's the impact of media "synergy" on the core business at hand--journalism? For the first time, examples of media synergy have been compiled in one place. This report documents the detrimental side of "synergy"-- one that prioritizes the bottom line over the top story. Of course, the existence of "synergy" in today's media marketplace does not signal the end of quality journalism. But it can, and does, spell trouble. This report includes only a fraction of documented cases where corporate intervention negatively impacted media content--many stories are still undocumented. Although it is difficult to quantify whether this trend is on the rise, the increasing concentration of the media into fewer and fewer hands suggests that the problem is becoming more severe, not better. The following report is divided into four sections: Censorship, Advertiser Influence, Cross-Promotion and the Synergy Hall of Shame.The report looks specifically at examples where corporate interests override journalistic integrity and the public's right to quality media. We have included situations where media conglomerates with multiple holdings cross-promote their products through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, etc.; where advertiser pressure influences media content; where editors and reporters are censored by corporate interests; and where profit margins are the sole factor in determining what gets published, broadcast, and publicized. In reaction to the Roper poll, Parade magazine solicited comments from news executives. "The media, which historically has served as a check on society, is now looked upon as part of the establishment," said Jonathan Klein, a CBS News vice president. Remarked ABC's Peter Jennings: "I feel, as any citizen, that more and more media in fewer hands, in the abstract, is reason to be concerned." This report aims to prove that there is nothing abstract about synergy. And as more and more media makers find their own hands tied, they come forth and take a stance. The goal of this report is to raise awareness that will help ensure that integrity in journalism prevails.
Findings
In conclusion, our findings show that:
Actions This report serves as a warning that America's access to information is under threat. As an outgrowth of this report, the Institute for Alternative Journalism is calling for:
I. Censorship 1. Hearing Steve Brill's Case Time Warner used its authority of ownership to interfere with the reporting of Steve Brill, founder of American Lawyer magazine, Court TV cable station and several smaller publications which were owned largely by Time Warner. On June 28, 1996, Richard Bressler, Time Warner's chief financial officer, phoned Brill and asked him to kill a story about William J. Baer, the new director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition. The story was scheduled to appear in Corporate Control Alert, a Brill newsletter for investment bankers and lawyers. At the time the FTC was deliberating the Time Warner/Turner merger. In an internal memo, Brill recounted that Bressler told him "We are working hard on Baer and anything that gets him nervous or makes him think we don't appreciate him could hurt us." This memo followed two other attempts to silence Brill. Once, when a Time Warner counsel, Peter Haje, asked Brill to kill a story in American Lawyer about the Scientology litigation against Time "because he feared it would criticize Time's reporting," according to Brill. The second interference came when someone in the Time Warner law department asked Court TV not to cover a case involving the music company. But three was a charm for Brill, who leaked the memos to Vanity Fair sometime after he was bought out of his multimedia fiefdom to the tune of $30 million. (Vanity Fair, August, 1997; Newsweek, 7/21/97) 2. K-III Butts Heads With Kurt Anderson In March 1996, Henry Kravis, whose leverage buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) owns K-III Communications, suggested that New York magazine editor Kurt Anderson kill a story about the rivalry between two of Wall Streets most powerful investment bankers. Over a civilized breakfast, Kravis told his star editor that "K-III and KKR need relations with the investment banking community to be untroubled and robust." When Anderson went ahead and ran the story anyway, the message from the top came loud and clear; within six months Anderson was looking for a new job. (New York Times) Despite his fall from grace with K-III, Anderson later told Columbia Journalism Review that he always kept advertisers' sensibilities in mind when editing the magazine. "Because I worked closely and happily with the publisher at New York, I was aware who the big advertisers were. My antennae were turned on, and I read copy thinking, ÔIs this going to cause Calvin Klein or Bergdorf big problems?'" (Washington Post, 5/23/96; New York Times, 9/29/96) 3. What Tax? Television broadcasters may not be the only special interest group pouring millions of dollars into political lobbying, but they are the only such group with the power to shape the national news agenda by determining what information Americans do and don't see. In March 1996, while members of Congress considered charging a fee for rights to use the new broadcast spectrum--a technology that allows up to five channels for each existing one, and a valuable public resource that may be worth more than $70 billion by some estimates--an ominous ad darkened television sets across America. During prime time, the ad filled millions of television screens, showing a bank of glowing TV sets tuned to popular programs: Seinfeld, The Late Show with David Letterman, and Jeopardy. Then, one by one, the sets went dark as an ominous voice warned that the government is about to impose a "TV tax" that would kill free TV. The announcer urged viewers to call their elected officials and protest the imposition of this "tax" before it was too late. The listed toll free number, (1)-888-NO-TV-TAX, reportedly logged about 3,500 calls a day while the ad ran. Of course, there was no such tax looming, but the ad effectively demonstrated how easily the media could manipulate public opinion when it suited corporate interests. ("Channeling Influence: The Broadcast Lobby & the $70 Billion Free Ride," Common Cause, 1997; Wired, August, 1997) 4. A Premiere Show of Resistance Hats off to editor-in-chief Christopher Connelly, Deputy Editor Nancy Griffin, and West Coast editor Corie Brown of Premiere magazine who walked off their jobs in protest of corporate meddling. David Pecker, head of Hachette Filipacchi Magazines directed the editors to drop from Premiere's July, 1996, issue an assigned investigation into the financial relationship between actor Sylvester Stallone and the Planet Hollywood restaurant chain. The critical story focused on the over-hyped and overpriced IPO of Planet Hollywood. The editors publicly spotlighted as the reason for their resignations a pattern of interference from the magazine's joint owners at the time, Hachette and Ron Perelman, who also had holdings in Planet Hollywood. Perelman's other big productions include Marvel Entertainment, whose deal with Planet Hollywood called for Marvel Comics characters to be featured in a new chain of theme eateries. (Hachette has denied that the connection had anything to do with the decision to kill the piece, claiming instead that it was prompted by readers' distaste for investigative reporting.) Additional episodes cited by the editors of unseemly corporate interest involved the placement of Perelman's wife on the editorial masthead and an order to run an Oscar-night party photo featuring Revlon models and executives; just for the record, it should perhaps be noted that Revlon mogul Perelman was not in that picture. (Columbia Journalism Review, July/Aug, 1996; Media Industry Newsletter, May 13 and July, 29, 1996, Forbes, June 3, 1996; Folio, July 1997) 5. Murdoch Removes the Letters BBC from the Chinese Language On March 21, 1994, Rupert Murdoch pulled the plug of the BBC World Service from his satellite programming to Asia because it sometimes ran stories critical of the Chinese government--which controlled a lucrative market for Murdoch. "The BBC was driving them nuts," Murdoch told the New Yorker. "It's not worth it." Specifically, the Chinese government had complained vociferously about a BBC documentary alleging that the late Mao Tse-tung had had a penchant for young girls--a documentary that had already been censored off Chinese television. Murdoch's Star TV replaced the channel formerly reserved for the BBC with one that broadcasts Chinese-language movies. (Guardian, 4/1/94 and 3/22/94; Wall Street Journal, 6/14/94; Far Eastern Economic Review, 6/23/94) 6. ABC Gives Hightower Walking Papers Jim Hightower, the witty, folksy former Agriculture Commissioner from Texas, whose radio show was broadcast in 150 markets, used to boast 2 million listeners. Then ABC merged with Disney and Capital Cities. Hightower related to his listeners Disney's practice of replacing its full time workers at Disneyland with contract labor, recruited from a homeless shelter. He also attacked ABC TV for "bending down and kissing the toes" of Philip Morris. Gradually, ABC stopped trying to sign up new stations for the show and in a matter of months canceled the show without notice. ABC insisted the show was not producing sufficient advertising revenue. Hightower countered that the show would have been very profitable if it had been permitted to accept $250,000 worth of union ads. But ABC would not accept those ads because they constituted "advocacy." (David Morris, Alternet) 7. The Freedom of Speech--Not--Award The Borders Bookstore on Wall Street earns the honors for best use of censorship of a rabble rouser. In this case the victim was author Michael Moore, producer of TV Nation and Roger and Me. While on a speaking tour for his new book, Downsize This, Moore encountered a picket line of Borders employees outside the store in Philadelphia. Showing his unionist colors, Michael refused to cross the line and suggested that everyone, picketers and audience, go inside the store and "reason together" with management about working conditions. To insure that all could hear, Michael thoughtfully brought his bullhorn. When Moore showed up for his next speaking engagement, at the Wall Street store, a nervous management canceled his talk and told the arriving crowd they couldn't present Moore because of fire code violations. As though the incident wasn't folly enough, the week Borders shut down Moore was Banned Books Week! (New York Times, 11/18/96; Detroit News, 11/20/96) 8. Ted Turner's Idea of Strange Justice Ted Turner's TNT delayed production of Strange Justice, a TV-movie adaptation of the best-selling book about the Clarence Thomas hearings, for fear of offending Justice Thomas during the Supreme Court's ongoing deliberations over a cable regulation case whose outcome could enrich Time Warner by zillions of dollars. (Christian Science Monitor, 11/22/96) 9. The "Advertising Standards" Dept. The three major networks, usually in fierce competition for advertising dollars, agreed there was one ad so inimical to their commercial interests that no amount of money would have bought it air time. All refused to air a 30-second message produced by the "guerrilla" media company Adbusters. The ad urges viewers to curb their consumer appetites for 24 hours and participate in "Buy Nothing Day" on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Said Richard Gitter of NBC, "We don't want to accept any advertising that's inimicable to our legitimate business interests." Matthew Margo, CBS VP of Program Practices, offered the more dubious response, "We can't run your ad. It's an advocacy ad." In other words, the message "Buy nothing" is advocacy but any message saying "Buy something" is not. (Adbusters, 11/14/96) 10. Your Banking Matters to Us After the closing off of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic in the interest of White House security, WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C., presented an unusual pile-up of negative stories, series, and specials on the shutdown that is far from accidental. According to an article by Howard Kurtz in the July 10 Washington Post, WJLA's coverage was the result of an increasing flow of pressure from Allbritton communications, which is the parent not only of WJLA but also of Riggs Bank. It seems that because of the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, the bank lost a number of customers at its Pennsylvania Avenue branch. (Washington Post, 7/10/96; Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct 1996) 11. A Picture's Worth at Least Six Words When Montana Governor Marc Racicot addressed the audience at a local GOP fund-raiser in 1996, the large section of paneled wall behind the speaker's podium was completely blank. But when a six-by-five inch, above-the-fold photo of the event appeared on the Fairfield, Montana, Sun Times's front page, the wall had, through the miracle of modern technology, become conspicuously adorned -- with a campaign poster urging voters to ELECT JIM ANDERSON TETON COUNTY COMMISSIONER. The candidate also happens to be the editor and publisher of the Fairfield Sun Times. (Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct 1996) 12. Dalai Lama, Meet Mickey Mouse The Disney Company took the high road last year by announcing that it would continue production of a movie about Tibet and the Dalai Lama, even if the Chinese government's objections to the film hurt Disney's expansion plans in China, considered by Hollywood to be the greatest untapped market in the world. (The film, Kundun, due out in December, 1997, is directed by Martin Scorcese and was filmed in Morocco.) The company didn't stay on the high road for long, however. According to Variety, Disney cut an entire sequence about Tibet from the film Wonders of China which runs daily at Epcot Center. Already seen by an estimated 60 million people, Wonders of China will no longer include its non-political sequence on Tibet, showing images of the region and the Dalai Lama's home in Lhasa. The filmmaker was not told of the changes. (Variety, 4/23/97; New York Times, 11/23/97; Financial Times, 11/22/96) 13. Censorship's Running Shoes The San Francisco Examiner spiked a piece by popular columnist Stephanie Salter that called Nike "obscene" because of its exploitative labor practices, enormous executive salaries and relentless self-promotion. (The column ended up being published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian.) the Examiner, as it happens, was negotiating with Nike as a potential co-sponsor of the "Bay to Breakers" footrace--the paper's biggest annual promotional event. Examiner editorial page editor Jim Finefrock had an interesting explanation for the killing of Salter's piece: He told the SF Weekly that it would involve "a certain amount of hypocrisy to allow Nike to be called obscene in the pages of the Examiner and then engage in a partnership with Nike in the race." (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 3/26/97; SF Weekly, 4/26/97)
II. Advertiser Pressure: 14. Chrysler at the Steering Wheel "In an effort to avoid potential conflicts, it is required that Chrysler Corporation be alerted in advance of any and all editorial content that encompasses sexual, political, social issues or any editorial that might be construed as provocative or offensive. Each and every issue that carries Chrysler advertising requires a written summary outlining major themes/articles appearing in upcoming issues. These summaries are to be forwarded to PentaCom prior to closing in order to give Chrysler ample time to review and reschedule if desired...As acknowledgment of this letter we ask that you or a representative from the publication sign below and return to us no later than February 15." --from a letter sent by Chrysler's ad agency, Penta-Com, a division of BBDO North America, to at least fifty magaznes in January, 1996 (Wall Street Journal, 4/30/97) How many magazines have cow-towed to Chrysler's demands and signed the letter? It depends who you ask. Frank Lalli, managing editor of Money and president of the American Society of Magazine Editors, told Columbia Journalism Review that he hadn't found one publisher or editor who had complied. On the other hand, Mike Aberlich, Chrysler's manager of consumer media relations, told Columbia Journalism Review "Every single one has been signed." He says that in some cases, individual magazines agree; in others a parent company signed for all its publications.According to many people in the magazine industry, Chrysler is simply committing to paper a policy that has long been a "gentleman's agreement." *Chrysler is the nation's fourth-largest advertiser and fifth-largest magazine advertiser. $270 million last year. 15. Watch What You Say! In one of the most costly examples ever of advertiser strong arming, a profile of I.B.M.'s chief executive cost Fortune magazine a fortune. The magazine's cover story about Louis V. Gerstner Jr. described the CEO as arrogant, brusque and obsessed with status. It also credited him with doing the job "better than anyone expected" and repositioning the company "against all odds." Gerstner apparently tuned out the compliments and heard only the criticisms. In the months since the April, 1997, article, I.B.M. and its software subsidiary Lotus pulled all their advertising from Fortune, worth an estimated $6 million. The company has also refused to return phone calls from reporters at the magazine, according to the New York Times. As a result, Fortune has not only suffered financially, it is the victim of a virtual information blockade by a valuable resource on technology. (New York Times, 9/29/97) 16. ASME Takes a Stand In June, 1997, the 860-member American Society of Magazine Editors released a formal statement condemning the increasingly common practice of giving advertisers early warning about editorial content: "...the ASME board worries that some advertisers may mistake an early warning as an open invitation to pressure the publisher or editor to alter, or even kill, the article in question. We believe publishers should -- and will -- refuse to bow to such pressure. Furthermore, we believe editors should -- and will -- follow ASME's explicit principle of editorial independence, which at its core states: ÔThe chief editor of any magazine must have final authority over the editorial content, words, and pictures that appear in the publication." After I.B.M. pulled its estimated $6 million in advertising from Fortune over a controversial profile of the company's CEO (described above), ASME felt compelled to make an even stronger statement. In September, 1997, it urged is members not to "submit table of contents, text or photos from upcoming issues to advertisers for prior review." (LA Times, June 5, 1997; New York Times 6/23/97; Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct, 1997; New York Times, 9/29/97) 17. Esquire's Ungentlemanly Defeat In April, 1997, Esquire publisher Valerie Salembier reportedly had then-editor Edward Kosner kill a sexually explicit short story, rather than face the possibility of having Chrysler drop its ads from the issue. The story, a planned sixteen-page layout for a 20,000-word fiction piece by David Leavitt, was to be one of the longest short stories Esquire had ever run. "The Term Paper Artist" includes sexual encounters between men and a few four-letter words. On the other end of the scale, however, weighing in at four full pages, was Chrysler's ad, just enough to enable the troubled magazine to show its first year-to-year ad-page improvement since the previous September, according to the Wall Street Journal. Kosner, who was replaced two months later, maintained that the piece was dropped from the lineup solely because it didn't meet the magazine's standards of taste. Esquire's literary editor, Will Blythe, on the other hand, quit in protest. He said in his letter of resignation: "I simply can't stomach the David Leavitt story being pulled. That act signals a terrible narrowing of the field available to strong, adventuresome, risk-taking work, fiction and nonfiction alike. I know the editorial and advertising staffs have battled -- sometimes affably, other times savagely -- for years to define and protect their respective turfs. But events of the last few weeks signal that the balance is out of whack now -- that, in effect, we're taking marching orders (albeit, indirectly) from advertisers." (Wall Street Journal, April 30, 1997; NYT, June 23, 1997; Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct, 1997; Folio, July, 1997; LA Times, June 5, 1997) 18. Warning: This Story May Upset Your Sensibilities The June 12, 1995 issue of The New Yorker ran a "Talk of the Town" piece that quoted some violent, misogynist rap and rock lyrics -- complete with profanity -- opposite a Mercury ad. In retaliation, Ford Motor Company withdrew its Lincoln and Mercury ads from the magazine for six months. The author, Ken Auletta, told the Columbia Journalism Review he only learned about it two years later. "I actually admire The New Yorker for not telling me about it," he says. Yet afterwards, according to the Wall Street Journal, the magazine quietly adopted a system of warning about fifty companies on a "sensitive advertiser list" whenever potentially offensive articles are scheduled. The magazine defends its policy as a mere courtesy to advertisers who might opt to move their ads to a different part of the magazine or a different issue altogether. "We're going to run the piece," asserts Tom Florio, The New Yorker's publisher, "but I'm not going to put a client in an embarrassing situation." (Wall Street Journal, April 30, 1997; Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct, 1997; Folio magazine, July, 1997) 19. Advertisers In Search of "Friendly" Environments Kimberly-Clark makes Huggies diapers and advertises them in a number of magazines, including Child, American Baby, Parents, Baby Talk, and Sesame Street Parents. Kimberly-Clark demands -- in writing in its ad insertion orders -- that these ads be placed only "adjacent to black and white happy baby editorial," which would definitely not include stories about say, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or Down's syndrome. "Sometimes we have to create editorial that is satisfactory to them," a top editor says. That, of course, means something else is likely lost, and the mix of the magazine is altered. Colgate-Palmolive won't allow ads in a "media context" containing "offensive" sexual content or material it deems "antisocial or in bad taste" -- which it leaves undefined in its policy statement sent to magazines. In the statements, the company says that it "charges its advertising agencies and their media buying services with the responsibility of pre-screening any questionable media content or context." Procter & Gamble, the second-largest advertising spender last year ($1.5 billion), has a reputation as being very touchy. Two publishing executives told Gloria Steinem, for her book Moving Beyond Words, that the company doesn't want its ads near anything about "gun control, abortion, the occult, cults, or the disparagement of religion." Even nonsensational and sober pieces dealing with sex and drugs are no-go. In CondŽ Nast's Architectural Digest, editor-in-chief Paige Rense freely admits that only advertisers are mentioned in picture captions. To offend an advertiser, it might be argued, would be like volunteering for a pay cut. (Excerpted from "The Squeeze" by Russ Baker, Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct, 1997) 20. Some Ad Dollars are Better than Others Late 1996, Spy refused to carry an ad designed by the Amalgamated Lithographers Union to call attention to the fact that a number of K-III magazines -- including Spy -- were using a union-busting shop, one that had been cited by the National Labor Relations Board for unfair labor practices, for much of their pre-press work. Adweek also refused the ad, telling the agency that the revenue from "one union ad" was not worth the risk of losing the revenue from K-III's advertising. Likewise, KCRG, the CBS affiliate in Cedar Rapids, and KWWL, the NBC affiliate in Waterloo, refused to sell air-time to the Center for Science in the Public Interest for a commercial describing health problems associated with a product then being test-marketed in the Cedar Rapids area -- Frito-Lay potato and tortilla chips made with olestra, the controversial fat substitute produced by Procter & Gamble. Twelve other stations that were also approached by CSPI in various test-market cities -- Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Grand Junction, Colorado; Columbus, Ohio; and Indianapolis, Indiana, as well as Cedar Rapids -- accepted the commercial. (Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1997) 21. A Combustible Omission On February 8, 1996, the opening day of an automobile trade show in Chicago's McCormick Place, WLS-TV aired the regularly scheduled syndicated newsmagazine Inside Edition -- but bumped a seven-minute segment about potentially hazardous ignition switches on many Ford cars and trucks. The reason, as revealed by media critic Robert Feder in a February 12 column in the Chicago Sun-Times, was that the station feared a collision with its auto-dealer advertisers, not to mention with the Chicago Automobile Trade Association, sponsor not only of the McCormick Place show but also of an hour-long infomercial, produced by and featuring WLS newspeople, and rolled out for viewers two days later. (Feder also noted that in taking such action the station was going over familiar ground: on the eve of the opening of last year's auto show, it had killed an Inside Edition segment on potentially hazardous rear-door latches on Chrysler minivans.) Fortunately, other stations around the country did not proceed with similarly misguided caution: according to a page-one report in the New York Times, it was the decision by a Marietta, Georgia, viewer -- who had experienced firsthand the problems she saw detailed in the Inside Edition segment -- to set up a "Flaming Ford Owners" page on the Internet that helped bring about the recall of 8.7 million vehicles announced by the automaker on April 25, 1996 As an endnote, Feder's own paper doesn't rank much better than WLS-TV. The Chicago Sun-Times' policy is that advertisers should be featured in news stories whenever possible, while non-advertisers should be left out. A story on Christmas retailing, for example, had a quote from a Crate & Barrel employee deleted because Crate & Barrel didn't buy ads in the paper. According to the weekly Chicago Reader, Sun-Times executive editor Larry Green held a meeting of the paper's department chiefs and "made sure everyone understood the Sun-Times wasn't in the business of giving away its ink." (Chicago Sun-Times, 2/12/96; Columbia Journalism Review, July/Aug, 1996; Chicago Reader, 1/17/97; Extra! 6/97)
III. Cross-Promotion 22. Disney Toots its Own Horn The March 3, 1996 program of ABC's Good Morning America presented an uninterrupted eight-minute celebration of The Disney Institute in Orlando, the newest vacation spot developed by "our parent company" for those who "have graduated from other Disney resorts" and seek to enhance their "quality of life" with an "adventure in education." With the strains of "Pomp and Circumstance" filling the air, GMA consumer editor Amy Atkins sampled some of the institute's eighty "edutainment" courses in canoeing, cooking, self-defense, topiary, animation, and the like that are available at "an average $600-a-weekend rate; plugged the "high-caliber" entertainment offered to guests; elicited "It's wonderful!" testimonials from happy senior-citizen campers; worked in the Disney name or its Mickey Mouse image some sixteen times; and easily confirmed the public's worst fears of the high potential in synergy for journalistic digresssion. (Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1996) 23. Getting a Fix on f/X The debut of the f/X cable network on June 1, 1994, was big news in the New York Post. The network, which features a perky breakfast show, a daily pet show and fading reruns of "Fantasy Island," was welcomed with a full-page spread, written by television reporter Steve Bornfeld. Readers who tried to tune to f/X, though, were bound to be frustrated--the network, at the time, was not carried by a single cable system in New York City. Insiders knew right away what was going on. The Post and f/X are both owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. What was presented as objective journalism in Bornfeld's story was, in fact, puffery, as Bornfeld, a respected writer who was subsequently forced out of the paper, now confirms. "Not only did we run a splashy story on the day they debuted, but we ran a splashy story on the day after they debuted about a network that no one in the five boroughs of New York could see," Bornfeld says. "My choice was to write the stories or be fired. I didn't like it very much. But there was no shame about it at the Post." Evidently not. The Post even ran the phone numbers of New York cable systems for readers to call and ask about f/X--without disclosing that the newspaper and the cable network share a common owner. The f/X incident was apparently just a dress rehersal for Murdoch's latest act of cross-promotion, an entire front page of the Post devoted to the launch of Fox News on New York cable television. After Murdoch's rabid altercation with Time Warner and Ted Turner (see the Synergy Hall of Shame in the following pages), the media tycoon's victory spawned the Post banner headline "New York City Finally Gets Fox News Channel," a service which was described in the body of the piece as the only home of "fair and balanced" news. (American Journalism Review, 10/95; New York Post, 9/15/97) 24. The Show Goes On and On TV Guide published a cover story, "The Best Show You're Not Watching." It referred to a low rated TV program, Party of Five. TV Guide is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He also owns the Fox Network, which shows Party of Five. The same week TV Guide ran its cover story, the New York Post and WNYW-TV, both owned by Murdoch, ran news stories that made a very big deal about actor Carroll O'Connor's joining the cast of Party of Five. In 1996, NBC's CNBC cable channel was excluded from TV Guide's listings, even though it had more than 50 million subscribers while Mr. Murdoch's Fox channel, with less than half as many subscribers, was listed. (Alternet, David Morris) 25. Singing the Praises In a full-page, four-color, six-photo piece in its August 18, 1996, edition, The Sunday Oklahoman sang the praises of Nashville as a "visitor's delight," with its Opryland USA theme park, its Opryland Hotel, its Grand Ole Opry auditorium, its expanded Opryland conference center, its Opryland riverboat dinner cruises, and its Wildhorse Saloon (as "shown on TNN, The Nashville Network"). Despite the richness and range of the upbeat composition, however (which included, among other things, the depth of the river and the weight of a skylight roof, not to mention dates and times of upcoming performances), it never managed to hit one essential note: the Opryland complex, as well as The Nashville Network, is owned by Edward Baylor, the Oklahoman's publisher. (Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec 1996)
Synergy Hall of Shame
The 60 Minutes Scandal Another factor may have influenced the decision: The story was being deliberated during the Westinghouse purchase of CBS from Lawrence Tisch. Simultaneously a criminal investigation was underway involving allegations of perjury by top tobacco officials, a key defendant of which was the chairman of Lorillard Tobacco Company, Andrew H. Tisch, Lawrence's son. Jeffrey Wigand had recently been subpoenaed to testify in that case. Ultimately, the company's fiscal future took precedence over public health and safety. Although by silencing the interview, CBS probably drew more attention to the story than if it had aired without fanfare. Endnote: Three months after CBS News controversial decision, 60 Minutes finally broadcast its interview with Wigand, who said he began packing a handgun because of death threats against him and his family. (Columbia Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 1996; LA Times, 1/29/96; New York Times, 2/4/96; Boston Globe, 2/5/96)
Trust in Cable Mayor Rudolph Giuliani jumped into the fray, ostensibly to referee in the name of fairness and diversity. Instead, he offered Fox one of New York's public access channels, a move which drew threats from Time Warner to land the case in court. At the same time, the New York State Attorney General, Dennis Vacco, threatened to launch an anti-trust investigation of Time Warner's cable franchise. The mayor's office went so far as to infer that Time Warner might lose its charter altogether if it didn't carry Fox News. In the meantime, Murdoch threw Warner programs off his European satellite and launched one of the nastiest ad campaigns since Willie Horton, with front page New York Post attacks on Ted Turner's sanity. With both sides waving their First Amendment banners, the federal court ruled in favor of Time Warner, blocking the broadcast of Fox News in Manhattan. Eventually, Time Warner caved in and agreed to carry Fox. Time Warner's selective programming was nothing new. Lawrence Grossman, former president of NBC News, claimed in his book, The Electronic Republic, that his station had wanted to launch a 24-hour news channel but was blocked by Time Warner. "To protect their financial interest in CNN," he wrote, "the major cable operators--that control programming to tens of millions of cable subscribers--refused to let NBC compete with CNN by offering another cable news channel. They were determined to keep CNN as a 24-hour cable news monopoly." As a result, NBC agreed to turn the fledgling CNBC network into a business news outlet instead. Grossman claimed that CBS also tried to get cable operators to agree to run a CBS news channel in 1993, but "ran into a stone wall." (Vanity Fair, January, 1997; New York Times, 10/19,21,30/96 and 11/13,17/96 and 7/28/24/97; Wall Street Journal, 10/28/96; LA Times, 10/1,10,15/96 and 9/30/96; Washington Post, 11/18/96)
The Telecom Industry Loses its Voice When prodded by Ted Koppel to reflect on the legislation, ABC, NBC and CBS all shared the same refrain: "No Comment." Since it's easy to tell who benefits from legislation by looking at who throws their money behind a cause, the Telecom Act is a dead giveaway. The telecom industry contributed more than $2 million in PAC money during the six-month negotiation period for the Telecom Act, nearly three-quarters of which went to the newly ascendant Republicans. By contrast, consumer groups contributed little, if anything. This figure does not include individual contributions given by telecommunications industry executives or investors, which may amount to as much or more than the institutional PAC money. Not coincidentally, members of Congress were rewarded in proportion to their power over the telecom bill, and to their enthusiasm for advancing industry goals:
On December 21, 1995, the day after lawmakers reached a compromise on the telecommunications bill that included several provisions beneficial to long-distance companies, AT&T's PAC distributed $166,500 to federal candidates in a single day. This was the highest amount the PAC gave on any day during the election cycle. In the first six months after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there were $50 billion of mergers and acquisitions, double the total of any previous 12-month period. Four of those deals exceeded $10 billion. (Center for Responsive Politics)
|