Fear & Favor 2000: How Power Shapes the News

Surveys of working journalists have found that they experience pressure from powerful interests, outside and inside the news business, to push some stories and ignore others, and to shape or slant news content. The sources of pressure include the government, which enlists media to support its actions and policies; corporate advertisers who may demand favorable treatment for their industries and products; and media owners themselves, who can use their outlets to support their increasingly various business and political interests.

Surveys of working journalists have found that they experience pressure from powerful interests, outside and inside the news business, to push some stories and ignore others, and to shape or slant news content. The sources of pressure include the government, which enlists media to support its actions and policies; corporate advertisers who may demand favorable treatment for their industries and products; and media owners themselves, who can use their outlets to support their increasingly various business and political interests.

In a 2000 Pew Center for the People & the Press poll of 287 reporters, editors and news executives, about one-third of respondents said that news that would “hurt the financial interests” of the media organization or an advertiser goes unreported. Forty-one percent said they themselves have avoided stories, or softened their tone, to benefit their media company’s interests. Among investigative reporters, a majority (61 percent) thought that corporate owners exert at least a fair amount of influence on news decisions.

One-third of the local TV news directors surveyed by the Project on Excellence in Journalism in 2000 indicated that they had been pressured to avoid negative stories about advertisers, or to do positive ones. And in a 1997 survey of investigative reporters and editors at TV stations published by FAIR, nearly three-quarters of the respondents reported that advertisers had “tried to influence the content” of news at their stations. Sixty percent said that advertisers had attempted to kill stories. Fifty-six percent had felt pressure from within the station to produce news stories to please advertisers.

Of course there are many sorts of pressure on journalists, including the need to tell stories in a splashy, ratings-grabbing way; but the pressures we document here are more direct and nefarious. Practically every working journalist has heard war stories about the articles that were killed or never written, or, more chillingly, of careers cut short for “making trouble,” or stepping on the wrong toes. But few accounts exist of these instances of influence, when journalists are thwarted in their attempt to report (in the phrase made famous by Adolph S. Ochs) “without fear or favor.”

In this our first annual Fear & Favor report, FAIR takes note of some of the instances from the past year when pressure from powerful interests influenced the news. This report should by no means be considered a comprehensive catalog, but we have collected some of the most outrageous and instructive examples. We hope it will serve to support working journalists who struggle to do their jobs well, and encourage them and the public to continue to demand truly independent reporting.

In Advertisers We Trust

What most of us think of as the content of news media, sponsors see primarily as the context in which their ads appear. Advertisers increasingly push for more control over that context, hoping to deliver their targeted messages in the most conducive climate. While individual journalists may resist, news media in general seem to go to increasing lengths to please big advertisers–watering down or killing stories, promoting sponsor-friendly coverage, and making promotional deals that blur the line between journalism and marketing.

  • A July 16 commentary by Ted Daniels in the Indianapolis Star revealed that advertisements in a special section of the Star devoted to the RCA Championships tennis tournament had been sold by the tournament organizers themselves, not the paper’s own advertising staff.

    Along with that arrangement came a pledge from the advertising and marketing department for a guaranteed amount of news coverage of the tournament. In return, the Star would be an associate sponsor of the tournament.

    The story is reminiscent of the Los Angeles Times/Staples Center fiasco of 1999, in which that paper was excoriated, including by its own reporters, for a deal that involved the Times and the Staples Center splitting the revenue from a special magazine section on the arena. Despite a policy that “sponsorship agreements do not guarantee editorial coverage in the Star,” according to Daniels (7/16/00), this wasn’t the first time: “We found a similar arrangement had been made with organizers of the Indy Jazz Fest for a section we produced June 14 and a similar section last year.”

  • WCBS-TV in New York took in more than $300,000 to run a March 23 website ad for a laser eye surgery procedure, reported Electronic Media (4/17/00). On that day, the station’s 5 p.m. newscast included a feature about the very same procedure, with the same doctor and patient featured in the web ad.

    Journalists in the newsroom were said to have been furious, and some indicated that the decision to do the story came from the sales department. Similar criticisms had been raised about two week-long series on tourism that WCBS ran in February; reporters said they were “really infomercials aired adjacent to advertising from tourist boards.”

    David Skalky, manager of the laser eye surgery practice in question, was happy to see the news story run in addition to the paid ad. “That was a bonus,” Skalky said. “That was free.”

  • ABC‘s The View, co-hosted by Barbara Walters, agreed to turn eight shows into paid infomercials for Campbell’s Soup.

    Walters, one of ABC‘s most prominent news personalities, joined her colleagues in introducing pro-Campbell’s themes into the talkshow’s discussions: In one show, Walters asked her View colleagues, “Didn’t we grow up…eating Campbell’s Soup?” They responded by breaking into a chorus of the “M’m! M’m! Good!” jingle. In addition to developing special soup segments, The View assured Campbell’s that “hosts would try to weave a soup message into their regular on-air banter” (Wall Street Journal, 11/14/00).

    ABC claims this kind of hucksterism is OK because The View is an entertainment show. Though Walters is an ABC News journalist, she is “able to wear many hats” (Wall Street Journal, 11/14/00).

  • As reported in the Boston Phoenix (4/20/00), the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) was refused advertising space in the Boston Globe in mid-April. NACA intended on paying $25,000 for space to run an ad critical of fees at Fleet Bank.

    The Globe apparently vetted the ad with Fleet– which happens to be one of the paper’s major advertisers. The Globe then claimed that some of the information in the ad was misleading, although, according to the Phoenix, the same information is found in Introducing Fleet: Your Guide to Fleet Products and Services, a booklet put out by the bank itself.

  • Boston Herald consumer columnist Robin Washington received an indefinite suspension and a demotion to general assignment after his reporting on the Fleet/BankBoston merger.

    Washington had written an April 3 story noting that 700,000 BankBoston customers would pay higher fees after the merger with Fleet. Washington said that his editors killed several follow-ups, until he was finally told not to write about the bank merger at all. In press interviews, Washington suggested that the bank’s role as a big advertiser and a lender to the paper may have had something to do with the editorial decision. (Washington Post, 5/1/00) Washington added that the paper had warned him previously about the perils of covering businesses that were also advertisers, saying that editor Andy Costello told him that “there were certain realities to the business that I needed to understand.”

    At the end of April, the Herald announced that Washington was suspended without pay (Boston Globe, 5/1/00). After protests by the Newspaper Guild and the Boston Association of Black Journalists, Washington was eventually reinstated to his original job.

  • Time magazine’s Spring 2000 issue was the culmination of the magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” series. Launched in 1998, the series “profiled individuals around the globe who are working to protect the natural world” (Time, Spring 2000). But Time made clear from the outset that not all environmental issues would get equal treatment. That’s because the “Heroes for the Planet” series has an exclusive sponsor: Ford Motor Co. Asked about the conflict of interest presumed by having an automobile company sponsor an environmental series, Time‘s international editor admitted to the Wall Street Journal (9/21/98) that, no, the series wasn’t likely to profile environmentalists battling the polluting auto industry. After all, Alexander explained, “we don’t run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes.”

    Powerful Players & PR

    Advertisers aren’t the only powerful interests that exert influence on media. There are plenty of companies, industries and lobbies with stories they’d like media to cover, or not cover, or cover in a particular way– and many media outlets are happy to do business, trading editorial independence for financial gain or “access.” Unfortunately, media consumers have little way of knowing which stories have been shaped or shaded by behind-the-scenes deals.

  • United Airlines and US Airways cut a deal with the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal: We’ll give you the story on our upcoming merger, as long as you don’t call any “critics” for comment. According to Howard Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post (5/29/00), all three papers agreed to this censorious arrangement, which only fell apart because the Financial Times website broke the merger story early, negating the agreement.

    Why would a paper agree to let the subject of a story determine how it could be written? Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger claimed to “hate those kind of arrangements” (implying that this wasn’t the first), but explained that “if the news is big enough, we’d rather give it to our readers with whatever caveats are appropriate.”

    New York Times business editor Glenn Kramon likewise accepted this kind of deal-making as the price for being a major player in business journalism: “We’ve been serious about business news for too long to be cut out of big stories like this, and it’s about time we were included.”

    According to Washington Post financial editor Jill Dutt, balance isn’t as important as doing the story quickly: “It does a better job for readers to have the story on the first day than not to have the story,” she contended. As a matter of fact, Dutt said, the Post doesn’t really need outside experts: “The Washington Post, regardless if no one is called, can give much better background and context for the significant issues involved in the deal.” And Dutt sympathizes with corporate executives, who want “a clear shot at giving investors your side of the deal before you get all the naysayers.”

  • The Idaho Statesman has a curious definition of “fact checking”. The business editor of the Gannett-owned daily, Jim Bartimo, resigned when he was told that a story he had worked on about Micron Technologies, the area’s largest employer, had to be sent for pre-publication “review”… to Micron Technologies. As the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz reported, (1/17/00) the Statesman described letting the subject of a news report review it before it runs as “good journalism,” and the possibility of a journalistic conflict “laughable.”

    Interestingly, in following up on that story, Kurtz learned that the Idaho Statesman‘s previous business editor says he was fired from the paper for writing too critical a lead on a story about…you guessed it, Micron Technologies. Kurtz’s February 7 article noted that the Statesman reporter covering Micron is married to a Micron employee. None of this is a problem for Statesman editor Carolyn Washburn, who says, “It’s not that it has anything to do with their being the biggest employer. What we write can affect a lot of people in this community. It can affect the stock price.”

  • After watching the documentary “Saving the Salmon,” television viewers in Washington state probably came away with the impression that the state’s timber industry was doing a pretty good job of protecting local salmon. Since the Sept. 28 piece appeared with the logo of local station KIRO-TV, one might have assumed that normal journalistic rules applied.

    Not so. Though the logo appears, the documentary was actually a half-hour infomercial paid for by the Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA), a timber industry group whose members include Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade. It seems KIRO and WFPA have a deal that guarantees a certain amount of advertising and programming. The KIRO producer who worked on the piece, Pat Fisk, works not in the station’s news division, but in advertising.

    As the Seattle Weekly reported (9/28/00), “The only hint that something was amiss–beyond the strangely biased content of the program itself–was one brief announcement at the beginning that said: ‘The following program was produced in cooperation with the Washington Forest Protection Association.’” Environmental advocates or critics of the timber industry were nowhere to be found in the program.

    The WFPA’s Cindy Mitchell confirmed that the group is “in partnership with KIRO,” but said she wasn’t sure “whether to describe the program and the short announcements as PSAs, commercials or something else.” “I don’t know the difference,” she told the Seattle Weekly.

  • The Associated Press had a credibility problem on a grand scale when it announced in late October that its long-time Bolivia correspondent, Peter McFarren, was resigning amidst revelations of widespread conflicts of interest.

    The resignation came after an expose published by the Internet-based NarcoNews Bulletin that pointed to a variety of conflicts involving McFarren. Most glaringly, McFarren personally lobbied the Bolivian legislature on September 14 on behalf of a water project for the Bolivian Hydro-Resources Corporation– a $78 million project that would profit a foundation created and presided over by McFarren. The project would privatize and divert water from Bolivia to international mining interests in Chile; such water privatization is one of the biggest stories in Bolivia, and a central issue in widespread protests that McFarren reported on.

    McFarren denied that his lobbying constituted a conflict of interest, claiming he works for the corporate project “pro bono.”

    Eventually, AP released a story on McFarren’s resignation, but their report glossed over key aspects of the case (Extra! Update, 2/01).

  • For Today show travel editor Peter Greenberg, the only problem with getting your stories from private interests is if they’re insufficiently slick. In a memo to travel and resort promoters, subsequently published on Jim Romenesko’s Media News website (www.poynter.org/medianews), Greenberg explained just how to get coverage on Today: “As you must all surely know by now, I continue to be very specific and very direct about our needs,” he writes, before itemizing no-no’s like unpolished video footage. Some of the “destinations/resorts” might have made it on air, he charges, but they weren’t considered because they had “no good video to support them.”

    Improper packaging of promotional material “really borders on being unprofessional,” says Greenberg, and exhorts, “Stop promoting your clients and start presenting them in a way that shows like ours can responsibly report on them.”

    Question: Is re-running video clips from publicists really “reporting”? Or, as Romenesko put it: “Why doesn’t the advertising-rich Today show shoot its own travel footage?”

  • Local station WBAL-TV in Baltimore, Maryland aired a series of reports on women’s health, for which they received a “hefty fee” from Baltimore’s Mercy Medical Center (Business Week, 2/28/00). Business Week explained that such deals are increasingly common, thanks to companies like Medstar Television, which brokers deals between hospitals and TV stations, and also produces the segments. Medstar wouldn’t divulge their fees, but Business Week found one proposal indicating an annual charge of $364,000 for “two news spots per week.”

    TV stations like WBAL claim their editorial integrity isn’t compromised (“We decide what story to do,” WBAL news director Princell Hair told Business Week.) But Medstar, for its part, is fully conscious that what it’s doing is using the news to sell. “A PR agency or TV sales department can guarantee that an organization’s physicians will appear on TV commercials,” its proposal boasts. “But they can’t guarantee the physicians will be on the news, the most credible source for health information.”

  • What happens when a newspaper uncovers a little civic perk that’s being exploited by one of its own columnists? If you’re the Detroit News, you hold the story. That’s what happened when reporter David Josar started investigating a small parking lot at the Detroit Metro airport that seemed to be reserved for VIPs. The airport wasn’t helping with details about who was parking there, but Josar identified one of the cars: It belonged to Pete Waldmeir, a columnist at his own paper.

    As reported by the Detroit MetroTimes (3/15/00), Josar’s story seemed to be held at the News, possibly out of embarrassment. The only explanation the Detroit News provided was that the Detroit Free Press beat them to it, publishing a story on February 29. Waldmeir was not mentioned in that story.

    In the Free Press account, airport director Dave Katz explained that those spaces are reserved for special people: “There are some who serve us in other ways who take advantage of that convenience, that courtesy.” One wonders what “service” is provided the airport by a prominent local journalist.

  • Brill’s Content is in the media criticism business. But according to media critic James Ledbetter (www.newyorkpress.net, 4/17/00) the magazine watered down a piece in the May 2000 issue whose subject– entertainment reporter Lynn Hirschberg– may have had too many powerful media friends. Ledbetter reported that Brill’s editor David Kuhn got nervous after receiving pre-publication complaints from some of Hirschberg’s bigwig supporters, and, Ledbetter’s sources say, Kuhn gave staffers this classic explanation about why the magazine had to be careful: “You don’t understand: I have to go to cocktail parties with these people.” David Kuhn denies making the statement attributed to him or anything resembling it; Ledbetter stands by his sources. (The writer of the piece, Katherine Rosman, later told Ledbetter that she had “toned down” her piece herself to avoid being “ad hominem.”)

    The Home Team

    The hometown sports team is a special kind of local power player: For media, supporting the team—on and off the field–is de rigeur, and this boosterism can extend to suppression of critical information, no matter its news value. Sports is also big business, offering myriad opportunities for promotional ties to media. When does cheerleading become censorious?

  • Sports writer Norman Chad’s syndicated columns run under the byline “The Man,” but Chad found out what happens when you tangle with The Boss. One of Chad’s favorite targets is Daniel M. Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins. But when the Washington Post runs Chad’s columns, not everything makes the cut. For example, when Chad jokingly wrote in November that Snyder was “quietly taking bids for naming rights to his children,” the Post version referred to “naming rights to his helicopter.” (Chicago Sun-Times, 11/30/00) “We edit everybody,” explained the Post‘s sports editor, George Solomon.

  • A Baltimore TV station seems to feel it can’t do too much to root for the home team. Along with their journalistic duties, WJZ morning anchor Marty Bass and weekend anchor Katie Leahan also host the weekly “Report from the Ravenszone,” a cheerful show about Baltimore’s professional football team that is paid for by the team. WJZ general manager Jay Newman explains that the shows are part of a “collaborative effort,” and that they can even be “critical, when appropriate.”

    WJZ also saves money by tapping its news staff to double as hosts. Between the Sunday pre-game show and “Report from the Ravenszone,” the TV station winds up with a six-figure payment every year (Baltimore Sun, 11/29/00) After the Ravens won the Super Bowl, WJZ general manager Jay Newman was ecstatic, saying, “We achieved what we wanted to achieve, embracing the Ravens from a news standpoint, as well as a commercial and marketing standpoint” (Baltimore Sun, 1/31/01).

  • On the radio dial, the often-confrontational style of sports talk hosts does not sit well with media owners who need to stay on good terms with local teams. One such host, Mike Missanelli of CBS-owned WIP, found this out the hard way when he was suspended for criticizing certain management personnel of the Philadelphia Flyers, according to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer (6/23/00).

    As the Inquirer noted, the “suspension was based on a clause in the sports-talk station’s contract to broadcast Sixers and Flyers games that prohibits ‘personal attacks’ on the teams, their players and management.” Station management has informed hosts that when they plan to criticize the team on the air, they must inform the team in advance, so the team can be extended an opportunity to respond.

    The Boss’s Business

    Media owners are also themselves a source of pressure on journalists; their interests, on issues from the parochial to the national, have a way of making themselves known to editors and producers, who are encouraged to shape coverage to suit. Of course, today’s media outlets are often huge commercial enterprises all their own, with corporate ties to other companies and industries. As corporate America consolidates, there are fewer entities that aren’t part of the boss’s business, making them that much less likely to receive scrutiny.

    Increasingly, the thing a media owner wants their outlet to promote is another media property. Call it “synergy” if you must, using news media to promote a product controlled by the same owner is still an example of undue influence. Are reporters and producers making judgments about what’s newsworthy based on journalistic values, or marketing values? Are stories without a corporate tie-in as warmly received as those with one?

  • In August 1999, the Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner announced its intention to buy the San Francisco Chronicle, its partner in a joint-operating agreement. The deal became entangled in city politics and legal maneuvering, with not a few blows to journalistic integrity.

    On June 9, 2000 the Chronicle reported that “Hearst Corp.’s top newspaper executive ordered Examiner publisher Timothy O. White to ‘take the necessary precautions’ to prevent a story about The Chronicle from appearing in the Examiner out of concern that the story could jeopardize Hearst’s bid to buy the paper.”

    Hearst officials deny that they had anything to do with killing the story. But an Examiner reporter told the Chronicle that stories about the newspaper’s business deals were being discouraged: “We were told that if we were going to write about these things, it would go through banks of lawyers, and no one wanted to deal with that.”

    The Chronicle also reported two other instances of evident meddling at the Examiner: A column by Rob Morse about the Fang family, who took over the Examiner had been inexplicably “held,” as was an investigation into office space owned by the Fang family and the San Francisco Airport Commission.

    Such breaches seemed minor in comparison to the uproar over the testimony of Timothy White, the publisher of the Examiner. On May 1, White testified that he had expressed a willingness to trade favorable editorial treatment of San Francisco mayor Willie Brown in exchange for Brown’s support for the sale of the Chronicle. Officials at the Chronicle were quick to deny the truth of the story. White himself later claimed to have been “tired and confused.”

  • In its coverage of an effort to reopen D.C.’s Pennsylvania Avenue to automobile traffic, the Washington Post was not so much reporting the news as trying to make it.

    Security concerns following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing resulted in the street in front of the White House being closed to vehicles–complicating commutes for businesses in downtown D.C., like the Washington Post. But a story on the Post‘s September 25 front page offered hope to frustrated drivers: A study had found that the street could be reopened while still preventing a truck bomb from blowing up the president.

    The Post treated the street-opening plan as big news, with two follow-up news stories and an editorial endorsing the plan. The coverage also included a September 30 Style section opinion piece, written, oddly enough, by the same reporter who wrote the front-page news piece, Benjamin Forgey. Taking off his reporter’s hat, Forgey became an impassioned advocate for the street-opening plan, demanding: “Ought we give up the symbolic center of our democratic space, making it comfortable for police cars yet not for ordinary folks?” (Of course, the street is open to people on foot, but to the Post, apparently, “ordinary folks” are in cars.)

    The study that the Post spilled so much ink to promote was commissioned by the Federal City Council, a private group that includes many of the movers and shakers in DC. But it wasn’t until their October 1 story that the paper noted that the Federal City Council is “composed of 160 members, including Donald E. Graham, chairman and chief executive of the Washington Post Co.”

    The tie is actually much closer: As Trevor Butterworth of Newswatch.org reported– but the Post did not– the Federal City Council was founded by Donald Graham’s father, Philip Graham, when he was publisher of the Post. And Donald Graham isn’t just a member; he’s the chair of the nominating committee, giving him a big say over who the other 159 members are.

  • “It seemed nobody crusaded more loudly for a plan to demolish a public housing project here [in Lowell, Mass.] than the city’s influential daily newspaper, the Lowell Sun,” the Boston Globe reported (8/8/00).

    Sun editorial page editor Alexander Costello and members of his family reportedly own land nearby, and stood to gain financially if the housing was destroyed. The Costello family owned the paper until a few years ago, and family members maintain a variety of management positions.

    Costello maintained that the plan made sense for the whole community. (Perhaps that community sense is what inspired the paper’s reference to opponents of the demolition as the “powerful poverty lobby.”) And Sun publisher Kendall Wallace clarified the paper’s position in a column defending his personnel: ”When this is done, everyone who owns property in the area will benefit.” No word about those who don’t.

  • In the final days of the 2000 presidential campaign, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime conservative activist, ordered all photographs and prominent mentions of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore removed from the front page of the paper. As a result, the paper’s pre-election Sunday edition had a front page featuring George W. Bush in every campaign-related headline and photograph. A story about a Gore rally held in Pittsburgh, originally slated to run alongside a Bush piece on the front page, was moved to the inside of the paper. According to an account in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (11/8/00). Tribune-Review managing editor Robert Fryer “tried to dissuade Scaife but was overruled.”

  • High-tech gizmos often have a special place on local TV news. Even more so when the TV station’s parent company is behind the new invention.

    The Belo Corporation invested $40 million in a company called Digital:Convergence that manufactures a bar code-scanning device called :CueCat. Those using :CueCat on their personal computers can scan the bar codes on advertisements, calling up more information about that product.

    According the Dallas Observer (9/21/00,) Dallas station WFAA-Channel 8 ran segments about :CueCat three nights in a row in September on their news broadcast. WFAA is owned by Belo.

    In a related story, Wall Street Journal technology reporter Walter Mossberg criticized :CueCat in an October column, saying the device “fails miserably” in terms of convenience and raises privacy concerns in the way it identifies users, and concluding that it “isn’t worth installing and using, even though it’s available free of charge” (Wall Street Journal, 10/12/00). As also reported by the Dallas Observer, (11/2/00) one outlet that had run previous Mossberg columns, the Providence Journal, didn’t carry it that week. The Providence Journal is also owned by Belo Corporation.

    Providence Journal executive editor Joel P. Rawson told the New York Times (11/6/00) that the paper was holding Mossberg’s column in order to run it, along with other reviews, when :CueCat began distribution in the area on November 12. But a subsequent search of the Nexis database and the Journal’s website failed to find it.

  • Since the 1999 merger, new media giant CBS/Viacom has embarked on a frenzy of cross-promotion, some of which looks very much like favoritism. As noted by TV Guide‘s J. Max Robins (TV Guide, 8/19/00) both VH1 and MTV (Viacom properties) planned to run specials on Bette Midler before her CBS series, Bette, debuted in October. And when CBS broadcast the Super Bowl, MTV was picked to produce the half-time show. “We’ve tried to get the Super Bowl for years but never got anywhere,” said MTV president Judy McGrath. “Now we’ve got it. You do the math.”

  • New York magazine (7/10/00) noticed that in a June 11 review of “reality” shows, the <B.New York Times had good things to say about two Learning Channel programs, Paramedics and Trauma: Life in the E.R., but thought less well of others of the same genre. In what a Times representative later termed an “oversight,” the review neglected to mention that both programs are produced by New York Times Television.

  • A sock puppet was interviewed three times on ABC News programs: twice on ABC‘s Good Morning America and once on Nightline. That’s a pretty high media profile for a sock, but then again it was no ordinary sock—this was the corporate “mascot” for pets.com, a website that sells pet supplies. It’s also a website that counts ABC‘s parent company Disney as one of its investors.

    Disney‘s 5 percent stake in pets.com wasn’t disclosed on the news programs, and it’s hard to see that as an oversight. The January pets.com press release announcing the deal with ABC gave the distinct impression that the company fully expected to be inserted into programming, including the news. The release said that, among other goodies, pets.com would “receive marketing and promotional support on the ABC, Inc. media properties.”

    Oddly, given their evident assessment of pets.com as a significant story, ABC devoted virtually no coverage to the company’s November demise.

  • An August New Yorker profile of ABC News president David Westin by Jane Mayer (8/14/00) included a number of comments from ABC insiders, who chose not to identify themselves, referring to an “atmosphere of self-censorship and timidity.” For example, “when a producer at 20/20 considered doing a piece on executive compensation, two people familiar with the deliberations say, the idea was dropped because no one wanted to draw attention to the extraordinarily rich pay package of Disney‘s chairman, Michael Eisner.” Also: “News executives decided not to shoot a feature story about a cruise ship partly because Disney owns a rival cruise line. Similarly, news producers decided not to do a feature piece about the hit movie, Chicken Run, because they thought it would give free publicity to Disney‘s corporate rival, DreamWorks. ‘No one here wants to piss off the bosses,’ one producer explained.”

  • As always, the TV network that owned the rights to the Olympics found them to be far more newsworthy than its competitors did. As reported by the Tyndall Report (1/7/01), NBC, which broadcast the 2000 Sydney Olympics, ran 90 minutes of Olympics coverage during NBC Nightly News; ABC and CBS, which did not, ran 27 and eight minutes, respectively, during their evening newscasts. Could it be that NBC just thought its audience was just more interested in sports than the rival networks? Not likely: NBC‘s evening news show aired only 77 minutes of non-Olympics sports coverage in 2000, while CBS ran 89 minutes and ABC ran a whopping 142 minutes.

  • Clearly, not all journalists bridle at being asked to promote their parent company’s ventures. Steve Friedman, executive producer of CBS‘s Early Show, for example, seemed genuinely proud of his news programs’ Herculean efforts to generate “news” items out of the network’s popular primetime show Survivor. Explained Friedman on CNN’s Reliable Sources (7/8/00): “Look, it’s a hit show on CBS. If I didn’t take advantage of it, I should be fired for malfeasance.”

    What about the idea that news programs were about, well, news, and that there is a line between news and entertainment? Friedman scoffs. “That line was over a long, long time ago….That line is long gone. Now you can lament and say it’s terrible. You can say it’s over, the civilization is over. You know what, to compete you’ve got to compete. And we are in this to win. And we will use this show to help us win.”

    Government and Other ‘Official’ Pressure

    Along with pushes and pulls from corporate owners, advertisers and power players, U.S. journalists still face pressures—some quite overt–from government and other officials. In general, government’s shaping of the news is less direct and harder to document; but it should be noted that increased media concentration and the rising power these corporations exert in Washington mean that government and corporate interests overlap with increasing frequency, with troubling implications for democracy.

  • In Buffalo, New York, a local television anchor was suspended from his station after he refused to edit a news story to favor the local police commissioner. Anchor Rich Kellman of NBC affiliate WGRZ was told by the station’s management not to return to work until further notice after he refused to edit an interview with Buffalo Police Commissioner Rocco Diina to remove a reference to Diina’s troubles with the Buffalo police union. According to the Buffalo News (2/22/00), local journalists were “up in arms over what they [saw] as a successful effort by a newsmaker to control the content of a program.”

  • In January, Salon investigative reporter Dan Forbes (1/13/00) revealed that the nation’s major TV networks were submitting scripts of entertainment shows to the office of the so-called Drug Czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in hopes of getting financial benefits under a government program. The deal asked networks to air anti-drug public service announcements, or–in order to save that valuable advertising time–to air programs with a government-approved anti-drug message.

    But the story wasn’t limited to TV: Magazines were also getting benefits from the Drug Czar’s program for having “acceptable” messages about drugs–magazines like U.S. News & World Report, Seventeen and Family Circle. Sunday newspaper supplements like Parade and USA Weekend were also involved. While the magazines did not have to submit articles in advance, the deal did offer them a financial incentive to slant their reporting.

    The Drug Czar’s office, predictably unhappy that these stealth programs had been publicized, retaliated by going after the messenger: Robert Housman, an assistant director of the office, wrote a letter to Salon claiming that Forbes “is more than just a disinterested reporter in search of a story. Mr. Forbes has been a regular contributor to the Media Awareness Project’s Website, an organization that essentially advocates for the legalization of drugs.”

    In fact, the Media Awareness Project has simply re-posted some of Forbes articles (without paying him)–a fact that says nothing about whether he is a disinterested reporter, and nothing about the accuracy of his reports.

    Asked by the Boston Globe (4/7/00) about his letter to Salon, Housman suggested that he just wanted Salon to practice “honest journalism…. I think the readers should know.” That’s a little ironic, considering that millions of people have been watching TV shows and reading magazine articles that the government has been financially rewarding–with no disclosure from either the government or the media.

  • Los Angeles station KTLA-TV agreed to a deal to let the Los Angeles Police Department provide their “exclusive” video footage of the Democratic National Convention. Other area TV stations were said to be “divided” on the arrangement, in which a media helicopter would be permitted to enter the 1.5-mile-radius “no-fly-zone” over the convention site, “but only under the control of the police, who would also determine what [would] be videotaped” (Los Angeles Times, 7/28/00). Images from a “regular LAPD helicopter” would also be offered to broadcasters.

    The LAPD eventually withdrew the offer, after it was ripped by media critics and other observers, though KTLA News Director Jeff Wald maintained, “It really wasn’t controversial” (Los Angeles Times, 8/1/00).

  • In an article detailing the difficulties of reporting from Chechnya, the January 2000 Editor & Publisher noted that the New York Times‘ Michael Gordon stood almost alone among American reporters in getting easy access to battle zones and Russian military leaders. The Russian military is notorious for detaining, expelling and misinforming journalists trying to cover the ongoing brutal war, yet Gordon received a press credential that enabled him to travel with the army.

    Gordon, then-Chief of the Times‘ Moscow Bureau, explained to Editor & Publisher that the Times had “made a different choice to follow the rules and regulations and work within the system. Others didn’t want to, and jumped the gun.”

    The Times‘ special access seems to have come at a price. Gordon’s reports from Chechnya in 2000 rarely quoted sources who were not Russian officials, soldiers or, occasionally, Moscow-appointed Chechen officials. Dissent from the official Russian line on the conflict and details about the war’s devastating impact on Chechen civilians did not figure prominently in Gordon’s coverage.

    Are you a journalist with a story about fear or favor in the newsroom? Let us know: fearandfavor@fair.org.

    (Report revised 3/12/01)

    Author: FAIR

    News Service: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

    URL: http://www.fair.org/ff2000.html

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: