COMMON THREADS

One of the Common Threads discussed in Chapter 1 is about the commercial nature of the mass media. In thinking about media ownership regulations, it is important to consider how the media wield their influence.

During the 2000 presidential election, two marginal candidates, Pat Buchanan on the Right, and Ralph Nader on the Left, shared a common view that both major party candidates largely ignored. Buchanan and Nader warned of the increasing power of corporations to influence the economy and our democracy. In fact, between 2000 and 2012, total spending on lobbying in the nation’s capital grew from $1.57 billion to more than $3 billion.³⁶ (See Chapter 12 for more on lobbyists.)

These warnings generally have gone unnoticed and unreported by mainstream media, whose reporters, editors, and pundits often work for the giant media corporations that not only are well represented by Washington lobbyists but also give millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the major parties to influence legislation that governs media ownership and commercial speech.

Fast-forward to 2012. As politicians spoke of transparency and truth-telling, their campaign funding process had few of those characteristics. In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United (2010) decision, new Super PACS (Political Action Committees) formed that can channel unlimited funds into political races as long as they don’t officially “coordinate” with the political campaigns. With his own Super PAC (named “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow”) comedian Stephen Colbert has satirized the lax standards of Super PAC rules that enable hundreds of millions of dollars to be channeled into politics while obscuring disclosure of the contributors’ identities. By December 2012, Super PACs had spent more than $644 million on the 2012 election cycle (mostly in negative attack ads), with the majority of contributions coming from a few dozen elite ultra-wealthy donors. For example, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife donated in excess of $54 million to candidates and Super PACs in the 2012 election cycle.³⁷ The huge influx of money was a boon for media advertising profits.

What both Buchanan and Nader argued in 2000 was that corporate influence is a bipartisan concern that we share in common and that all of us in a democracy need to be vigilant about how powerful and influential corporations become. This is especially true for the media companies that report the news and distribute many of our cultural stories. As media-literate consumers, we need to demand that the media serve as watchdogs over the economy and our democratic values. And when they fall down on the job, we need to demand accountability (through alternative media channels or the Internet), especially from those mainstream media–radio, television, and cable–that are licensed to operate in the public interest.

KEY TERMS

The definitions for the terms listed below can be found in the glossary at the end of the book. The page numbers listed with the terms indicate where the term is highlighted in the chapter.

monopoly, 452

oligopoly, 453

limited competition, 453

direct payment, 454

indirect payment, 454

economies of scale, 454

hegemony, 459

synergy, 462

cultural imperialism, 474

REVIEW QUESTIONS

Analyzing the Media Economy

The Transition to an Information Economy

Specialization, Global Markets, and Convergence

Social Issues in Media Economics

The Media Marketplace and emocracy

QUESTIONING THE MEDIA

ADDITIONAL VIDEOS

Visit the VideoCentral: Mass Communication section at bedfordstmartins.com/mediaculture for additional exclusive videos related to Chapter 13, including: