After Paris and Copenhagen, Let's Not Forget Corporate Censorship
It has been a bad and bloody few months. From the brutal mass murder at the offices of Charlie Hedbo to the tragedy in Copenhagen, the purportedly cherished Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press came under attack from religious extremism. The hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, which exploded in the immediate aftermath of the Paris killings, was supposed to symbolize a collective opposition to any restrictions (imposed or self-imposed) on free expression. Similarly, there was widespread condemnation of the killings in Copenhagen, followed by reaffirmations of the central place of a free press and free speech in modern European society.
In the midst of these brutal and senseless killings, two other stories caught our eye: the suspension in the US of NBC anchor Brian Williams for lying about events during his time in Iraq; and, the revelations provided by Daily Telegraph political commentator Peter Oborne on the influence of advertiser HSBC on editorial decision-making. To me, these four stories are linked by more than just a broad media theme, they illustrate how our commitment to free speech and free press is absolute and unwavering when faced with threats from the "outside" such as terrorism, yet when those same freedoms are compromised from the "inside" in the form of corporate control over our media systems, our collective outrage is significantly less robust.
What the Williams and Telegraph/HSBC stories remind us of is the direct and indirect influence of advertisers upon news content. Direct influence is when advertisers (or owners on behalf of advertisers) offer instructions on how stories with a potential impact upon advertising revenues should be dealt with. According to Oborne, The Daily Telegraph purposefully avoided negative coverage of HSBC (and HSBC interests) in order to protect a lucrative ad contract held with the bank. Oborne also suggested that the newspaper ran a piece on cruise company Cunard (also a major advertiser) that was little more than a full-page ad masquerading as a news story. Proven stories on the direct influence of advertisers are particularly devastating because they: (a) are rare; (b) rip the heart out of the argument forwarded by so many news organizations about a "wall" between news and advertising; and (c), cause readers to wonder how many other examples of such influence might be out there.
This brings us to indirect influence: a far more murky area. Indirect influence is when editors and journalists make decisions favorable to advertisers and advertising revenue without explicit comments or demands from owners or sponsors. In other words, when staff have internalized the importance of the commercial interests of their organization, and won't even consider running a story that would damage the bottom line (or look for stories that will bolster the bottom line). In the case of Brian Williams, I see his bogus macho war story as a clear attempt to increase the commercial value of himself and NBC news. In addition, Williams' de facto cheer-leading of the occupation of Iraq was profitable par for the course in the US. No corporate-owned news program in the US would have dared to be tarred with the "unpatriotic" brush after 9/11, as advertisers would have jumped ship immediately. The war was a money-maker.
In the end, indirect influence is likely far more prevalent than direct, yet the nature of the influence is such that it can be dismissed as individual choice on the part of the editor or journalist, or conspiracy theories on the part of the critic.
And how do we link this back to Paris and Copenhagen? When compared to the vocal defense of a free press and free expression in the face of religious extremism, attacks upon corporate influence on the news are relatively tame.
This is perhaps unsurprising.
Acts of terror such as those in France and Denmark are attacks upon our the systems and organizations that shape everyday life. In other words, when you attack the staff of a newspaper, or an individual artist, you attack the institutions of journalism and art. In these cases, the system is seen as working, but is perverted by outside forces. When the system itself is at fault, however, then the implications are disturbing, implying a longer-term pattern of deception and failure. And, systemic failure in the case of commercial journalism also casts a shadow over one of our most powerful mythologies: the free market of ideas.
The killings in Paris and Copenhagen were attacks upon free expression, yet if we really care about the value of such expression, we should focus our spotlights upon abuses both inside and outside the walls of power.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It has been a bad and bloody few months. From the brutal mass murder at the offices of Charlie Hedbo to the tragedy in Copenhagen, the purportedly cherished Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press came under attack from religious extremism. The hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, which exploded in the immediate aftermath of the Paris killings, was supposed to symbolize a collective opposition to any restrictions (imposed or self-imposed) on free expression. Similarly, there was widespread condemnation of the killings in Copenhagen, followed by reaffirmations of the central place of a free press and free speech in modern European society.
In the midst of these brutal and senseless killings, two other stories caught our eye: the suspension in the US of NBC anchor Brian Williams for lying about events during his time in Iraq; and, the revelations provided by Daily Telegraph political commentator Peter Oborne on the influence of advertiser HSBC on editorial decision-making. To me, these four stories are linked by more than just a broad media theme, they illustrate how our commitment to free speech and free press is absolute and unwavering when faced with threats from the "outside" such as terrorism, yet when those same freedoms are compromised from the "inside" in the form of corporate control over our media systems, our collective outrage is significantly less robust.
What the Williams and Telegraph/HSBC stories remind us of is the direct and indirect influence of advertisers upon news content. Direct influence is when advertisers (or owners on behalf of advertisers) offer instructions on how stories with a potential impact upon advertising revenues should be dealt with. According to Oborne, The Daily Telegraph purposefully avoided negative coverage of HSBC (and HSBC interests) in order to protect a lucrative ad contract held with the bank. Oborne also suggested that the newspaper ran a piece on cruise company Cunard (also a major advertiser) that was little more than a full-page ad masquerading as a news story. Proven stories on the direct influence of advertisers are particularly devastating because they: (a) are rare; (b) rip the heart out of the argument forwarded by so many news organizations about a "wall" between news and advertising; and (c), cause readers to wonder how many other examples of such influence might be out there.
This brings us to indirect influence: a far more murky area. Indirect influence is when editors and journalists make decisions favorable to advertisers and advertising revenue without explicit comments or demands from owners or sponsors. In other words, when staff have internalized the importance of the commercial interests of their organization, and won't even consider running a story that would damage the bottom line (or look for stories that will bolster the bottom line). In the case of Brian Williams, I see his bogus macho war story as a clear attempt to increase the commercial value of himself and NBC news. In addition, Williams' de facto cheer-leading of the occupation of Iraq was profitable par for the course in the US. No corporate-owned news program in the US would have dared to be tarred with the "unpatriotic" brush after 9/11, as advertisers would have jumped ship immediately. The war was a money-maker.
In the end, indirect influence is likely far more prevalent than direct, yet the nature of the influence is such that it can be dismissed as individual choice on the part of the editor or journalist, or conspiracy theories on the part of the critic.
And how do we link this back to Paris and Copenhagen? When compared to the vocal defense of a free press and free expression in the face of religious extremism, attacks upon corporate influence on the news are relatively tame.
This is perhaps unsurprising.
Acts of terror such as those in France and Denmark are attacks upon our the systems and organizations that shape everyday life. In other words, when you attack the staff of a newspaper, or an individual artist, you attack the institutions of journalism and art. In these cases, the system is seen as working, but is perverted by outside forces. When the system itself is at fault, however, then the implications are disturbing, implying a longer-term pattern of deception and failure. And, systemic failure in the case of commercial journalism also casts a shadow over one of our most powerful mythologies: the free market of ideas.
The killings in Paris and Copenhagen were attacks upon free expression, yet if we really care about the value of such expression, we should focus our spotlights upon abuses both inside and outside the walls of power.
It has been a bad and bloody few months. From the brutal mass murder at the offices of Charlie Hedbo to the tragedy in Copenhagen, the purportedly cherished Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press came under attack from religious extremism. The hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, which exploded in the immediate aftermath of the Paris killings, was supposed to symbolize a collective opposition to any restrictions (imposed or self-imposed) on free expression. Similarly, there was widespread condemnation of the killings in Copenhagen, followed by reaffirmations of the central place of a free press and free speech in modern European society.
In the midst of these brutal and senseless killings, two other stories caught our eye: the suspension in the US of NBC anchor Brian Williams for lying about events during his time in Iraq; and, the revelations provided by Daily Telegraph political commentator Peter Oborne on the influence of advertiser HSBC on editorial decision-making. To me, these four stories are linked by more than just a broad media theme, they illustrate how our commitment to free speech and free press is absolute and unwavering when faced with threats from the "outside" such as terrorism, yet when those same freedoms are compromised from the "inside" in the form of corporate control over our media systems, our collective outrage is significantly less robust.
What the Williams and Telegraph/HSBC stories remind us of is the direct and indirect influence of advertisers upon news content. Direct influence is when advertisers (or owners on behalf of advertisers) offer instructions on how stories with a potential impact upon advertising revenues should be dealt with. According to Oborne, The Daily Telegraph purposefully avoided negative coverage of HSBC (and HSBC interests) in order to protect a lucrative ad contract held with the bank. Oborne also suggested that the newspaper ran a piece on cruise company Cunard (also a major advertiser) that was little more than a full-page ad masquerading as a news story. Proven stories on the direct influence of advertisers are particularly devastating because they: (a) are rare; (b) rip the heart out of the argument forwarded by so many news organizations about a "wall" between news and advertising; and (c), cause readers to wonder how many other examples of such influence might be out there.
This brings us to indirect influence: a far more murky area. Indirect influence is when editors and journalists make decisions favorable to advertisers and advertising revenue without explicit comments or demands from owners or sponsors. In other words, when staff have internalized the importance of the commercial interests of their organization, and won't even consider running a story that would damage the bottom line (or look for stories that will bolster the bottom line). In the case of Brian Williams, I see his bogus macho war story as a clear attempt to increase the commercial value of himself and NBC news. In addition, Williams' de facto cheer-leading of the occupation of Iraq was profitable par for the course in the US. No corporate-owned news program in the US would have dared to be tarred with the "unpatriotic" brush after 9/11, as advertisers would have jumped ship immediately. The war was a money-maker.
In the end, indirect influence is likely far more prevalent than direct, yet the nature of the influence is such that it can be dismissed as individual choice on the part of the editor or journalist, or conspiracy theories on the part of the critic.
And how do we link this back to Paris and Copenhagen? When compared to the vocal defense of a free press and free expression in the face of religious extremism, attacks upon corporate influence on the news are relatively tame.
This is perhaps unsurprising.
Acts of terror such as those in France and Denmark are attacks upon our the systems and organizations that shape everyday life. In other words, when you attack the staff of a newspaper, or an individual artist, you attack the institutions of journalism and art. In these cases, the system is seen as working, but is perverted by outside forces. When the system itself is at fault, however, then the implications are disturbing, implying a longer-term pattern of deception and failure. And, systemic failure in the case of commercial journalism also casts a shadow over one of our most powerful mythologies: the free market of ideas.
The killings in Paris and Copenhagen were attacks upon free expression, yet if we really care about the value of such expression, we should focus our spotlights upon abuses both inside and outside the walls of power.