Re-cent reports have noted con-flicts of interest in the media.
ABC News promoted a theme park of the network’s parent, Disney, and networks manipulated their news to promote their other programs.
Archer Daniels Midland sponsored news programs on ABC, NBC, PBS and NPR, which could minimize scrutiny of the company, particularly the favors it received for its large political contributions. (“The Price Is Right,” New York Times, Jan. 10).
A Washington Post media writer produced a piece for “Nightline” and regularly appears as a paid panelist on CNN. What would the writer, who might want to retain both relationships, do if he uncovered critical information about either? (“Sunday watch,” Tribune, Jan. 11).
Conflicts are multiplied when Disney owns ABC, General Electric owns NBC and Westinghouse owns CBS and when newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations are under the same control. Are news people at NBC likely to pursue a story that would hurt one of General Electric’s host of enterprises that include building nuclear power plants and making engines for military aircraft?
Would a newspaper use negative information about a television station or another newspaper under the same ownership?
Freeing media from control of non-media corporations would be a big improvement. Having free-standing media units not answerable to a media conglomerate would be another advance. Both would encourage greater diversity in the marketplace of ideas.
Further improvements would be an end to speaking fees and other paid work for newspersons since the employing organization might be a subject of reportage.
Difficult to address is the influence of advertisers and sponsors and manipulation of news for self-serving purposes.
The most unconflicted (and best positioned to produce straightforward public affairs programming) is independent and well-funded public broadcasting with no sponsors.
