Long time employee of one of those companies, here.
To believe that there is some dictate about how a story is covered or why that comes from the top is to believe that we are way more organized than reality. Yes, some corporate-synergy exists to cross-promote, especially on morning shows, but when it comes to news, we are usually pushing so close to deadline there's no way to even allow for corporate control.
That said, there is a need to meet an ever decreasing budget. That's the parent co's real bias; to be cheap.
"I'm not saying you're self-censoring; I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. What I'm saying is that if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
My concern is not how things are covered, but what is covered. The article states that certain things (like the owner's dalliances outside his marriage) will never be covered at all. Chomsky and others talk about constraining the topics for discussion, and this seems the most concerning.
Well, first off, there are other examples (e.g. Sinclair) where it is far more obvious. Lots of local stations are beholden to advertisers and kill the stories.
But it's less "here's today's memo saying how to bamboozle people" and more "person X does Y, the bosses like Y, person X gets promoted/a show/a better timeslot" feedback loop. And the top bosses are selected by the owners. I assume you believe corporate culture can come from the top. Some of this (don't make up stories and sources) is undeniably good. But there is a subtler strain that encourages you to seek out and publish stories you know your bosses will approve of. If, for instance, you started publishing stories about how the KKK was releasing studies that had some really good points you would (rightly) be fired.
I'm not saying you or your coworkers are bad or biased. I'm saying the system you are working within is.
> To believe that there is some dictate about how a story is covered or why that comes from the top is to believe that we are way more organized than reality.
> To believe that there is some dictate about how a story is covered or why that comes from the top is to believe that we are way more organized than reality.
I'm pretty sure there are smoking gun memos and insider reports of dictates from the top at News Corp. or at least within Fox News, which they own. Is News Corp. / Fox just a special case?
Largely, yes. Murdoch has a hands-off approach with News Corp — his politics are, if you can believe it, to the left of most Fox News viewers, but it makes shit-tons of money for him. Roger Ailes was the one sending out the memos, the one Murdoch trusted to increase add revenue year after year.
The other news channels know their viewers, and don’t want them to change the channel so will avoid topics those viewers might find off-putting, but there aren’t the same top-down “here is how we’ll present this story” dictats from above.
To believe that there is some dictate about how a story is covered or why that comes from the top is to believe that we are way more organized than reality. Yes, some corporate-synergy exists to cross-promote, especially on morning shows, but when it comes to news, we are usually pushing so close to deadline there's no way to even allow for corporate control.
That said, there is a need to meet an ever decreasing budget. That's the parent co's real bias; to be cheap.