The Impact of Capitalism on the News
By James Donahue
Now that the printed news has fallen into disrepute and people now depend on the Internet and televised broadcasting to get reports about day’s events, the horrors of intense advertising is slamming us between the eyes.
We can’t watch the nightly news now without wading through back-to-back commercials where smiling men and women try to sell us a line of products we don’t need or want.
We can’t read an Internet story without having the promotion for some product and even the sponsoring publication forcing us to first read or at least look at a bright flashing promotion on the screen. Often the story you wish to read is blocked and delayed because of the time it takes for that complex advertisement, complete with video and sound, loads. Even though there is always an “x” somewhere in the ad that is designed to eliminate the nuisance, sometimes it is obscured. Even if we find and hit the X with our curser, it sometimes allows the ad video to play out before removing it from the screen. By then interest in the story is often lost.
I am often so angered by this invasion of my computer screen that I take time to remember this particular product and personally vow to never purchase it. (Secretly, however, I usually know I would never want to own it anyway.)
In my years working as a journalist for newspapers in the United States I was always been keenly aware of the way big business impacted the news we wrote. My first job on a small Michigan daily involved being a jack-of-all-trades. I made police rounds in the morning, covered general news, spent my afternoons attempting to sell ads and even filling in for evening paper delivery services. The part I disliked was being an ad salesman. I am a poor liar and discovered that I was never able to sell something that I didn’t personally believe in.
I always noticed the impact major businesses and advertisers had on the news content of the papers I wrote for. There were certain things we avoided writing about or at least handled with kid gloves when we couldn’t avoid it. We always knew that the health of our newspaper depended on the advertising revenue that paid our salaries.
My college journalism classes included special training in this area. I remember having to read Vance Packard’s book, “The Hidden Persuaders,” which, even in the 1950’s gave us insight in the way the promoters of products used trickery to make people desire products. Hidden sexual images on packages and published advertisements were popular then and they still are. The very way products are displayed in stores has become an art form. The music, the art displays and general placing of the products at eye level is found to stimulate impulse buying; thus the price of the shopping spree in a store is intensified.
One incident that occurred during the years I worked on a news bureau along the Western Michigan coast may help explain the very power that the guy with the money has over the media. For years I was a welcome guest at a popular resort where important political and business meetings were held. High level state and federal political figures spoke there and the AFL/CIO held annual conclaves at this resort complex. As long as I included the name of the resort in my stories I was always among the special guests. When banquets were held I was given a free seat at the table. Then one day the son of the owner was arrested by the State Police on a drug charge and I was caught in a dilemma. The owner asked that I kill this particular story. The editor and I stuck to our guns and published the story anyway. We felt it was impossible for us not to. After this the door to that resort was closed to our newspaper and the stories I needed to write were lost to our readers.
Only this month Unilever, among the world’s largest advertisers, threatened to cut back on its advertising in social Internet services like Facebook, Google and YouTube unless these platforms put controls on some of the “hateful views” that create division, promote fake news and fail to protect children. The threat was delivered by company marketing officer Keith Weed during an Interactive Advertising Bureau conference.
While we might agree with Unilever’s veiled threat in general, the statement clearly defines the muscle that big corporations have over written and spoken commentary that floods the Internet. The same control obviously exists for other media outlets in this capitalistic society.
Over the years I have mingled with media people from all over the nation, including members of the famed Washington Press Corps. And I have always felt the reigns of control that corporate money has held over the press. It has never been as bad as it has become since Donald Trump and his gang moved into Washington. Mr. Trump was quick to attack the media, invent the concept of “fake news,” and imply that every negative story written about him fit in that latter category. After just one year in office Trump is on his second assigned news director. She is an obvious shill being paid well to spew out whatever the president wants her to tell the press; but not necessarily the truth. She had good media credentials when she landed that job, but you can see the pain of what she is doing now written all over her face. She doesn’t like to lie to the public any more than I did.
Probably because of the Trump phenomenon, and the way that he was elected under shadowy conditions, there has been a movement toward a new form of government not only in the United States but all over the world. The new ideas include a democratic socialistic concept that allows but puts a control on capitalism. The thought is that humans must begin to adapt to a rapidly changing world where robotic machines take over our jobs as the world population increase is putting more and more demand on the remaining world resources. The thought supports one central government where everyone is treated equally. In such a world everyone has a job but it is for only a few hours weekly. Everybody receives equal payment which is enough to live comfortably. And everybody is provided good housing, medical services and public transportation. People thus are given a sense of self-worth and given time to pursue creative ideas of their own, many of which could be of great benefit to society as a whole.
Imagine how free the news cycle might be in a society like that? In the other extreme, under the control of a corrupt central government, the news might still remain extremely controlled. If done well, however, the general public might never know the difference.
By James Donahue
Now that the printed news has fallen into disrepute and people now depend on the Internet and televised broadcasting to get reports about day’s events, the horrors of intense advertising is slamming us between the eyes.
We can’t watch the nightly news now without wading through back-to-back commercials where smiling men and women try to sell us a line of products we don’t need or want.
We can’t read an Internet story without having the promotion for some product and even the sponsoring publication forcing us to first read or at least look at a bright flashing promotion on the screen. Often the story you wish to read is blocked and delayed because of the time it takes for that complex advertisement, complete with video and sound, loads. Even though there is always an “x” somewhere in the ad that is designed to eliminate the nuisance, sometimes it is obscured. Even if we find and hit the X with our curser, it sometimes allows the ad video to play out before removing it from the screen. By then interest in the story is often lost.
I am often so angered by this invasion of my computer screen that I take time to remember this particular product and personally vow to never purchase it. (Secretly, however, I usually know I would never want to own it anyway.)
In my years working as a journalist for newspapers in the United States I was always been keenly aware of the way big business impacted the news we wrote. My first job on a small Michigan daily involved being a jack-of-all-trades. I made police rounds in the morning, covered general news, spent my afternoons attempting to sell ads and even filling in for evening paper delivery services. The part I disliked was being an ad salesman. I am a poor liar and discovered that I was never able to sell something that I didn’t personally believe in.
I always noticed the impact major businesses and advertisers had on the news content of the papers I wrote for. There were certain things we avoided writing about or at least handled with kid gloves when we couldn’t avoid it. We always knew that the health of our newspaper depended on the advertising revenue that paid our salaries.
My college journalism classes included special training in this area. I remember having to read Vance Packard’s book, “The Hidden Persuaders,” which, even in the 1950’s gave us insight in the way the promoters of products used trickery to make people desire products. Hidden sexual images on packages and published advertisements were popular then and they still are. The very way products are displayed in stores has become an art form. The music, the art displays and general placing of the products at eye level is found to stimulate impulse buying; thus the price of the shopping spree in a store is intensified.
One incident that occurred during the years I worked on a news bureau along the Western Michigan coast may help explain the very power that the guy with the money has over the media. For years I was a welcome guest at a popular resort where important political and business meetings were held. High level state and federal political figures spoke there and the AFL/CIO held annual conclaves at this resort complex. As long as I included the name of the resort in my stories I was always among the special guests. When banquets were held I was given a free seat at the table. Then one day the son of the owner was arrested by the State Police on a drug charge and I was caught in a dilemma. The owner asked that I kill this particular story. The editor and I stuck to our guns and published the story anyway. We felt it was impossible for us not to. After this the door to that resort was closed to our newspaper and the stories I needed to write were lost to our readers.
Only this month Unilever, among the world’s largest advertisers, threatened to cut back on its advertising in social Internet services like Facebook, Google and YouTube unless these platforms put controls on some of the “hateful views” that create division, promote fake news and fail to protect children. The threat was delivered by company marketing officer Keith Weed during an Interactive Advertising Bureau conference.
While we might agree with Unilever’s veiled threat in general, the statement clearly defines the muscle that big corporations have over written and spoken commentary that floods the Internet. The same control obviously exists for other media outlets in this capitalistic society.
Over the years I have mingled with media people from all over the nation, including members of the famed Washington Press Corps. And I have always felt the reigns of control that corporate money has held over the press. It has never been as bad as it has become since Donald Trump and his gang moved into Washington. Mr. Trump was quick to attack the media, invent the concept of “fake news,” and imply that every negative story written about him fit in that latter category. After just one year in office Trump is on his second assigned news director. She is an obvious shill being paid well to spew out whatever the president wants her to tell the press; but not necessarily the truth. She had good media credentials when she landed that job, but you can see the pain of what she is doing now written all over her face. She doesn’t like to lie to the public any more than I did.
Probably because of the Trump phenomenon, and the way that he was elected under shadowy conditions, there has been a movement toward a new form of government not only in the United States but all over the world. The new ideas include a democratic socialistic concept that allows but puts a control on capitalism. The thought is that humans must begin to adapt to a rapidly changing world where robotic machines take over our jobs as the world population increase is putting more and more demand on the remaining world resources. The thought supports one central government where everyone is treated equally. In such a world everyone has a job but it is for only a few hours weekly. Everybody receives equal payment which is enough to live comfortably. And everybody is provided good housing, medical services and public transportation. People thus are given a sense of self-worth and given time to pursue creative ideas of their own, many of which could be of great benefit to society as a whole.
Imagine how free the news cycle might be in a society like that? In the other extreme, under the control of a corrupt central government, the news might still remain extremely controlled. If done well, however, the general public might never know the difference.