Mainstream media?
June 27, 2005 5:04 PM   Subscribe

[A] small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom: just "118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big [US] media giants." [also seen at Independent World Television & RepublicofT
posted by dash_slot- (16 comments total)
 
I've consumed products from companies that are members of the board of director for each of the ten biggest US media giants. Quick, someone make a bingo card!
posted by furtive at 5:12 PM on June 27, 2005


I know that's supposed to seem like a crazy small number, but it actually seems like more variety than I would have expected. I'm sure I'll feel different once mergers takes that number down to 30.
posted by willnot at 5:14 PM on June 27, 2005


That'll never happen, willnot. They'll just increase the size of the boards if there are less companies among which to distribute them. There's always a job for you on our board of directors if you're an oligarch, son. This is America, God damn it!
posted by psmealey at 5:30 PM on June 27, 2005


I guess it depends on the size of the boards, but this doesn't seem to me to be all that small, either. I'd like to see the numbers across a larger sample size, including other industries. I wouldn't be surprised to see more corporate interconnections in that group.
posted by tommasz at 5:32 PM on June 27, 2005


What's the issue?

I find this pretty relieving, actually. In and of itself, like everyone above has pointed out, this is a good number of people for 10 companies. What's even better is that it means that each of the media companies has a good number of outside directors that have no tie to the company other than their role.

It's far better to see them on the board than executives from within the media company itself.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:39 PM on June 27, 2005


See also: They Rule (flash-powered web of connections between CEOs).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:46 PM on June 27, 2005


If that number seems reasonably large to you, and you're satisfied with the diversity it represents, think about this one:

These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations.

Civil's link makes this point quite nicely.
posted by psmealey at 5:53 PM on June 27, 2005


If that number seems reasonably large to you, and you're satisfied with the diversity it represents, think about this one:

These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations.



So.... they each sit on two (give or take) Boards?

Again: What's the issue?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 6:11 PM on June 27, 2005


Civil_Disobedient's link helps visualize specific linkages of interest, but it doesn't seem to answer a question that's been troubling me for a while now. What is the total number of individual board members that represent the Fortune 500? I get the sinking feeling it's a lot less than 15*500.
posted by klarck at 6:20 PM on June 27, 2005


If you read more than the first sentence, I think they do a good job of pointing out the issue:

Many of this group also sit on the corporate boards of other national and international corporations, forming some interesting interlocking ties.

For example, "NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi." The Washington Post shares board members with Lockheed-Martin, while ABC's parent, Disney, shares members with Halliburton.

Author and Project Censored director Peter Phillips asks: "Can we trust the news editors at the Washington Post to be fair and objective regarding news stories about Lockheed-Martin defense contract over-runs? Or can we assuredly believe that ABC will conduct critical investigative reporting on Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq?"

Given their interlocking corporate interests, Phillips questions whether these corporations can fairly be called "mainstream media."


If you are fine with having all the news you read/watch/consume coming from these 10 corporate media outlets, then clearly there is no issue for you. Some of us would like the option of a truly independent media outlet that would cover topics other than round the clock Michael Jackson.
posted by jdb at 6:48 PM on June 27, 2005


please read the article

Can we trust the news editors at the Washington Post to be fair and objective regarding news stories about Lockheed-Martin defense contract over-runs? Or can we assuredly believe that ABC will conduct critical investigative reporting on Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq? If we believe the corporate media give us the full un-censored truth about key issues inside the special interests of American capitalism, then we might feel that they are meeting the democratic needs of mainstream America. However if we believe - as increasingly more Americans do- that corporate media serves its own self-interests instead of those of the people, than we can no longer call it mainstream or refer to it as plural. Instead we need to say that corporate media is corporate America, and that we the mainstream people need to be looking at alternative independent sources for our news and information.
posted by eustatic at 7:07 PM on June 27, 2005


i would say that i know about five times that many people.

So imagine if a fifth of your acquaintances called the shots on what 270 million people (not raising the question of american dominance over international television production) thought about each day.
posted by eustatic at 7:11 PM on June 27, 2005


ABC's parent, Disney, shares members with Halliburton.

No biggie.... ABC still reports news damaging to Halliburton. All the broadcast and cable networks do.

Don't they?
I mean, they do, right?
It's not like they could just steal billion$ in plain sight. That kind of thing would be reported on television, wouldn't it?

Hold me.

posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:21 PM on June 27, 2005


What are these alternative independent news sources, how are they funded, do they have conflicts of interest or agendas, and how are they better than the current media?
posted by forforf at 8:31 PM on June 27, 2005


The role of a director is usually blown out of proportion. If directors (especially the independent ones) did actually "call the shots" then these incestual relationships would be more newsworthy.

Also, it seems that the current problem is that qualified independent directors (i.e., those having relevant directorship experience) are hard to come by, and thus, the qualified ones tend to take on multiple seats.
posted by mullacc at 9:10 PM on June 27, 2005


I agree it's not necessarily a case of Board Members applying direct "hands on" pressure in the newroom. It's more the overall culture and context these interlocking corporate ties represent. I like how Bob McChesney puts it:

"The problem doesn't reside with nefarious or corrupt owners; even if Rupert Murdoch and Summer Redstone were to quite their jobs, change their names, and move off to Utah to do yoga and share a bong all day in a mountain cabin, the operations of News Corporation and Viacom would not change appreciably. Whoever replaced them would follow the same cues, with more or less success, as the logic of the system would remain intact. No corporate executive or board of directors would place the public-interest priorities of a democracy ahead of the profit-making needs of the company."

I think that last sentence is key -- board members are there to serve the profit-making needs of their companies. If that means putting a chill on reporting, applying management hiring and firing pressures, or cutting costs and pushing for infotainment, they'll do it. It's their job. And not just for their media companies, but the other companies they simultaneously represent as well.

It's true that advertisers exert pressure as well. That's partly why Independent World Television is encouraging people to help build a news network without advertising, corporate, or government funding. We think that will make it easier to serve the public, instead of advertisers or shareholders.
posted by Matt from IWTnews at 7:29 AM on June 28, 2005


« Older Afghan Children Burned   |   By the power of Xenu...be gone! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments