On January 21, Keith Olbermann resigned from MSNBC, following a tumultuous scandal regarding political donations the news commentator made. Some cheered as though objective journalism was winning a battle and others said MSNBC was killing its “golden goose.” While the issue of individual journalists’ contributions to political campaigns gained national attention, imagine if MSNBC (or rather General Electric, which owns MSNBC) had contributed to such a campaign. According to Citizens United v. FCC (decided almost exactly a year before Olbermann resigned), General Electric, under the First Amendment, would have every legal right to do so.
In January of 2010, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in deciding that corporations (as viewed by the court as individuals) have a First Amendment right to make unlimited campaign contributions. According to an article in Miller-McCune, speculation of campaign spending for the most recent midterm election was nearly $300 million, with nearly half of that money coming from groups that did not wish to disclose any information about their financial sources to the FEC. Although it’s impossible to say what it would have been otherwise, many believe that the Citizens United ruling had a strong influence in increasing midterm spending to be more on par with that of the 2008 presidential election.
Although much of the news media focused on the effects of Citizens United with regard to corporations such as Google or Microsoft, the law applies across the board and includes news and media corporations as well. So far, many individual news corporations, including MSNBC, have in place private ethics policies and contracts with their employees regarding what can and cannot be done in terms of political contributions. The law, however, does view these conglomerates as individuals with a right to reverse these policies and start spending immediately, if they so choose. To go back to the General Electric example, this conglomerate owns numerous local television stations, Bravo, NBC, MSNBC, Oxygen, USA Network, Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, iVillage, Focus Features, GE Appliances and GE Energy—just to name a few. Despite the financial state of journalism, General Electric owns more than just newspapers and has incredible spending power. And this isn’t a rare case. Other media conglomerates such as Comcast, The New York Times Company, The Walt Disney Company and Gannett own dozens of media and news outlets nationwide.
While these companies are undoubtedly enormous, it isn’t hard to imagine a world where ridiculous amounts of political spending are being done on behalf of these corporations and thus influencing both the major and minor subsidiary companies and their daily actions.
But what does this mean for journalism? MSNBC and FOX News obviously have a certain political slant, and some argue that this is just a hearkening back to Mill’s principle of the free marketplace of ideas. This type of commentary-fueled journalism, however, is a slippery slope. Although I completely support a market place of ideas where truth will ultimately prevail, the secrecy of this truth in journalism is often the issue. To reach back to the Olbermann example, one of the many issues that presented itself was that Olbermann had financially supported many people he interviewed on his show without disclosing that information to his audience. I think a similar issue presents itself with the larger media conglomerates. To be honest, I don’t doubt that these companies have made substantial political contributions to someone somewhere at some point. What does bother me though, is that I most likely have absolutely no idea who it was to and how that contribution will affect the information I get from these companies.
Some corporations have made an effort to retain their journalistic integrity though. For example, whenever a local ABC news network (which is owned by The Walt Disney Company) runs a story discussing Disney World, there is a disclaimer before the story airs mentioning that ABC and Disney World do have an affiliation. If this kind of process could be expanded to politics and, essentially all other affiliations, I think the system could clearly succeed. Putting that much trust in big business is difficult for me though.
But, with full and honest disclosure, however, I do think that the system Citizens United put in place can provide the best of both worlds- corporate political freedom and honest reporting in the media.
Citizens United v. FEC
Following the Money a Year After Citizens United
Who Owns What- Columbia Journalism Review
Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws
The press after Citizens United
Kristy,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic. I had no idea that Keith Olbermann had financially supported some of the political candidates that he interviewed during his time at MSNBC. In my opinion, by Olbermann financially supporting political candidates that he interviews, he is completely throwing objective journalism out of the window. It's impossible to maintain objectivity when you're money is on the line. Olbermann supported these candidates because he wanted them to win, so he's clearly not going to try and trap these particular candidates in lies, or get the truth of certain matters if it would make the candidate look bad.
As a citizen, I want full disclosure. I want to know which candidates media corporations are supporting when it comes to finances. If the news outlet doesn't come out and say what it is doing (like how ABC and Disney do it) I would feel extremely misled, lied to even. Implicit in the right to freedom of speech is the right to listen, and I feel it is news corporations jobs to present the full truth of who and what they are supporting.
-Sam Zuba
There are a few different issues I have here with Citizens United v. FEC. Although I am not entirely familiar with this case, I understand it was a 5-4 decision. I have to side with the dissenting Justices on this one. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion which concluded,
ReplyDelete"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
I don't believe corporations should be allowed to control the government, which is essentially what is going on here if there is unlimited donations from big businesses. I thought the issues of lobbying and earmarks were already problematic and to allow these huge financially-stable institutions to back candidates fiscally is just adding fuel to the fire.
The government is supposed to be for the people, by the people. Elected officials are supposed to be a good representation of their constituents. If the candidates that are connected to these big businesses are winning, they 1.) don't represent their district very well at all (most likely) and 2.) they are going to keep the interests of these big businesses in mind and not the real people that actually vote for them.
I see this as a huge set back to candidates that may be the better man for the job but aren't connected to the cash cow corporations and hence, loses because he didn't do the million dollar TV spot or the mailers. I find this especially troubling as a person that will someday run for an election. It makes me lose hope. Both in my future as a judge and in the democratic system.
What happen to the old fashion letters to your Senator or Congressman? As an intern for State Senator Mike Frerichs, I read hundreds of letters trying to persuade the Senator on issues that affect his constituents. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to overshadow these people, "the little people." They are important too. More important, in my opinion.
On the issue of journalists contributing to campaigns, I'm not sure how much exactly Olbermann donated, but let's take a step back and compare...who should we be worried about contributing to campaigns? The journalist with a limited salary or the huge corporation with millions of dollars in revenue? Granted, journalists like Olbermann are probably making a comfortable and rather large salary, especially compared to other journalists. But come on, how much can he really donate? And compare his donation to a huge corporation, who's making more of an impact?
There is one thing I firmly believe in: journalists are people too. I truly do believe that. We are citizens just like everyone else, however, our job encourages us to be objective observers when we are working. But why should our career dictate our political views and actions? It shouldn't. In fact, opinion has clearly made Olbermann's career that much better (until he resigned I guess). Point being, having opinions could even help your career.
Another thing I wish people would understand: no one is ever going to be completely unbiased. Including journalists. We're not, it's just the plain and simple truth. Everyone has some form of bias in one story or another. Remember too that we choose our quotes, we choose who to interview, we choose the words we write with, we choose our sources. I wish someone would explain to me how that process will ever be completely unbiased. I just don't think it ever will be.
And for people like Olbermann, I think that is okay. He had a talk show where he stated his opinions outright, he wasn't trying to trick people into believing it was truth and fact. Let the man donate his money however he wants to. And stop corporations from controlling the government like puppets on strings. That's the real problem here.