Krugman: Media Ownership (NY Times op-ed)

[Scotty]

The China Syndrome

A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."

Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

[Cascarino's Pizzeria]

It's just a bit ironic when Krugman complains about partisanship in the media. Can one ever recall an editorial he's written since Bush took office that portrayed Bush or the admin. in a positive light? He and Dowd sit in a locked office and just vent their spleens about the "Bushies." The NYT is one of the most partisan papers out there.

[DoctorJones24]

Cascarino,
Krugman is an OPINION columnist. Comparing his "partisanship" to NEWS REPORTING on the war is completely apples/oranges.

And please give up on the idea that the NY Times is still a liberal rag. Maybe 30 years ago, but they are now very much in line with the conservative corporate monolith. And just wait till Rubert Murdoch buys them next month after Colin's son's ideas on media dereg go through. Talk about the death knell for American democracy.

[Bill Archer]

It's an interesting piece from Krugman, who lets no lie go untold.

"Many Americans turned to the BBC" is an interesting interpretation of Neilson stats which show BBC-America's primetime audience falling from 93,000 households in February to 88,000 in March. At the same time, the audience for Fox nearly doubled from 1.7 million to 3.2 million.

And it wasn't just Americans turning away from the Beeb: HMS Ark Royal changed the on-board news to Sky because, as one "senior rating" put it:"The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy.'"

Krugman also omitted to mention the decline in the New York Times's own audience. According to a recent audit, circulation at the Times has fallen 5.3 percent year-on-year for the six months ending in March, and is down 6.3 percent for the same period at the Boston Globe, a sister publication of the Times. However, the New York Post — yes, the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch — saw its circulation rise 10.2 percent during this period.

As David Hogberg points out: The reductio ad absurdum of Krugman’s argument is a media organization that receives its funding from the government is freer from government influence than those media organizations that are merely regulated by the government. I’m not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that as it should be obvious.

The only absurdity here is Krugman's, for daring to preach about "codes of ethics" at a time when the reputation of the New York Times has been shattered by revelations of pervasive negligence that permitted the journalistic fraud of its reporter Jayson Blair. How Krugman dares to preach about "blatant partisanship," when Krugman himself is easily among the most relentlessly partisan journalists in America is just one more New York Times mystery.

Neil Cavuto said it best in his response today:

"Exactly who's the hypocrite, Mr. Krugman? Me, for expressing my views in a designated segment at the end of the show? Or you, for not so cleverly masking your own biases against the war in a cheaply written column?

You're as phony as you are unprofessional. And you have the nerve to criticize me, or Fox News, and by extension, News Corporation?

Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's supposed to be a straight news story. And by the way, you sanctimonious twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan."

[argentine soccer fan]

Originally posted by Bill Archer
It's an interesting piece from Krugman, who lets no lie go untold.

"Many Americans turned to the BBC" is an interesting interpretation of Neilson stats which show BBC-America's primetime audience falling from 93,000 households in February to 88,000 in March. At the same time, the audience for Fox nearly doubled from 1.7 million to 3.2 million.


It is an undeniable fact that even if you take away the 93,000 households that tuned out the BBC, you can still say truthfully that 'many' Americans did tune in to the BBC.

How can anybody accuse a highly prestigious publication like the New York times of lying, or of shamelessly politicking against the American president and his policies?

And how can anybody accuse the New York times of being a newspaper that has a liberal bias?

Ha!

[Nogra Rover]

Originally posted by Bill Archer
It's an interesting piece from Krugman, who lets no lie go untold.

"Many Americans turned to the BBC" is an interesting interpretation of Neilson stats which show BBC-America's primetime audience falling from 93,000 households in February to 88,000 in March. At the same time, the audience for Fox nearly doubled from 1.7 million to 3.2 million.

And it wasn't just Americans turning away from the Beeb: HMS Ark Royal changed the on-board news to Sky because, as one "senior rating" put it:"The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy.'"

Krugman also omitted to mention the decline in the New York Times's own audience. According to a recent audit, circulation at the Times has fallen 5.3 percent year-on-year for the six months ending in March, and is down 6.3 percent for the same period at the Boston Globe, a sister publication of the Times. However, the New York Post — yes, the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch — saw its circulation rise 10.2 percent during this period.

As David Hogberg points out: The reductio ad absurdum of Krugman’s argument is a media organization that receives its funding from the government is freer from government influence than those media organizations that are merely regulated by the government. I’m not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that as it should be obvious.

The only absurdity here is Krugman's, for daring to preach about "codes of ethics" at a time when the reputation of the New York Times has been shattered by revelations of pervasive negligence that permitted the journalistic fraud of its reporter Jayson Blair. How Krugman dares to preach about "blatant partisanship," when Krugman himself is easily among the most relentlessly partisan journalists in America is just one more New York Times mystery.

Neil Cavuto said it best in his response today:

"Exactly who's the hypocrite, Mr. Krugman? Me, for expressing my views in a designated segment at the end of the show? Or you, for not so cleverly masking your own biases against the war in a cheaply written column?

You're as phony as you are unprofessional. And you have the nerve to criticize me, or Fox News, and by extension, News Corporation?

Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's supposed to be a straight news story. And by the way, you sanctimonious twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan."

That you take Fox News seriously says it all.

The right and its mouthpiece, Fox, are now loading up for Krugman, as they are terrified that he has credentials (better economic credentials than Snow or Friedman) plus facts on his side.

I don't think an op-ed columnist had anything to do with the hiring or editing of Blair. Typical right-wing scatter-shot nonsense.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Bill Archer


"Many Americans turned to the BBC" is an interesting interpretation of Neilson stats which show BBC-America's primetime audience falling from 93,000 households in February to 88,000 in

I have no idea the numbers, but many listen to the BBC on the radio. They're a bit biased, but nothing compares to Fox News, except possibly the Iraqi Information Ministry.

[Manolo]

Originally posted by Scotty
America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

These coincide with recent comments by Ted Turner that "too few people own too much of the media".

I find it interesting that it is somehow shocking to people that our free-market system can produce less than perfect results. The U.S. mainstream media, being privately owned, tends to reflect the values and perspectives of the social class that owns and controls it. This social class is generally representative of powerful corporate interests and high levels of government. The more concentrated ownership becomes, the more influence can be exerted by an ever fewer amount of people.

Originally posted by Bill Archer
As David Hogberg points out: The reductio ad absurdum of Krugman’s argument is a media organization that receives its funding from the government is freer from government influence than those media organizations that are merely regulated by the government. I’m not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that as it should be obvious.

It's only obvious if you don't bother to think (I like Hogberg's clever use of Latin in order to sound more intellectual).

First of all, a government-funded enterprise does not need to rely heavily on advertisers, and therefore does not face the pressure, both tacit and explicit, of potentially offending its corporate sponsors.

Second, the executive branch of government, as clearly evidenced in Britain during the buildup to Iraq war, is not always representative of the popular opinion. It is no surprise that the BBC had less biased coverage, because the BBC is funded by the government, NOT just the executive branch.


Originally posted by Bill Archer
Neil Cavuto said it best in his response today:

"...
Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's supposed to be a straight news story. ...."

The problem is just that. Anybody, especially a public figure, who vehemently and loudly opposed the Iraq war and the Bush administration's foreign policy is immediately demonized. It's easy for bastards such as Cavuto to stick out their chest and claim bravery for expressing their pro-war views, when anyone who even displays their opposition, even tacitly, gets crucified by the right-wing.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Manolo
These coincide with recent comments by Ted Turner that "too few people own too much of the media".

I find it interesting that it is somehow shocking to people that our free-market system can produce less than perfect results. The U.S. mainstream media, being privately owned, tends to reflect the values and perspectives of the social class that owns and controls it. This social class is generally representative of powerful corporate interests and high levels of government. The more concentrated ownership becomes, the more influence can be exerted by an ever fewer amount of people.



No to disagree, but you are ignoring consumer demand, which is clearly driving the rightward shift of news reporting in the USA.

[eneste]

Originally posted by Bill Archer
"Many Americans turned to the BBC" is an interesting interpretation of Neilson stats which show BBC-America's primetime audience falling from 93,000 households in February to 88,000 in March. At the same time, the audience for Fox nearly doubled from 1.7 million to 3.2 million.

I have a real hard time believing that BBC America's ratings went down with the war while FOX went up 207%, CNN up 250%, and MSNBC up 294% (http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/iraq/homefront/story/868094p-6060396c.html). The most recent item I could find was this March article (http://209.61.190.23/news2003/mar03/mar31/3_wed/news4wednesday.html) which says their viewership isn't measured in the same way that the other news networks are so they didn't have numbers yet.

Anyway, I don't see anyone arguing for more media ownership by large corporations. I don't see what the advantage is?

[Colin Grabow]

Originally posted by Nogra Rover
That you take Fox News seriously says it all.


Why shouldn't Fox News be taken seriously? They were the first ones to correctly call the 2000 Presidential election while the rest of the media was running around declaring Alabama too close to call, and were one of the few media sources giving a positive interpretation of events during the Iraq war while other media types furrowed their brows about a possible quagmire.

[Nutmeg]

Originally posted by Nogra Rover
That you take Fox News seriously says it all.


That this is the best response that you could come up with says more. Mr. Cam, where are you?

[needs]

The viewership numbers we should look at to judge Krugman's statement are the ratings for BBC world service broadcasts on PBS stations. Most people probably think (for good reasons) that BBC-Am is the 24-hour "Trading Places" channel.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Bill Archer
Neil Cavuto said it best in his response today:

"Exactly who's the hypocrite, Mr. Krugman? Me, for expressing my views in a designated segment at the end of the show? Or you, for not so cleverly masking your own biases against the war in a cheaply written column?

First, I must say how surprising it is that Bill posted a long article that contradicts a linked article, yet his post lacks a link.

And by surprising, I mean typical.

Second, is Neil Cavuto a Bernard Shaw-type on Fox? That's the sense I'm getting. If so, it tells you everything you need to know about Fox' journalistic ethics that he and his bosses have a segment at the end of his show for him to editorialize.

If not, I don't understand the whole controversy.

[DoctorJones24]

Originally posted by Bill Archer
As David Hogberg points out: The reductio ad absurdum of Krugman’s argument is a media organization that receives its funding from the government is freer from government influence than those media organizations that are merely regulated by the government. I’m not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that as it should be obvious.


Bill,
This is the most telling part of your post. Whoever Hogberg is, he clearly has very little experience in the way of serious media analysis. This point about gov. funded vs. private ownership of the media has been a basic truth of the situation in American journalism for over a decade now, closer to 2 decades. Krugman is merely repeating what is widely recognized by the top media scholars.

Is it really "absurd" to you to realize the power of profit motive as an incentive to slant news? Whereas, for publicly funded entities with strong constitutional protections, publishers and owners need not worry about stock prices, corporate partnerships, advertising pressure, etc. Oh well, this is realy "Media Studies 101" stuff, but clearly is beyond Hogberg.

[TheWakeUpBomb]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
Whereas, for publicly funded entities with strong constitutional protections, publishers and owners need not worry about stock prices, corporate partnerships, advertising pressure, etc.No, they just have to worry about tax revenues (excuse me, television license fees), state partnerships, government pressure, etc.

[Nogra Rover]

Originally posted by Colin Grabow
Why shouldn't Fox News be taken seriously? They were the first ones to correctly call the 2000 Presidential election while the rest of the media was running around declaring Alabama too close to call, and were one of the few media sources giving a positive interpretation of events during the Iraq war while other media types furrowed their brows about a possible quagmire.

You're kidding about the 2000 election, I assume. Fox was inclined to pick Bush anyway. Please. Their political bias aligned with Scalia and Rehnquist. Big surprise. (And, a note on Fox bias: Why did Murdoch dump China-critical BBC from his Chinese sateliite venture? Wanted to get in good with the elite? Sound familiar?)

As for Iraq, I love how the jingoistic right has decided that if a side wins a war it justifies the invasion. Tell that to the Poles, Czechs, and French (sorry!) who were on the wrong side of Hitler. (And no I'm not equating Bush with Hitler, you sillies, just that military power does not define justice.)

Now off with you. Create some jobs with your looming tax cut.

[Manolo]

Originally posted by BenReilly
No to disagree, but you are ignoring consumer demand, which is clearly driving the rightward shift of news reporting in the USA.

Do you demand Microsoft Windows operating system on your PC?

Then why do you have it? The answer is because it's the only true option available.

The problem of concentration of ownership is a very real problem of capitalism, and it can affect the availability of media sources, just as it can affect the choices you have for computing. However, whereas for computing, there is always room for the argument that it is an evolving technology that needs standard platforms, I don't think one can argue that the media needs to have a standard platform of views and perspectives. To the contrary, the media, as opposed to other profit-seeking enterprises, has an ethical obligation to be objective and present all sides of the issues, or else it becomes little more than a propaganda tool of its constituency.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Manolo
Do you demand Microsoft Windows operating system on your PC?

Then why do you have it? The answer is because it's the only true option available.

The problem of concentration of ownership is a very real problem of capitalism, and it can affect the availability of media sources, just as it can affect the choices you have for computing.

It's a problem, but it DOES NOT explain most of the rightward shift of the mainstream American media. If Americans woke up tomorrow with Swedish worldviews, Fox News would be presented very differently. I anticipate the "chicken and egg" argument, but the country clearly moved further right before the mainstream media. Murdoch exploited a golden opportunity.

By the way, I just wish I had enough time to read all the quality newspapers online. The availabilty of media sources in the 21st century is virtually unlimited.

[DoctorJones24]

Originally posted by BenReilly
It's a problem, but it DOES NOT explain most of the rightward shift of the mainstream American media. If Americans woke up tomorrow with Swedish worldviews, Fox News would be presented very differently. I anticipate the "chicken and egg" argument, but the country clearly moved further right before the mainstream media. Murdoch exploited a golden opportunity.


Ben, this is so backwards. What caused that rightward shift if not the media? Quite simply, there is no ideological tool in history to compare to television, and as McLuhan said, "the medium IS the message." Television's inherent preference for the simple over the complex, the superficial over the substantive, the jingoistic over the deliberative have all helped lead us to this point.