Michael Corcoran: Corporate Media Takes a Side in Debate over 'Entitlements'

Originally published at Truthout

Michael Corcoran

March 30, 2011.

Corporate Media Takes a Side in Debate over 'Entitlements'

Pundits and politicians have often said that the thought of cutting Social Security and Medicare are, as Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post described them, the "third rails of American politics. Nobody wants to touch them." This, Cillizza argues, is an unfortunate trend, since chopping these staples to the United States ever-thinning safety net, is the "obvious fix" to our nation's budget problems. "The simple solution is to make cuts to two large government entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare," he notes.

Despite this often repeated claim that cutting Social Security and Medicare is never discussed in American politics, in reality, the media is relentless in its perpetuation of the myth that cuts to these programs are needed - and right away. In recent months, the media has served to amplify the ideological claims of elites that use the recession - caused by large financial institutions' reckless behavior - as an excuse to further burden the nation's poor and elderly, even as the rich continue to benefit from massive tax breaks and bailouts. The question the media pose is not whether Social Security and Medicare should be cut, but when and how. But there is no debate as to who should sacrifice to balance the budget: the poor and the elderly.

In recent months, especially since President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released their initial report on deficit reduction and the GOP took over the House, the corporate media has excluded views of labor or working class-people, ignored alternative proposals to cutting these programs - such as various forms of revenue increases, all more popular with the populace - and perpetuated the falsehood that Social Security is in the throes of a deep crisis and is responsible for our budget woes. The idea that those on Wall Street who caused the financial crises - and the extreme revenue shortfalls that followed - should be asked to help pay a little more of their massive profits in an age of historically-low taxation on the rich is, indeed, the true "third rail" in the media.

Corporate Media, Corporate Agenda

To close followers of the economics of the mass media, it comes as no great surprise that the media is effectively serving as a communications arm of corporate America - the media is corporate America. And the corporatization of the media has only grown this year. In a few weeks, media activists will meet in Boston for Free Press's National Conference on Media Reform. Among the major topics to be discussed are the increasing corporate domination of the media; increased consolidation with the merger of NBC and Comcast; the passing of Citizens United, which served to createan effective "stimulus package" for media companies due to increased political ads; the battle over net neutrality, which will determine if corporations will dominate the web at the expense of independent web sites and the attempted desecration of public media, further enabling corporations to control information in the United States.

So, it comes as little surprise that the same media that supported the urgentpassing of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the most massive example of upward redistribution of wealth in US history, and are currently singing itspraises as an unmitigated success, would then ask for the nation's fiscal woes to be "fixed" on the backs of working-class people.

This sentiment does not merely come from the opinion makers, but the news pages of the major national papers, which continue to perpetuate the myth that Social Security is in crises. Consider the appraisal of New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes, who said Congress was tasked with the "unsustainable combination of fast-growing entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and inadequate tax revenues." The Washington Post's news pages, likewise, push the same flawed narrative. Reporter Lori Montgomery concluded that "budget experts say it would be difficult to significantly reduce future deficits without addressing the rising cost of Social Security."

It appears the Post ignored "budget experts" who offered a differing view. For example, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and its co-founder Dean Baker - one of the only economists to predict the housing bubble that the media missed out on - have shown that the program is solvent at least until 2037, giving us decades to tweak policies to make sure those who receive benefits in 2038 get 100 percent benefits.

But, the likes of Baker are rarely given a platform in the US mainstream media, where the expert pundits represent an incredibly narrow range of opinions. On shows such as "Meet the Press," conservative Democrats, such as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Harold Ford, often, absurdly, appear on the show as representatives of the left.

Consider the panel discussion on the show after the release of the deficit reduction report. The panel included Newt Gingrich, Alan Greenspan on the right and on "the left," Ford and Vanity Fair's Bethany Maclean (not exactly a modern-day Eugene Debs). Ford used the platform to give right-wing talking points and bash the left. "As long as you don't allow the far left and the far right, again, to crowd out the predominant middle, we can get a lot of this done," he said. "If that means making tough choices on Social Security - I'm 40, I'm willing to give mine up and I think a lot of people my age who may reach a certain income level are willing to do the same."

Host David Gregory was convinced by the wisdom of cuts to entitlements. "I don't see why, for instance, some of these suggestions, Harold, on Social Security are going to be demagogued to death," Gregory said. "Why, in 50 years, people can't look at raising the retirement age and have that be a serious discussion point?"

The Real Social Security Crisis

While the likes of Ford and Gregory may be able to endure cuts to Social Security, statistics show current and future retirees cannot. In fact, the real Social Security crisis is not that the program is insolvent - as noted above, it is in decent fiscal shape - but that the benefits are no longer sufficient to enable many people to live decent lives.

As CEPR reports, "the vast majority of near-retirees will rely on Social Security for the vast majority of their income in retirement," and therefore "cuts in Social Security imply large cuts in income for a population that is already not especially wealthy." The real debate in the media ought to be over how to increase benefits, so we can provide retirees with a dignified life.

Raising benefits should not be viewed as a radical idea. Contrary to media hysteria, Social Security is not reckless overindulgence in social welfare, but rather a modest (relative to other countries) pension program, that could be improved in the richest nation in the world. According to a report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), our federal pension system offers quite meager benefits, compared to other developed nations in the OECD. Social Security accounts for about 16 percent of our total public expenditure, which is lower than about 80 percent of all developed nations.

In fact, there are many changes we can make to increase Social Security benefits - the most obvious of which is to implement more progressive taxation. Currently, Social Security taxes are capped at $106,000. This means that someone making $1 million a year is only paying Social Security taxes on about 10 percent of their income. If we removed the cap, the program would remain solvent for 75 more years, according to theCongressional Budget Office. Another option would be a tax on financial speculation, a modest tax on Wall Street trading that could raise $1 trillion in revenue over the course of a decade.

In fact, Baker estimates that raising Social Security by 25 percent would cost about 1.5 percent of GDP, about 66 percent of which would be covered by a financial speculation tax. To put this into perspective, the increase in defense spending just from 2000 - 2010, accounted for 1.8 percent of GDP. "This seems affordable to me," Baker said in an email.

Indeed, wealthy people can afford the tax. According to a study done by an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, between 1979 and 2005, mean after-tax income for the top 1 percent increased by 176 percent, while the bottom 20 percent saw an increase of 6 percent only. With the extension of the Bush tax cuts, this trend seems likely to continue. But the idea of raising taxes, even slightly, on the rich is out of the realm of acceptable discourse in the media.

The Real Health Care Crises

Media attacks on Medicare are also fallacious. The general argument portrayed in the media is that the inefficiency of Medicare is causing costs to rise at a fast rate, adding to the deficit and thus, it must be cut. But Medicare is actually more efficient than private health care plans - its cost is rising 8.3 percent annually per beneficiary for Medicare, compared to 9.3 percent for private plans. The increase has a lot to do with the increase of people over the age of 65, not flaws with the program.

But rather than cutting Medicare, as pundits proclaim we must, the media should target on the real villain of the deficit: the exploding health care costs associated with the US's broken private health care system. Public plans such as Medicare are actually more efficient than private plans, since they have considerably less administrative waste. In fact, as this graph shows, if you replaced the US wasteful system - which costs about 17 percent of GDP, almost double of the average developed nation - with any public system from any OECD country, the deficit would be eliminated.

But, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has documented, the narrow ideology of the mass media does not even allow for a discussion of public health care. In a study of news coverage during the debate over federal health care reform, the organization concluded that out of "hundreds of stories" that mentioned health care reform "all but 18 of these stories made no mention of 'single-payer' ... and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer - none of which appeared on television."

The Media Agenda

As noted above, it is neither surprising, nor conspiratorial, to suggest that media companies - owned by large corporations - would produce information that would benefit their own institutions. This is precisely why the increasing corporate stranglehold of the media is such a topic of concern for media activists and why alternative media sources are so crucial to our democracy. The coverage of Social Security and Medicare in recent months is a perfect example of the narrow, ideologically driven agenda of the corporate media that is serving to help the rich dismantle important social programs.

It's Our Web

I have said many times before that media policy is the most important issue in a democracy. So, I would like to alert you to a new movie/web site dedicated to protecting free speech and vibrant debate on the internet. (I will embed the video, whiCh should be available soon, when it becomes available0

This along with the Real News Network show that there is some proactive movement on media reform issues -- good news indeed.

Progress on Media Regulation?

The New York Times is reporting that the FCC "is preparing to impose significant new regulations to open the cable television market to independent programmers and rival video services after determining that cable companies have become too dominant in the industry."

This decision, as the Times accuratly points out, "would be a notable exception to the broad deregulatory policies of the Bush administration." It is also worth noting that in 1996 Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- which deregulated the media heavily, leading to the frightengly narrow scope of media ownership that this country now sees.

I will comment more on this as information become available. The influential FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, rarely works to lessen the grip that private companies have on the media and I hope to find out what devils may lie in the details.

On Iran and Independent media

The Possibility of War

The possibility of War with Iran seems more and more likely. A recent article by Global Research notes that "Western media is now confirming, rather belatedly, that the Bush Administration's war plans directed against Iran are 'for real' and should be taken seriously." It adds, "'Punitive bombings' directed against Tehran could be launched within the next few months. The diplomatic mode has been switched off: The Pentagon is said to be 'taking steps to ensure military confrontation with Iran' because diplomatic initiatives have allegedly failed to reach a solution."

An article in the American Conservative makes the point that the reasons for this war go beyond the reactionary neocons in the White House, but stem back to a decades-old battle for regional hegemony. They too see conflict as likely. "[W]hereas the simplest mistake—or even inaction—can spark a conflict, diplomacy can only be achieved if deliberately and persistently pursued, states the article. "Sadly, in spite of much rhetoric to the contrary, real diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran has not even been attempted yet."

And the US is planning a campaign to build support for the war soon. The idea, they hope, is to get 40 percent of the US public behind it, by staging a media blitz that will no doubt be helped by Fox News and the reporting of Michael Gordon of the New York Times, among the rest of the corporate media.

Marjorie Cohn writes (emphasis in mine):

Barnett Rubin reported on Global Affairs blog that one of the leading neo-conservative institutions has “instructions” from Dick Cheney’s office to “roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this - they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’”

History has shown that the media is usually more likely to help efforts to start a war, rather than in stopping it. "News media, down the road, will point out that there were lies about the Gulf of Tonkin or about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," notes Norman Solomon in the film War Made Easy. "But that doesn't bring back any of the people who have died … when it comes to life and death, the truth comes out too late."

How to fight against the war: Spread the information that the media will not report on

While the anti-war movement is mainly focused on Iraq--which is understandable given that a new report has concluded that 1.2 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of this war--trying to stop a war with Iran should be no less a priority, given the unthinkable consequences that the world would face if the US strikes Iran.

At this stage, the most important step in opposing a war with Iran may well be making use of independent media to get information out that the public does not know, mainly because the media will not report it.

For example, consider these conclusions (per Global Research) from the IAEA, which states that there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. (IAEA Report, italics added)

This is the type of information that is crucial for the public to know but by in large does not because the most of the media simply does not report it. Getting this information out should be a priority for those of us who want to prevent this war. While one should try to penetrate mainstream papers (IE writing letters or op-eds to your local newspaper), the reality is that independent media outlets are the ones who will report it.

One effort which I am heartened by is the creation of Independent World Television by the Real News Network, which is trying to create a television counter to cable news, in which the station is not beholden to corporate owners and advertisers, nor government subsidies. Instead they rely heavily on viewer donations. I plan on posting one video a week from them on this site. Here, is a good example of the type of excellent coverage that Independent World Television is providing on Iran.


It is vital that activists and writers forward along these types of reports, and spread this information in other ways. An informed public will not accept war with Iran. An uninformed, or misinformed public very well may. So fighting for, building and promoting independent media is perhaps our best weapon in stopping this war, and others. Hitting the streets is important as well, but will not be nearly as effective if the public is misinformed about the realities of the Iran's nuclear capabilities and ambitions.

Murdoch and Media Ownership

I have long argued that media reform should be at the top priority of those who want wish to have a just society in a vibrant democracy.

I that spirit I recommend this excellent article in today's Times which profiles Murdoch and his shady business dealings with our elected officials (including Hillary Clinton) in exhaustingly detailed fashion. It not only illustrates how dangerous Murdoch is, and how terrible it would be if he were to own Dow Jones and the Wall St. Journal (or as the Times article says "the pre-eminent journalistic authority on the world in which he is an active, aggressive participant."); it also paints a clear picture of how big media buys off politicians, in order keep lax regulations, and enable owners to gain an increasingly huge piece of the media pie.

The article is long, and gives many examples of how this can be done, so it's virtually impossible to choose one, but for starters, lets look at the paragraph way down near the bottom of the story.

HarperCollins [owned by Murdoch's News Corp.] also provoked a firestorm when it gave Mr. Gingrich a $4.5 million book contract as Congress was preparing to redraw the media ownership rules.

Mr. Ginsberg pointed out that Mr. Murdoch later fired the Gingrich book’s editor for making what he regarded as an “uneconomical and unseemly” deal. He said that in general Mr. Murdoch did not involve himself in decisions about book contracts, and added, “If these books aren’t viable, they aren’t published.”

Mr. Lott’s book sold 12,000 copies, according to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks about 70 percent of all domestic retail and Internet sales. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, received $24,506 from HarperCollins for his modest-selling book “Passion for Truth,” according to financial disclosure forms. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, got $141,666 for her book “American Heroines,” which has sold better. All sit on either the Commerce or Judiciary Committees that most closely oversee the media business.

HarperCollins has also given book deals to Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and a $1 million advance to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, both of whose books are due out next year.

A former HarperCollins executive, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the company, said Mr. Murdoch was less hands-on than people assumed. “It’s not done in a direct way where he issues instructions,” the executive said. “It’s a bunch of people running around trying to please him.”

Please, if you can, read this in full. I hope this article sparks further inquiry and attention to this dance between big media and politicians. Moreover, for those Democrats out there who insist Hillary Clinton can't be that bad -- remember that she owes Murdoch some favors.

The Newspaper Question

Here is an article that tries to debunk the conventional wisdom that newspapers need to stop investing in the print product.

Newspapers are declining (for lots of reasons), the websites of newspapers are growing (slowly, if at all). Newspapers sure have some problems to tackle. But a business strategy that puts your web presence first is one that ignores which of those products reaches the most people. Print may be fast asleep. But it's not even close to being dead.

Some official statistics make the internet audience for newspapers seem very large indeed. Much larger than they actually are. And we print folk fall for it. We hear numbers with the word million in them and we didn't want to question it. But we have to now. Because this is the fuel that feeds the ideas of newspaper managements across the globe and makes them leap over the revenue precipice. And frankly, the numbers for print and web are tough to compare accurately like for like.

[...]

He goes on to make the case that newspapers need to invest more money into the print product, and not merely the web. This is an interesting take on it. I am very optimistic about the what the web will mean (and what it already does mean) in terms of providing information, but he is right about one thing.

Newspapers facing a a tough road in a transitional period have reacted in the worst way possible: they have made their product worse. If you read Romenesko (which, by the way, is a site I could not live without) you see it everyday; newsroom positions are being cut, sometimes swiftly and drastically; Washington bureaus and foreign bureaus are being scrapped all together; so are book reviews and news analysis sections; the newspapers are getting thinner and more reliant on wire copy and correspondent copy -- hell even interns are getting the shaft in a big way.

Now publishers are making the case that these changes are painful, but needed for survival -- when if fact, they will only accelerate and ensure their demise. The industry did not have to respond this way. The could have improved the product, made bold changes, and thought about the long term. Instead they have only given readers another reason to stop reading, and many have taken them up on the offer.

The problem, of course, is that many newspapers are part of publicly traded companies, and are answering to their shareholders, as they are legally obligated to do. This of course means that they will do anything to maximize profit and minimizing losses for the next quarter, as their shareholders demand. The long term health of the news industry and the role of a vibrant press in a democratic society do not seem to be too high of a priority for shareholders. It doesn't help matters that the newspapers used to be a hugely profitable industry, bringing in around 20 percent annual growth (much higher than most industries) , so investors are not just reacting to losses, but also in slowed growth -- which is simply a reality that must be dealt with. No industry can sustain this growth forever.

The truth is, many people are done with newspapers because they find them to be less valuable then they once were. The internet as a competitor is a huge factor, but it isn't what is killing the newspaper alone. Outside the US, the newspaper business is booming.

There are exciting possibilities about how to save - and improve - the newspaper that are not even entertained because of the financial structure that they exist in. (I will get into them in a future post, but this article by John Nichols, Newspapers and After , highlights some of them.)

I still have doubts about the longterm future of the newspapers as we know it. It really does not make a whole lot of sense to waste the paper, the trees, the gas and so forth, when one could simply get it online. But no matter, the country needs quality journalism now, as they will in the future -- whether in print or otherwise -- and cutting reporters and weakening coverage is making good journalism, harder and harder to find. Yes, they are investing on the web, but more on production, visuals and technology, and less on actual reporting.

When newspapers simply dismantle their product they are telling their audience (and those who could become a part of the audience) to go away. And if that trend persists it will be, more than anything, what ensures its death.

The End of Dow Jones?

A sober assessment here from Dean Starkman.

Make no mistake: this is the end of Dow Jones. If it’s not the very end, it is certainly the beginning of the end. There is no way—no way—that the Bancroft family, which controls the majority of voting shares, can resist a $60 offer—a 67 percent premium to the recent market price of DJ shares. A 10 percent premium is considered respectable. Thirty percent is sky high. Sixty dollars is, well, “absolutely, insanely high,” says James H. Lowell II, who, until last fall, served as a financial adviser to the Bancroft trustees, as quoted in The New York Times ...

"Tuesday was a black day for journalism, and an even blacker one for financial journalism. When this is over, there will be no independent publisher of the nation’s foremost—really only—watchdog of the capital markets, corporate behavior, and regulators’ conduct. Who’s going to cover News Corp.?

UPDATE: "'It's out of the frying pan and into a thermonuclear blast,' said one Journal staffer. 'This was the worst-case scenario — other than being sold to Vladimir Putin.'"

Readers can challenge Media Mergers

According to the San Fransisco Chronicle.

Clint Reilly can go to trial in a lawsuit opposing a newspaper chain's acquisitions of the San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, saying readers have the right to challenge media mergers under antitrust laws.

[...]

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said federal law recognizes the public's concern in maintaining competition and diversity in the news media. She noted that a separate federal law, the Newspaper Preservation Act, allows a financially troubled paper to combine business operations with a rival paper as long as they keep their editorial departments independent.

That law shows that "Congress values the existence of separate sources of newspaper content in a community, and that loss of separate sources injures consumers," Illston wrote.

PBS Frontline: on the Media

Last night PBS Frontline aired its fourth and final installement of "News War" which has been a facinatating and in-depth look into the news media of today.

This program touched on so many issues facing media today, that it would be impossible to give an adequate summary right now, but I do have a couple of quick thoughts reacting to last night's broadcast.

1.) How absurd is it that the United States big media companies will not air Al Jazeera English, and give Americans a glimpse of another viewpoint and another culture? Ignorance is far more sinister when it is self-imposed.

2.) While newspapers and magazines continue to face cuts, PBS has again showed us why public broadcasting is so important, and why we ought to provide more funding to it. From a piece I wrote at The Globe.

In the United States about $1.70 of the average person's annual taxes goes towards public broadcasting. To put this into perspective, the average American spends $33 of thier taxes on pork barrel spending.

If we hope get information ... we ought to consider putting more money into public broadcasting.

And the public agrees.