Last semester in a media relations course, a professor addressed the fact that a few years ago, the ABC network chose to conveniently neglected to cover a controversial story that involved Disney's Animal Kingdom and a third party. With the current media ownership monopoly, it seems that networks do not betray their owners--would CBS cover a story about Viacom? Or would NBC rat out Universal? ABC's decision to not cover a story about a problematic Disney World province is a seemingly ignorant corporate deicison in this day and age; especially after the bricks of transparency were laid by modern PR founder Lee himself.
Newer PR models teach agencies and corporations to be transparent.Major corporations like Graco, BP and Toyota have led by example by admitting to their faults and clearing the smoke from the air at the beginning of a crisis instead of waiting for it to stew and boil over into a more extravagant crisis. The Pennsylvania Railroad owners at the beginning of the 20th century believed this was an effective way to rid themselves of difficult I have to wonder if the news networks will follow suit. For example, when will ABC learn that not covering a story about an incident in the Animal Kingdom is detrimental to their overall image.
I have to wonder, do I just notice this shift because I study media and PR daily? And more importantly, is it even noticeable to the general public that is constantly eating what five total corporate news owners are feeding them? With all the talk of media bias these days in the Information Age craze, I believe it can only be a matter of time until the current news networks follow the path of Lee himself.
A very astute post. When it comes to all major networks, they protect the channels and programs they own. There are a lot of news each day; omitting a story from coverage is not a crime. The reason why there are multiple channels and networks is to cover a wide range of news and appeal to every market...the problem is that all of them jockey to be superior to the others and in turn, the integrity of the news is comprimised to protect the businesses within its family. I suppose everything is a business nowadays...including the news.
ReplyDeleteMost of the public are unaware of this sort of thing, but information like this unveils itself over time. At some point, it will be inescapable, like why doesn't ABC cover that huge Disney story happening right now? I remember interning for NBC Universal; its many companys would throw work and promotions around to eachother.
And maybe this alliance is something that can be used to our advantage...say you are a press agent for DIsney, you can count on one news outlet that won't turn on you and a place for constant press if your pitches are spot on.
I always wonder whether we're hyper sensitive and aware of the media because we're constantly surrounded by it in our major. I'm not sure the general public truly has the insight we do, and I don't truly believe they care.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of media being more transparent about coverage, or lack there of, it's all a matter of dollars and cents. In PR, we have to fully disclose because if we don't the media will snoop around and find us out anyway. Then, our clients look worse. Media outlets are able to pick and choose the news and don't have to explain why because if they aren't saying anything some other outlet will.
When I posted this, I forgot to mention why network transparency was so prevalent in my mind. I saw some coverage of the recent Charlie Sheen controversy on CNN and they described that the CBS network had fired Sheen. It was a story on the evening news that day. Interestingly enough, when the CBS network fired Sheen, the network did report it. In a way they owned up to the controversy, unlike ABC did with the Animal Kingdom situation. But to be honest, I feel like they reported the story because Sheen was a hostile part of their network and he already looked bad from all the press he was getting. I doubt that CBS would have reported the story if the network's image and reputation would be subtly tarnished.
ReplyDeleteI think that the general public is aware of the corporate ownership in today's times. It is unfortunately true as stories are omitted to protect companies, which isn't objective journalism. I definitely think that CBS covered the Charlie Sheen story because it made them look better. If the story was negative about CBS, it would've never made it to the news. I think it is important that every generation knows of how the news works, so they can formulate their own thoughts and opinions.
ReplyDelete