Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.

Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

Chapter Ten
“Dear Mr. President. . .”

1969. A group of executives and presidents of corporations sent a letter to President Richard M.
Nixon asking him to “use his influence” to prevent them from going to jail like other corporate
executives during the years before. This meant exempting them from antimonopoly law, which
disallows firms to rig prices. The group was headed by Richard Berlin, chief executive officer of
Hearst Corporation, New York, which owns 9 newspapers, 10 broadcasting stations, 26 magazines,
and a book publishing house. (From annual editions of Editor & Publisher Yearbook: Christopher H.
Sterling and Timothy R. Height, The Mass Media: Aspen Institute Guide to Industry Trends)
What is Nixon’s stake on this matter? “The more media power possessed by a media corporation,
the more a government leader has reason to feel displeasure”. Nixon’s decision on the case will
determine his image shall he run for 1972 election.

Powers of broadcasters and journalists to politicians:

1. “They can make or break you”- Lionel Van Deerlin, ex-journalist, former chairman, House
Subcommittee on Communications
2. “Lobbyists” of public demands and their own demands as companies. (As what Jonathan
Miller put, forwarding their hegemonic power over America)
Gains because of these powers:
1. child labor laws exemption
2. postal rates, tariffs on imported newsprint, and media taxes
3. restrained cable broadcasting for more than 10 years
4. deregulation of radio
5. deregulation of television

TV Blackout on TV
The media can promote and can also ignore important issues.
Examples:
March 29, 1979, Van Deerlin made an announcement in the alteration of communications law
for the first time in 45 years in front of more or less 200 people in a conference. The change would give
broadcasters temporary possession of their station licenses, removal of giving equal treatment to
political campaign advertisements, no longer necessary to present community issues or to do it fairly.
These changes were lobbied by journalists to the congress. Of the people and press in attendance, no
news of this announcement came out on TV on that same day.
Time, Inc., supporter of Henry Kissinger’s policies was instrumental in orchestrating the
promotion of his memoirs by plotting his books in their other companies—Little Brown bookhouse
(publisher), Book-of-the-Month Club (included in its selection). Moreover, “candidates receiving
contributions from a Time, Inc. political committee were quite aware that they had become special
beneficiaries of the media empire, whose reporting could affect their political careers”.
1968. General Electric (GE) bought National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and made an
announcement that all employees of NBC should support GE’s political goals to influence legislation
for the benefit of their company.

“Rigging prices”: when media firms secretly agree on prices, yet making it appear that they are
competing among themselves. This led to violation of the antitrust law, Sherman Act: “Any contract,
combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade, and any monopolization, attempted monopolization,
or conspiracy or combination to monopolize” (The antitrust laws. Federal Trade Commission.
www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws. Retrieved
September 16, 2017)
Over the years, local newspapers from 22 cities in the US agreed to become business partners by
agreeing on prices and sharing profits. When discovered by the US district court in 1965, these firms
consequently made an appeal for exemption. However, this was not approved for the reason that their
case could be used as precedence for all other firms. As a result, the newspapers who petitioned in the
letter sent by Richard Berlin to President Nixon were found in violation of the law. Firms once again
feared the competition in the open market.

Page 1 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

“Faithfully, Dick. . .”
- the end greeting of Richard Berlin’s letter to the President which he wrote by hand, scratching
the “Sincerely”, typed by his secretary
Berlin’s letter had the tone of returning favors—these media firms helped Nixon and his party before.
Their escape route is the passing of Newspaper Preservation Act (joint operating agreement among
competing newspapers within the same market area; which will require changes in the Sherman Act).
To leverage support and threat, Berlin also wrote to the Republican Party, furthering their clamour to
pressure Nixon (“Those of us… now find that, by supporting that person and that party which we
thought best exemplified those very ideas, we have become the victims and the targets of a narrow
and tortured economic concept advanced and implemented by those in whom we placed the highest
confidence”).

Before Richard Berlin’s letters, Assistant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren (in charge of
antitrust), in behalf of President Nixon, expressed its disagreement to the Newspaper Preservation
Act. Senator Philip A. Hart of Michigan, on the contrary, responded that it would all be easier for
them to grant the newspapers their requests as they “deal with us intimately everyday.”

Decision Reversed
After the Berlin letters, the Nixon administration reversed its previous disagreement. His support to
the bill earned him the support of large media organizations. Nixon knew what was at stake. “When
Berlin raised the issue of political support for Richard Nixon he was talking about papers read by
more people than would vote in the next election.”

As an exemplification of this, when Watergate stories started to erupt, major newspapers circulations
remained mimed and published pro-Nixon articles instead. These papers were the ones who obtained
support from Nixon through Berlin’s letters. Nixon won the 1972 election and had the highest support
from the press of any candidate in US history. But those publishers did not completely succeed in
preventing the Watergate stories from erupting.

“The rhetoric of media corporations is consistent: They did not interfere with
professional selection of content for their newspapers, magazines, and broadcast stations,
book houses, and movie studios. This is technically true for most operators in day-to-day,
hour-by-hour operations, but it is not true for larger issues in which the media corporations
have a strong self-interest.”

The plunder of freedom of the press is also worth noting during Nixon’s administration. However, the
media firms that he had been attacking for criticizing his administration were the very same firms that
saved him during the 1972 elections and even after the exposé of Watergate stories.

Chapter Eleven
Only the Affluent Need Apply

The New Yorker was in the number 1 spot in terms of most number of sold advertising space annually
until 1967 when its ad space sales dropped [but its circulation remained the same]. “The magazine’s
net profits shrank from the 1966 level of $3M to less than $1M. Dividends per share, $10.93 in 1966,
were down to $3.69 by 1970.”
The New Yorker seemed to have proved false the assumption that the wider the audience reach of a
newspaper, the more it will attract advertisers.
What caused The New Yorker this fate?

Page 2 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

The High Cost of Truth

Answer: When Jonathan Schell, with permission from his editor, published an article about his
experience in Vietnam—that the US is destroying the said country and is losing the war (July 15,
1967 issue). This was followed by a series of publications that conveyed one message—the
newspaper is against the war.

What made The New Yorker in an unstable position was its expression of disagreement, yet other big
newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post editorially supported the war.

“The New Yorker was the voice of the elite, the repository of advertisements for the
hedonistic rich, of genteel essays on the first day of spring, of temperate profiles of aesthetes,
of humor so sophisticated that it seemed designed solely for intelligent graduates of the best
schools. . .When the magazine spoke clearly against the wars, it was a significant event in the
course of public attitude toward the American enterprise in Vietnam. If this apolitical organ
of the elite said the war was morally wrong, it was saying it to the country’s
establishment.”

The Kids are Reading

The New Yorker established readership among college students, which lead to a younger median age
of their reader (34 years old from 48.7 years old). This change caused the drop of ad spaces sales
because (1) it was no longer the late 40s CEOs and presidents who can afford to buy thousands-
worth accessories but were students interested about the paper’s controversial content who were
buying the newspaper. (2) multi-million dollar companies did not want to be associated with an
anti-war/anti-state newspaper. Although this did not caused a decrease in circulation, it did not
attract the “right kind” of readers.

“right kind”- “affluent consumers eighteen to forty-nine years of age, the heavy buying years,
with above-median family income”.

The demography of newspaper audience is a very important factor in attracting advertisers.

Cure for “bad demographics”- change the content

What did The New Yorker do? Instead of changing its editorial and content as the way to easily
revert to its previous audience, it did not. At that time, it was not a property of a conglomerate. When
it was sold to Newhouse publishing group in 1986, the original editor, William Shawn was fired the
year after its acquisition. And the paper gradually reverted back to its previous motif.

The Unthinkable Becomes Thinkable

William Shawn was aware in the change of demography of its readers and the concerns of advertisers
about it. He remained upholding the interest of the public over the fact that they are not attracting
enough ad sales. He also cited Times-Life and Reader’s Digest as examples of successful companies
that were started by people who forward their values, regardless of market trends.

“. . .if you edit that way, to give back to the readers only what they think they want, you’ll never
give them something new they didn’t know about. You stagnate. . . We sometimes publish a
piece that I’m afraid not more than one hundred readers will want. Perhaps it’s too difficult,
too obscure. But it’s important to have. That’s how people learn and grow. . .” –William Shawn
in response of editorial independence and advertising

“It happens regularly”

1980s- The New Yorker was economically healthy again; ranked 4th among all American magazines
(ads a year and circulation); profits above $3M. Then, it became part of a conglomerate.
“Broadcasters do not want just any listeners; they want rich ones.”

Page 3 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

In truth, only the affluent are wanted. When ABC was generating wider audience, attracting more kids
than adults, NBC-TV competed by attracting the adults regardless of their number. In this way, ABC
could have large yet “useless” audience whose buying capacity is weak, but NBC-TV could have few
yet affluent audience whose buying power is strong—and this kind of audience demography is
what advertisers are eyeing for.
As of today, The New Yorker is one of the current publications of Condé Nast, joining popular luxury
magazines such as Vogue, Allure, GQ, Vanity Fair, etc.

Mass production of consumer goods expanded beyond normal consumption, which led to increase in
advertisers’ expense:
1. $28.39 per year per household (late 1800s)
2. $692 per year per household (1980):
a. 29% newspaper
b. 21% TV
c. 7% radio
d. 6% magazines
Revenues for ads today (2004): Newspaper, 80%
General-circulation magazines, 50%
Broadcasting, almost 100%
Media is now aiming not only for larger audiences but more so for high-quality audiences.
Statistics and demographics are now being demanded by advertisers from media firms. They are also
interested in the “context” of their ads (articles around them, program, etc). Example: an ad about a
luxury brand is not safe to be preceded or followed by an ad about a food campaign or the news about
Syrian refugees.

Wine by the Case

1968. The New Yorker readers after its downfall was able to attract the “right kind” for advertising
expensive merchandise once again.

Chapter Twelve
Dr. Brandreth has gone to Harvard

New York Herald. In 1835, after the burning of its Ann Street plant, it was able to get back right after
19 days. James Gordon Bennett, its founder was “saved by a large advertising contract from a Doctor
Brandreth, a quack who sold phony cure-all pills”. During its recovery, the Herald published ads
about Brandreth’s pills (from mere promotions to stories of heroic cures that landed on the front
page). Other pill makers pointed this out to Benett, who only responded that the doctor was paying
enough money for the said ad. With this pronouncement, Brandreth cancelled his ad contract.
Consequently, Bennett, described the doctor in print as “most impudent charlatan” who “deceive and
cheat”.

Infotainment- technique wherein commercial product are inserted in programs instead of placing
them before or after shows.
Before, advertisers would present themselves “barging” with their products to be advertised by the
media firm. Today, they make proper appearance with their products accompanied by research [to
prove that they are worthy of public consumption]. In return, media firms present their audience data
for potential advertisers

The Subtle Corruption

Advertisements, news reporting, editorial content, or entertainment programs were packaged in
positive lights (“cigarettes are gentle, graceful, healthy; financial institutions are always in good
shape; religionists are perfect; the American way of life is beyond criticism”) to give no room for
criticisms. Audience and consumers do not know that these impressions are packaged for them to

Page 4 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

seem as the status quo, little did they know, they were explicit demands of corporations that are
advertising their products.
Pro-corporate ideas successfully entered into news and entertainment. (see Procter & Gamble) They
started as creators of advertisements, until they were able to sell soap and has been “spectacularly
successful, combining soap, detergent, Christian religion, patriotism, and profit making”.

TV Advertisers want to know what time of the day and during which specific programs their
ads will be shown. This help them determine the size of audience that their ad can reach. That
particular slot is what they are buying.

Advertisers during the early days of TV used to sponsor an entire program to make sure that their
product will be aligned with their desired values. (example: Camel News Caravan, NBC’s news
program, sponsored by Camel cigarettes, did not allow news about no smoking or any footage with no
smoking sign in the background)

After the 1950s, advertisers bought airtime from the programs and shows being produced by the
network. Before, ad inserts were only given a maximum of six or twelve minute, now, they are given
almost unlimited time per program. Moreover, advertisers also take seats on the planning of
prospective shows to discuss how their product will be placed as the show runs.

Wars without Horror

1965: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided on the extent of advertisers’ influence on
noncommerical content of television and radio. Consequently, Procter & Gamble forwarded to FCC
the directive that it issued to its sponsored shows (including those that show their commercials and
documentaries) that “writers should be guided by the fact that any scene that contributes negatively to
public morale is not acceptable. Men in uniform shall not be cast as heavy villains or portrayed as
engaging in any criminal activity.” In addition, business should not be portrayed as unpleasant and in
bad shape. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation also forwarded its policy to FCC indicating
that “tobacco products should not be used in a derogatory or harmful way. . .whenever cigarettes are
used by antagonists or questionable characters, they should be regular size, plain ends and
unidentifiable. . .” (1970). Whitehall Laboratories also told FCC that “if a scene depicted somebody
committing suicide by taking a bottle of tablets, we would not want this to be on the air”.

Thus, what the audience believed as product of fair journalism and apolitical entertainment,
independent of ad intervals were actually dictated by corporate ideology. At the end of the day,
what networks are actually giving to the public are not what they want nor what they deemed good for
them, but what advertisers want and what they [advertisers] desire for their businesses.

The Best Atmosphere for Selling

According to the president of Bell&Howell (former manufacturer of motion pictures projectors, now a
software and hardware technology solutions provider), the best atmosphere for selling are program of
comedy, adventure, and escapism. This atmosphere has been assigned between 8:00-11:00 PM (prime
time) wherein viewers are assumed unable to sustain a serious program, thus, the continuous flow of
light and fantasy-filled shows. This flow of shows sets viewers in a “buying mood”.

Before: “most advertisers were selling magic” There was always an instant solution to every problem.
Today: “audience is more jaded and sophisticated. So commercials are more insidious and clever.
Advertisers use humor, self-deprecation, even satire of the product in such a way to leave the viewer
with a sympathetic, warm smile that become associated with the brand name product.”

“Bait the editorial pages. . .”

Magazines serve as broker that enable sellers and buyers of goods to come together. Before TV
emerged in the 1950s, 65% of their profit were from ads.

Page 5 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

Esquire, 1940- in one article, hailed guitar as better accompaniment than a piano. As a result, they lost
all ad opportunities for piano. After two years, Ken was established (by Esquire), its liberal idealism
gained enough audience for a stable circulation but advertisers did not approve of it liberal ideas, even
warning Esquire of pulling their ads from the mother magazine. As a result, Esquire had to stop its
production.
Vogue, Richard Shortway said, “The cold, hard facts of magazine publishing mean that those who
advertise get editorial coverage”
New York Times, 1976 published a series of articles about medical malpractice. The medicine
industry, especially pharmaceutical firms threatened to pull 260 pages of their ads from Modern
Medicine, a magazine owned by The New York Times Company conglomerate.

The Permissible Lies

The Permissible Lies, a book criticising advertising was to be published by Funk & Wagnalls (a
subsidiary of Reader’s Digest Association) in 1968. Its publication was cancelled by Reader’s Digest
Association for fear of loss of advertising from ad agencies who might get offended by the book.
This censorship of information offensive to advertisers is still observable even in newspapers. But as
more newspapers are being acquired by conglomerates, censorship is getting stronger. “More
common in contemporary papers is the large quantity of “fluff”—material that is not news in any
real sense but is nonadvertising material supporting of advertisers”.
See: real estate, fashion, travel, food, and the rest of lifestyle sections.

Nothing Controversial
The trend: producing advertisements in the guise of “news”.
Houston Chronicle, created news for home, townhouse, apartments, travels, technology, livestock,
and swimming pools, and declared their support for ad projects.

1970s, market basket survey- a list of typical family needs with price comparisons, one of the sought
after feature of newspapers disappeared in American papers for the reason that they “bent to
advertisers” pressure.

1980, shopping coupons- they have become common in most newspapers; Washington Star started
producing a series of articles on its pros and cons, but it decided to end the series for fear that
advertisers buying ad space for shopping coupons might be discouraged.

1981, movie industry- the increasing number of negative reviews about films led MGM to warn
newspaper executives of pulling movie ads, reasoning out that newspapers seem unsupportive of the
movie industry

“Given the eagerness with which newspapers protect major advertisers, it is understandable
that by now advertisers expect that when interests of readers are in competition with the
interests of advertisers, the newspaper will protect the advertisers.”

Death for Sale

Smoking kills- health organizations and medical journals have stressed the alarming statistics of death
due to tobacco, however, most newspapers were silent about this killer. Take note that top 3 or 4
advertisers in newspapers were always tobacco companies.

1953 (the year AMA band tobacco ads from its journals)- the New York Times Index had 248 articles
under “cancer” and “smoking” and “tobacco”: 92% said nothing about the link, 8% did (2% about the
tobacco-disease connection and 6% about denials of this from tobacco industry)

1954 (the year American Cancer Society published its researches)- the New York Times Index had 302
entries: “of the stories dealing mainly with tobacco’s link to disease, 32% were about tobacco
industry’s denials; 20% dealt with medical evidence”

Page 6 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

1971- TV banned the broadcast of tobacco ads when the passing of a communication law regarding it
became very clear; it seemed, however, that television was more interested in forwarding antismoking
campaign than the printed press.

A Media Disease
The media is suffering from a “paralysis” in broadcasting news about tobacco deaths. While it gives
attention to other cause of deaths, articles about tobacco-related diseases are always written in ways
that are open for tobacco industry to rebut.

Smorkurb- a product developed by Hudson Vitamin Products as substitute for cigarettes. Newspapers
did not accept their advertisements; a magazine company even labelled it as “unacceptable”

While the tobacco industry once spent $4 per citizen for a year (for advertising), the US Department
of Health and Human Services spent one-third of cent per citizen for educating them about the
harmful effects of cigarettes.

“In magazines that accept cigarette advertising I was unable to find a single article, in several years of
publication, that would have given readers any clear notion of the nature and extent of the medical
and social havoc wreaked by the cigarette-smoking habit”- R.C. Smith of Columbia Journalism
Review (in his 7-year study of magazine content after 1970, when cigarette ads were banned from
TV). He also added that Readers Digest and The New York Times refused cigarette ads. This even led
RD’s advertising client for 28 years to quit its contract. Almost the same fate happened to other
magazines.

The Seven Oath-Takers

“There was a famous photograph and television scene of seven leaders of the tobacco
industry called before Representative Henry Waxman of California and his committee
testifying about the habit-forming character of nicotine. The seven splendidly suited tobacco
executives stood behind the witness table, right hands upraised, swearing under oath that they
believed that ‘nicotine is not addictive’. They had taken the oath, ‘so help me God’. They did
indeed require the help of the Deity, but He or She must have been listening to a different
channel.”

The answer to the puzzling attention-ignorance of the media: “Tobacco was the most heavily
advertised product in America, and for a good reason”.
While most publicized discussion focused on the link between cigarette and cancer, another alarming
concern during that time was the public’s ignorance of the relationship between cigarette smoking and
other health problems. In a study conducted by Gallup, Roper, and Chilton (1980), 30% of the public
was unaware; “50% of women did not know that smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of
stillbirth and miscarriage; 40% of men and women had no idea that smoking causes 80% of the
98,000 lung cancer deaths per year; and 50% of teenagers did not know that smoking may be
addictive.

AFTERWORD
Paradise lost or paradise regained? Social justice in democracy

New communications technology held so much promise (in terms of education, society, and
entertainment). Despite the fact that it could provide avenue for large corporations to boost their
commercial interests, it could also provide more free channels not only for entertainment but for other
far more significant purposes.

1960s: “when these new technologies were in their birth pangs, there was widespread
discussion based on the reasonable assumption that in time, these new capacities would be
used for the public good. Conferences of technologists, social scientists, economists, and

Page 7 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

journalists considered how best to use them. Major foundations issued highly researched
possibilities for a rich spectrum of non-commercial programs. Books were written on the
coming bright new world. All assumed that the US would adapt the new technologies to the
special needs of the breadth and variety of the country’s geography and population. The
country would finally achieve what some other modern democracies already had in operation,
and perhaps more.”

But this promise was lost:

1. No use of technologies for non-commercial civic programs
2. Commercial broadcast media corporations rapidly increased their own control of every
significant medium (including magazines and newspapers)
3. Commercial conglomerates did their political best to elect members of Congress and the
White House who would help them in their businesses. (deregulation and private media
power)
Media conglomerates continued to grow in size, and the previous hope for the non-commercial use of
media technologies died.

Ironies of the failure of the vision for enlarged public channels/non-commercial use of media
technologies:
1. Most new communication technologies were established with taxpayers’ money
a. Internet
b. Communications satellites that paved way for satellite transmission
c. Airwaves (broadcast frequencies) is public property
2. American occupation of Japan (WW2) established NHK (“the most capacious, diverse, and
varied non-commercial broadcasting system in the world, with the BBC second”) as a
mandate for “non-commercial and unpoliticized broadcast system that would not depend on
annual parliamentary appropriations”. It was financed by fixed tax on broadcast receivers in
each home and was maintained for more than half a century. Now, NHK already has private
operations, so is BBC.
3. Media conglomerates are confident that the US congress will not implement the NHK-like
system in their country. As a result, public broadcasting remains tiny because of the lobbying
power of conglomerates
4. Large media conglomerates have used their power to prevent the Congress from creating
restrictive policies and to push the Congress to create laws that limit the entry of new media
into the national scene. This is for the reason that they do not want “greater political and
social diversity because it would dilute their audience and thereby reduce the fees they can
demand for the commercials that produce their unprecedented profit levels”.
5. Artificial control over the country’s political spectrum:
a. 2001. Large-scale protests against US’ invasion of Iraq. Media firms owned by
conglomerates underreported these protests. Since most them were organized thru the
internet (not yet controlled by media monopolies), many Americans had access to
foreign news agencies that were reporting the protests accurately. Only then did
American news agencies owned by conglomerates altered their reports.

Media conglomerates are free to influence the national psyche. This is exemplified by prime-time
reality programs that “glorify some of the more revolting emotions in the human psyche—deceit,
cynical sexuality, greed, and the desire to exploit, humiliate, and elicit shattering emotional
breakdowns on camera”. This is a way of changing cultural models. Young viewers in particular, are
being educated into new role models of social behaviour.

Violence on TV. “If it bleeds, it leads”. “baby-sitter [to be an instructor] of mayhem and
murder”. “It is not surprising that studies show that while actual crime has dropped in the United
States, public fear of crime and violence has risen. This is not unconnected to an industry that by law
is supposed to be regulated and granted broadcast licenses on the basis of ‘public interest’”

Page 8 of 9
 Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. (Chapter Ten-Afterword)

Media conglomerates also reported “myths” about the American nation. There was a time when they
reported that the US charge the highest taxes compared to other democracies, when in fact, the
opposite is true. What was not reported was another fact: “the country has the lowest income tax
among peer nations for its wealthy citizens. The top tax for millionaires used to be 70%; in recent
years the top rate has been cut to 33%.

Remedy:
“It is true that media power is political power. But it is also true that people power is
political power. It has prevailed in the past and it can in the present. Our present conglomerated mass
media did not come full-blown from some untouchable deity. They came in existence only because of
actions of the Congress of the United States and the presidents who appointed the agencies that are
commanded by law to regulate the nonprint media, particularly the FCC, under law the shepherd
whose duty is to regulate radio and television. In the early years of the century the conservative three-
person majority tore down the fences and let the flock do whatever it pleased wherever it pleased.
There was so much public protest. The two Democratic minority members held hearings in cities that
asked for them, and every hearing was filled to overflowing with outraged listeners and viewers.”

“The printed media are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, but owners of very
large numbers of newspapers are not exempt from antitrust law”. However, they remain silent and
weak on the abuse of “public interest”. Why? Because they are also owned by giant conglomerates
who also own a number of businesses including production companies and cable networks. . . The raw
power of major corporations joined with the media conglomerates has aroused increasing protest on
the Internet and in the alternative print and broadcast media. More young people—once the age group
attributed the lowest percentage of voting among those eligible—have become activists, mobilizing
protests, petitions, and votes. The remedy ultimately will rely on the ballot box.”

Page 9 of 9