HOW CORPORATE MEDIA PROFITS FROM FEAR

This is one of my occasional pieces of media critique. In this one I demonstrate an increasing pattern of corporate media profiting from making and keeping citizens afraid. It’s always imperative when the government or media is trying to make you afraid of something — whether it’s a foreign country/leader, another group of people or a virus — to always ask questions, including who benefits and profits off that fear. — Natylie

By Natylie Baldwin, OpEd News, 2/1/22

Corporate media tends to prioritize sensationalism and scary stories. There is even some evidence that news consumers prefer these types of stories, with the hypothesis being that they do so out of an evolutionary psychological need to prepare for dangers. Nonetheless, inundating consumers with scary stories under the guise of giving them what they want actually results in a distorted view of the world reflected back, leading news consumers to believe that scary things are more prevalent or more intense than they really are. This is antithetical to the purpose of journalism, which is to inform the citizenry so they can make sound decisions in their lives, particularly as it relates to public policy.

We have seen this sensationalist fear-pumping phenomenon over the course of decades where the media goes through a period of obsessive coverage of an issue from child abductions to sexual abuse to terrorism to Covid. Scientists say that a brain overcome with fear bypasses the rational mind and prevents one from thinking calmly and critically. According to the University of Minnesota: “Fear can interrupt processes in our brains that allow us to regulate emotions, read non-verbal cues and other information presented to us, reflect before acting, and act ethically. This impacts our thinking and decision-making in negative ways, leaving us susceptible to intense emotions and impulsive reactions. All of these effects can leave us unable to act appropriately.”

Moreover, being subjected to chronic fear creates long-term psychological and health problems, including brain damage. Constant cycles of fear-mongering by the media over a range of issues that almost seem designed to make a person feel that they best not leave their home unless fitted with a Hazmat suit, bear spray and an assault rifle are not a benign problem.

There is also the fact that fear manipulates people into certain behaviors and to accept certain policies they otherwise would not. This is not a new occurrence as Edward Bernays introduced several different forms of manipulation, based on the psychological theories of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud, into media and advertising as far back as the 1920s.

There are, in fact, several factors that encourage and reinforce the sensationalism and fear that has been growing within the media landscape over time. One factor has been the media’s historical reliance on advertising to make money rather than a focus on selling a quality news product. Newspapers, magazines, broadcasts, and internet programming have historically made much of their money from selling space to corporate advertisers, which consequently drives the motivation to produce content that will grab people’s attention in order to attract advertising dollars. Thus, the emphasis on sensationalist stories focused on sex, violence, danger and scandal. According to the Pew Research Center’s Journalism & Media project, as of 2014, “69% of all domestic news revenue is derived from advertising”

In the years since then, there has reportedly been a decrease in the proportion of traditional advertising revenue with more outlets relying on subscriptions to make money. Readers who pursue these subscriptions, however, are often looking for an outlet to echo their worldview rather than report factually and objectively. This has been primed by years of media outlets moving toward providing emotionally addictive and divisive echo chambers that appeal to a particular political party and focusing digital advertising to the preferences of that particular demographic rather than a neutral, fact-based presentation of the news.

Budget cuts and the speed of online technology have created another factor that contributes to sensationalist junk reporting. With online news and social media creating more pressure than ever to get stories up fast, combined with less advertising revenue from traditional print and television sources, churnalism — the use of information from press releases — is encouraged as reporters simply don’t have the luxury of taking days (or even hours) to hunt down the facts, details and nuances of a story, apply critical thinking and analysis, and submit it to rigorous fact checking.

A 2008 survey by Nick Davies found that 80 percent of articles in major British media like The Guardian and The Independent regurgitated corporate press releases or other news agency articles. Similarly, a 2014 survey by Business Wire revealed, the vast majority of journalists rely on press releases by PR firms to provide them with breaking news (77%) and factual support for articles (70%). In fact, churnalism was recognized as a serious enough problem by the Media Standards Trust to motivate the creation of a website, churnalism.com, which provides a “churn engine” that viewers can paste press releases into and find articles in the database that quote directly from or heavily rely upon “reproduced publicity material,” receiving a high score on the churnalism meter.

All this underscores that much of what passes for journalism in recent years is derivative and not based on original and on-the-ground reporting. This explains so many major news outlets repeating the same narrative in lockstep even when it turns out to be wrong.

If media actors take seriously their journalistic duty to inform accurately and objectively, then this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, corporate media is not journalism but toxic infotainment. There is plenty of evidence that the corporate media has descended even more dangerously into infotainment in recent years.

How the Corporate Media Created the Trump Circus and Kept it Going for Profit

Going in to the 2016 election, Americans’ trust in the corporate media in general was low; this was reflected in dismal cable TV news ratings and paltry subscriptions to the New York Times.

The campaign and election of Donald Trump would soon change all of that, however. The Trump circus was actively encouraged by the media, which gave him an estimated $2 billion in free media time. Leslie Moonves, then-CEO of CBS, actually admitted during the 2016 campaign in reference to the ad revenue that the Trump candidacy was bringing in for the media: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

Those media ratings and subscriptions were kept high during the Trump administration with the Russiagate conspiracy theory — eventually discredited — given constant coverage. Journalist and media critic Matt Taibbi explained in a 2017 interview with The Real News how keeping the Russiagate narrative going with constant innuendo that Trump was on the cusp of getting removed from office (remember how many times “the walls were closing in”?) ensured that viewers would keep tuning in and the money would keep rolling in for the media:

From the media standpoint, I think what people have to understand is that a lot of this is about money. The Russia story sells incredibly well and cable networks that traditionally have not made a lot of money are making a lot of money with this story. So I understand that the relentless emphasis on the Russia story makes a lot of sense from the networks’ point of view because it creates among viewers this impression that the fate of the nation may be decided any minute. This is like they’re selling it as a kind of Watergate sequel, so you have to tune in every night. Not just on election night, you have to keep tuning in.

In other words, it was bad melodrama but it kept fans coming back each day. Unfortunately, that isn’t the definition of journalism, it’s the definition of a soap opera. And it kept the nation divided and on edge as liberal Democrats had their fears that Trump, in cahoots with Vladimir Putin, was going to destroy American democracy and implant a fascist dictatorship reinforced daily. Trump supporters, on the other hand, felt that their hero was under siege and had to keep tuning in to their media outlets of choice for the latest.

Covid Rising

When Trump finally left office, cable news ratings, most notably CNN and MSNBC, plummeted. The Covid pandemic was soon decoupled from the Trump presidency and then ascended on its own to the trauma drama that had to be kept going, keeping people frightened, divided and controlled. A report revealed in November of 2020 that the media maintained a negative narrative about Covid even when real-life trends were more positive. One of the findings included the observation that “Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.”

Meanwhile, the Covid pandemic and how to respond to it had become intensely politicized. People who had questions about the vaccines, which did not undergo the usual long-term testing and utilized new technology, or wanted to look into early treatment options were automatically labeled right-wing conspiracy theorists and hayseed Trumpers who imbibed horse paste. Those who largely accepted the hysteria and happily lined up for numerous shots without question and advocated for the unvaccinated to lose their jobs, homes, and ability to participate in society were labeled the enlightened white hats. Instead of allowing an informed debate on how best to address the effects of the virus with the least amount of collateral damage, dividing lines were drawn and anyone who didn’t adhere to the narrative presented by one side or the other was the enemy. There was little middle ground with respect to most media coverage as keeping people tuning in for the latest case statistics and apocalyptic depictions became paramount.

At this point, a fair question to ask is: who benefits from continuing to stoke fear, both as it relates to Covid and more generally?

The Financial Beneficiaries of Covid Fearmongering

With respect to the Covid pandemic there are some parties who definitely have a financial stake in influencing the media to push, not only the most sensationalist fearmongering about the virus, but to push for specific solutions to the danger at the exclusion of other possible solutions. A popular video has made the rounds on YouTube that is a compilation of how many corporate media TV and cable shows are funded by Pfizer, the manufacturer of the most commonly used Covid vaccine in the U.S. and the only one of the three to have full approval from the FDA as opposed to just emergency use authorization.

Most major media are owned by one of six corporate conglomerates: AT&T/Time Warner (owner of CNN), Comcast (owner of NBC/MSNBC), Disney (owner of ABC), Newscorp (owner of Wall Street Journal and New York Post), Viacom (owner of CBS), and Fox Corp. Furthermore, there exists financial incest among corporate media owners and those with financial investments in the three Covid vaccines used in the U.S. Two of the biggest such financial entities with interests in the major media companies and all three of the vaccine makers are Blackrock Fund Advisors and Vanguard Group, Inc.

Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager with approximately $9.5 trillion in assets. It also has the distinction of being the largest investor in weapons manufacturers. Vanguard is worth about $7 trillion in assets. Blackrock, with strong ties to the Biden administration, has received criticism in the past for using its power to evade government regulation and accountability. Meanwhile both Vanguard and Blackrock have come under scrutiny for their increasing control of so much of the corporate world through institutional ownership of stock as to be on the way toward monopolization.

Blackrock and Vanguard are the two largest investors in the ownership of The New York Times Company. They hold similar ownership stakes for all six of those corporate owners of mass media in the U.S.: AT&T (in top 2), Comcast (in top 3), Disney (in top 2), Viacom (in top 3), Newscorp (in top 3), and even Fox Corp. (in top 5). They also hold the highest institutional ownership stakes in Pfizer, Moderna (in top 3), and Johnson and Johnson (in top 3).

Could this help explain the near-cult status of vaccinations as the solution to the Covid pandemic while early treatments — which until recently involved cheaper drugs that would not have provided a profit for these major corporate entities — were repressed? After all, we were told repeatedly that Covid policy was about saving lives. But if it was really about saving lives, then wouldn’t we want every possible weapon in our arsenal to combat Covid? Why was there downright hostility toward even looking into Ivermectin and other cheap medications that had been around for many years?

The fact that fear — especially a constant state of fear — can interfere with a person’s ability to think clearly, critically, and ethically was a convenient advantage for those with a financial stake in both the media — the facilitator of fear — and the vaccine makers — the profit-making providers of the purported only solution to the cause of the fear.

How Average People Were Hurt by Covid Fearmongering

In addition to the negative long-term psychological affects mentioned above that can result from being subjected to constant fear, many Americans were adversely affected in other significant ways by extreme Covid measures that were implemented due to that constantly stoked fear among the public.

Many Americans lost their financial security through a reduction in hours or complete loss of jobs or small businesses due to lockdowns and other long-term restrictions. A recent comprehensive article on the negative effects of Covid policy on the poor and working class published at The Grayzone reported:

In the US in 2020, 40 percent of people making under $40,000 annually lost work, and almost three million women were driven out of the workforce due to an inability to balance work and caregiving and virtual learning obligations for children who could no longer attend in-person school or daycare.

It was estimated that in 2020 alone, almost 30 percent of small businesses — about 9.4 million — closed either temporarily or permanently.

The CARES Act, passed quickly in an atmosphere of social panic that required the government to help its citizens, actually resulted in the transfer of billions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans. This included a corporate bailout fund overseen by the Treasury Department that could be leveraged to trillions of dollars, a $90 billion tax break for Americans in 2020 with incomes over $1 million, $243 million in tax subsidies for large corporations, and $10 billion in fees made by banks to assist small business owners in getting government loans that were supposed to help them through the pandemic.

Americans also lost many of their most basic rights and liberties as well as their sense of being recognized as human beings with inherent dignity and worth. Instead, the new norm has been to increasingly view our fellow humans as disease vectors who should be shamed for making health choices that differ from the groupthink regardless of the reasons.

What started out as lockdowns meant to “slow the spread” and not overwhelm hospitals for a couple of weeks, based largely on ultimately discredited modeling projections from a British academic with a history of discredited projections for viruses, turned into rolling lockdowns depending on the ebb and flow of Covid cases for nearly two years. Eventually many other western countries like Austria and Germany — who have touted themselves as democracies for the rest of the world to emulate — began implementing what amounts to Covid-apartheid regimes for the unvaccinated in response to a virus with an overall 0.15 fatality rate and a fatality rate of .05 for the non-elderly.

Meanwhile, the costs in terms of the deterioration in general mental and physical health have been disastrous as further figures from The Grayzone article reflect:

As lockdowns drove inequality in the US, millions skipped routine medical care such as childhood vaccinations and cancer screenings, because the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that hospitals suspend non-essential and elective procedures. In May 2021, almost ten million routine screenings were missed in the United States, while other preventative health visits declined on a mass scale due to elective procedure suspensions, which may also lead to worsening public health problems in the long-term.

Due to the CDC’s recommendations, 1.4 million medical workers lost their jobs in April 2020. One medical record company estimated that screening for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers dropped by 80% to 90% during March and April of 2020 compared to the same months in 2019. Now, the US is struggling with a surge of cancers and other ailments that went undetected because of overzealous and overly broad lockdowns.

Mental health issues have also been exacerbated by Covid policies. Depression and anxiety increased, along with opioid overdoses, and domestic and child abuse. Suicide attempts among teenagers and young adults have also risen significantly during the pandemic.

Media Accountability

Most media malpractice, from WMDs to Russiagate to Covid, reflects an official government narrative. In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky describe how journalists often have a close source relationship with government officials who work for various agencies because it’s an efficient and cost-effective way to obtain information about crime, disasters, regulations and other activity presided over or handled by government authorities. In turn, we know that those government authorities serve the interests of their rich and powerful donors. Sometimes those government authorities are even appointed from the donor class.

The job of journalists — representing the mythical fourth estate — is supposed to be informing citizens and providing a check on abuse by the powerful. These days what passes for journalism seems to be facilitating that abuse by repeating the narrative of the corporate and government abusers and shutting down debate.

If recent history is any indication, within a couple of years there will be a few articles here and there reluctantly asking “How did we get taken in by the nonsense?” But no lessons will actually be learned, no one responsible will actually be held accountable, and the government and media will move on to the next sensational distortion that will harm regular people while benefiting the powerful.