THE CORPORATION (Canada: Zeitgeist Films, 2004) explores the rise of "the dominant institution of our time." It includes interviews with 40 corporate insiders and critics - including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Milton Friedman - plus case studies and strategies for change.
Chapter 17 ("Unsettling Accounts") tells the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, investigative reporters turned whistle-blowers. Akre and Wilson were fired by the Fox News television station they worked for after refusing to change their investigative report on Posilac, a Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) made by Monsanto. Their research documented potential health problems of drinking milk treated with the synthetic hormone. When threatened with legal action by Monsanto, Fox demanded that Akre and Wilson rewrite the story, and ultimately fired them. They sued Fox under Florida's whistle-blower statute and proved to a jury that the story Fox wanted them to air was false, distorted or slanted. The jury awarded Akre $425,000. Fox appealed, arguing that lying to the public over the airwaves was a violation of FCC policy, but not prohibited by law. The jury verdict was overturned and Akre lost her award. Akre and Wilson became liable for Fox's $1.8 million court costs, later reduced to $200,000.
Please answer one or more of the following questions:
- Fox News has a slogan, "We report, you decide." Based on the Jane Akre and Steve Wilson story, who decides what stories get aired on Fox News? Do viewers have the information they need to make good decisions?
- Where do you turn for important news about environmental and health issues?
According to the Jane Akre and Steve Wilson story it is clear that the producers have the ultimate decision of what get's aired on the news, even if the information is false. I think it is wrong for the Fox News to air things that are biased, misleading, or completely false because some viewers rely on them for information about things going on in the world and their communities. I think the slogan "We report, you decide" also may have a hidden meaning hinting at the fact that they will report what they want to on their channel but it's up to you to, first, decide if you want to watch their channel, and two, if you agree with what they are saying and believe it to be true.
ReplyDeleteI don't really do a good job of keeping up to date on important news about environmental and health issues but when I do, I usually get most of my information from social media sites (Twitter, Facebook), Magazines (SELF, Cosmo, Fitness) or sometimes even my parents will inform me of things going on if they think it's of importance to me.
Kristen Hotz
Based on the story, I would say that while the reporters still decide what will go on the air, companies like Monsanto are the ones who say what won't be aired. It was the reporters idea to talk about milk and hormones, and I believe that most stories are still produced in that way, where the reporters decide what to cover. (Although you could argue that with VNRs and the like, this doesn't happen all the time.) However, the story illustrates that those higher up in the company have final say over what will and will not be published, and these executives are pressured by those who are paying their salaries, that is the advertisers. People can often search for more information in other places on a story, so even if a heavily edited version appears on TV, it doesn't mean the truth may never get out. However, this is not always the case, and in the example illustrated in the film, the reporters' research may have never come to light, leaving the public without that information.
ReplyDeleteI listen for things about the environment in the headlines of the news websites I visit, as well as in my social media. However, like Kristen, I do not often seek out this kind of information, nor do I monitor any specific trusted sources, such as FDA publications or consumer blogs.
-Marisa Seitz
It's clear that reporters do not have the final say when it comes to what stories Fox News will air. While producers and network executives obviously have a bottom line to maintain, I think the fact that their objectives to please advertisers and large corporate relationships affected the reporters' ability to deliver important, factual news to the public is where a line was crossed. It's sad to think that news organizations we trust to give us crucial information are being controlled by third party organizations that have no civic duty to serve the public.
ReplyDeleteI do think it's important to realize that today people get their news from so many other sources outside the television news. Luckily, the prevalence of independent blogs today gives the public so many more options for receiving unbiased and unaffiliated news. While trusting blogs comes with its own set of possible downfalls, most bloggers are not being controlled by large, wealthy corporations, which is something many people may find comforting.
No matter where we decide to receive our news I think it's important to exercise some media criticism and not take anything we read, see or hear at face value anymore. Its not to say that we have lost faith in our media system to give us honest and pure news, but I think as a society we have to show that we are smarter and able to think on our own terms instead of just mindlessly receiving what news organizations give us. Like Fox News' slogan, "We report, you decide," I think we need to start deciding to seek out second and third opinions on the stories we receive to be better informed.
My first source of environmental and health issues tends to be a news source like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or something I catch while flipping channels through the news stations. And usually the newspaper updates are actually through a little snippet I see in my Twitter feed or the NYT application I have on my phone. If the line I read or hear sounds interesting or dangerous enough, I will follow the provided link or tune in for more details.
ReplyDeleteFrom there my information intake on an issue spreads to two more channels. I tend to mention what I read to friends and family to see if they have heard anything about it. We tend to have different news sources, so I follow up on anything they say by reading the article or watching the news clip they referenced. If they haven't heard anything, I generally seek out other news sources through places like Google News.
If the news I receive is particularly alarming, I would then look for legitimate environmental or health journals and read articles published directly by the researchers and look for their sources. This rarely happens, because often I am satisfied by the amount of information I receive after cross referencing news articles.
I am aware that news stations are limited in what they will produce by the affect it will have on their advertisers. That doesn't necessarily mean I think they lie all the time, but it does mean I don't trust them to include all the information. That is why I will check on the stories that I truly feel will impact me in some way.
- Ame Wood
It's obvious from the Fox News story that the reporters are not the ones choosing who airs the stories they report. The decision comes truly form the broadcasting network. What is scary in that thought is like shown in the story the broadcasting network can be very biased depending on who owns them and who advertises the most with them. Those are the ones who have the money to control the network. Even if there wasn't a big time advertiser around the scary thought is that the network still controls what is seen and what if they make a decision that is wrong?
ReplyDeleteFor instance Jane and Steve could have reported and made up a completely fake story and presented it to the network to go on air. If the network thought the story looked entertaining and thrilling you could've still ended up on air whether there was a Monsanto issue or not. Big corporations are not checking the facts of these stories and are just trusting what they broadcast is true and informational. Or maybe they don't care one way of the other if things are true, they just want the entertainment value to attract viewers. Viewers means money. It was proven in the Fox News story that all Fox really cared about was money from the Monsanto advertisers so who says anything else they broadcast is all about truth and information. This is also why we have so much "infotainment" in the media.
Katherine Harper
It's unfortunate that we as a society are unable to grasp the true facts of any news story because big corporations like Fox News have been known to twist the facts in their favor. A lot of the times, its done to have a high return on investment and to attract viewers with like minded opinions. What is really sickening to see is that Fox was able to bypass the law and still come out winning. It is technically not illegal to lie to the public although it is a violation of FCC policy. We need to regulate this part of conduct and make sure that this incident in the future should be punishable by law.
ReplyDeleteIt's harmful for the greater good of the public if they see news and they don't know if what they're getting is complete factual information. Truth and honesty may sometimes be harder to report but in the end, it's beneficial in the long run. If it has to come down to changing the law or FCC policy, then we should make it happen.
-Sarah Hasnain
Well, the answer here is complicated when it seems it should just be a big, flashing NO. No, because Fox News did a sickening, unethical, ridiculous thing here. What Fox should have done is make a public war against Monsanto and defended their employees because it is Akre and Wilson that were human and ethical. That would have been awesome, because its those two that recognized their gut reactions as morality. More of the media, more of America for that matter needs to do that. However, the way the world turns around big business is greedy and cowardly.
ReplyDeleteObviously, people (as in humans, not corporations) don’t get to decide the kind of content that is aired on FoxNews. Fox does. And they aren’t doing a good job. So it is up to us to sift through these enormous media outlets and find the diamonds in the ruff. We have been thrust into an age where the mistrust of big business, as shown here, is valid.
-Maddie Wigle
Fox News’s slogan is nothing more than a corporate façade to dilute the truth about modern-america corporate media. The slogan is neutral and rather obvious. Of course they report and of course the news- consumer can decide the validity of the report, but the reality of this medium to consumer dynamic is passive. Most people do not question investigative reporting because such reporting is supposed to have already asked and answered the questions for them. And most people just want to read the news and do not have time in their hands to spend an hour online doing research on a particular story. But without digressing too much, it is clear that Fox news (and its advertisers) get to decide what airs and what doesn’t.
ReplyDeleteIt is alarming to see such concentration of wealth involved in the media sector of this country. Concentration of wealth yields to concentration of power, which can be used both in the media and the political sector. This concentrated power can be used against the public’s need for reliable information, which adds to the democratic deficit experienced in the United States. It is very unfortunate when money talks and the public get to listen to fabricated information.
In terms of environmental and health news I can say I’d be totally ignorant of the issues affecting the country if it weren’t for the internet. I found out about all the environmental wrongdoings of corporations thanks to many documentaries I accessed on Netflix. I think environmental news seem to be categorized separately, and only covered sometimes, perhaps when there is a big oils spill that can’t be missed. But otherwise I think environmental newsletters and things of the sort are socially reserved for the proverbial “hippy” or "liberal" who wants to remain updated.
- JOSE Morales
Like many programs with large amounts of sponsors, Fox believes don't bite the hand that feeds you. Fox, like many networks makes a large amount of money from advertisers. It sounds at least from the video, most of the stories fox aired did come from initial the interest of reporters, back then. But if the journalists wanted to publish a story that criticized one of Fox's sponsors, it was immediately censored or thrown out. Now it seems to be much worse. Fox does not even report real news. It only reports information from its biased point of view. It seems like Fox gets its information from the other station and twists it for its own political purposes. Everything is ultra conservative and all they do is blame the Democrats. NEWS IS NOT A POLITICAL DEBATE! News is general informing of the public. Fox does not inform, it yells. Frankly the only way to fix Fox news, is to destroy and rebuild from the ground up. ___Ethan Hughes
ReplyDeleteIn light of the excerpt from the movie, "we report, you decide," seems to be more than a little inaccurate. In fact, it seems that in the cases of many news outlets, the advertisers report and the producers decide. As a journalism student, hoping to pursue a career in production after graduation, this fact is especially troubling to me, but I can see the dilemma of the stations. Over the summer, I worked for a small station in Maryland that was constantly dealing with the expectations and demands of their affiliate, NBC.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, that ever recognizable peacock gave the station more credit to viewers and allowed them more access to the community. That was that same symbol, however, that was able to dictate the commercials we ran, the length of our news cast and that took away two news casts altogether with the onslaught of the summer Olympics. During the two weeks that NBC programming was focused on the summer games, WHAG (the station that I worked with) cancelled both their noon and prime time news at the request of NBC in order to air network programs. For the reporters, it was a welcome break from the daily grind, but also frustrating for those working on long-term stories. The producers loved airing "exclusive" Olympic content, but hating losing many of the older viewers who would rather see the noon news than the pole vault.
With my knowledge and experience, it's very interesting to see this effect from the largest corporations to the smallest affiliates. It's necessary for a station to make money in order to make business, but where is the line of bias and big business? I do not think that many of the stations quite know where to draw the line yet, and this is a battle that will definitely continue for many years.
-Molly Haas
It should already be obvious to news viewers that they really have no influence in what stories get reported on or what gets shown on the air. The producers and heads of Fox ultimately decide what stories get shown. If not them, then it’s the writers and editors—but these individuals know Fox’s rules about what sorts of stories should and should not be written, and censor their work at the risk of losing their job.
ReplyDeleteFox’s slogan “We report, you decide.” sounds wonderful, but is absolutely preposterous in reality. A majority of their reports are bloated with their political biases and one-sided opinions. Their predisposition is so strong that their news program is seen as the official television news of the political conservatives. They very rarely give equal light to both sides of an issue, forcing the viewers to make decisions from an unbalanced foundation of facts.
So unless your decision as a viewer is to become or to continue to be conservative, that slogan is an outright lie.
-Kaitlin Hall
Based on the information given in the story I have little to no faith in televised news anymore. I think that ultimately advertisers have the most influence when it comes to both televised and print news media. If Monsanto was so adamant about not letting the public know that the growth hormone that was in their milk products caused cancer, what else are other companies hiding?
ReplyDeleteI would like to believe that I could put trust in the FDA to regulate the food supply and ensure that it is safe, but from the example given by the Monsanto story, even FDA regulation documents can be falsified. I truly feel powerless when it comes to knowing what is in my food and if it is safe.
I am interested in reading some of my peers responses regarding food safety and actions they take to ensure their safety.
(Khyre Dean)
After hearing this story, I was disgusted in the way the news was reported in this situation. Society is supposed to be able to trust news agencies to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. They are not supposed to alter a story in any way or produce false news. That is exactly what happened in this situation. Due to the financial benefits provided by advertising, Fox News took the advertisers interest into account rather than the public interest. The slogan, “We report, you decide” is pathetic. Society should not have to decide whether or not the news they are being given is truthful or not, it just should be. It should be as accurate as possible, and they should always be held accountable when they produce altered information due to a financial benefit. The fact that other media agencies stood behind Fox’s decision makes this situation even more despicable. When did this industry become about how much money a company can make, rather than serving the public interest?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to gathering important news and information about environmental and health issues, I turn to multiple online news outlets, as well as fact checking websites. Sites such as WebMD offer information straight from real doctors that allow you to gain knowledge on health issues.
(Madison Smith)
It is obvious that those with the most money have greater leverage over the stories that get aired as seen by the Jane Akre/Steve Wilson example. The main motivation for Monsanto to attack the Akre/Wilson story was because of money. Public fear of Monsanto’s products could detract from sales, and/or create lawsuits, then people begin to lose trust in grocery stores to supply their goods, then more people boycott their products and eventually all of these problems adding up together over time could potentially lead to the company’s downfall and elimination. Monsanto saw a threat to the company,and decided to act using “hush” money to try to stop the story.
ReplyDeleteThere are many news stations for viewers to turn to in order to find information to make informed decisions. As everyone has mentioned, the internet is abundant with social media, multiple news sites, and even personal blogs. If you want to take research further, you can find many documentaries on Netflix that are well- researched and put together, award-winning features that will really make you think and possibly promote your own ideas about questionable subject areas. Even so, I feel one of the main subject areas that is really unknown in perspective is the food industry. I have some experience to share, to be brief, my GSCI 101 class was uniquely structured so that we took field trips each week and one of our focus areas was learning about the origins of our food. We visited the giant poultry plant in Harrisonburg one of the days. Definitely picturesque: you got the giant assembly line of workers in this dangerously loud environment, the monstrous equipment running nonstop, the endless number of turkeys (that were much larger than the natural turkey size due to overfeeding and growth promoters) that were moving along the lines to be processed, and a ton of other questionable stuff. The conclusion I came to (once back in the classroom) was that this method of mass production of food leads to trying to make the most money. If you watch Food Inc, you’ll see a similar pattern. They grow things unnaturally quicker and bigger, cash in, and repeat. The people in the documentary couldn’t even interview the people from Monsanto because Monsanto representatives denied them an interview. To me now, the food industry is shady, but those experiences allowed me, as the viewer, to see some truth and made me open to the idea to invest more in fresh food products, local naturally grown products, and meat products that are labeled organic just so I know I am feeding myself with better options.
I look to multiple sources for my environmental and health information. I try to check between different sources to compare information.
Kristin Silver
Based on the Jane Akre/Steve Wilson story, it is pretty obvious that Fox News’ aired stories are decided by those who have the most power and money over the news station. All stories are practically “fair game” for the public until a controversial one comes along and threatens a major business, like Monsanto, from even existing due to the sensitive, but truthful, information it contains. It is ridiculous that any business feels fit to exist knowing that their products are unethical and dangerous to the public. It is shameful that any business is allowed to practically run a monopoly without the basic business roots in honesty and integrity. I agree with Madison about Fox’s slogan (“We report, you decide”) as being “pathetic” because the news really should be a way for the public to be informed about what is truthfully going on in the world, and not question at every single moment we tune in to whether or not we are being lied to or shown an extremely bias viewpoint that will require us to do extra research. This story really shows that certain priorities in journalism are not what they seem anymore…serving the public interest is important, but making money is more important, even when the cost comes in truthfulness.
ReplyDeleteI use many sources when it comes to environmental and health issues, mainly relying on FDA approvals, warnings on product labels, and legitimate research on credible internet sites. I also pay attention to what the news on TV has to report, but I make sure to do more extensive research on questionable products/practices from more than one other source. There are some really scary products on the market that are just now coming out as extremely dangerous, including some birth controls, diet pills, and the acne treatment “accutane.” As Kristin stated, there are many very high quality documentaries that cover questionable practices regarding health issues, especially related to the food we consume. If the general American public truly knew how our livestock was being treated before being slaughtered and sold in grocery stores, they would not consume a majority of the products they buy. And, after also visiting the turkey plant here in Harrisonburg for GSCI 101, and watching “Food, Inc,” I have come to question practically any and all food products I consume for quality since animals have been tampered with in order to produce the biggest, juiciest portions in the fastest times that are biologically unnatural. I was really disturbed by what I witnessed at the turkey plant (and still am), and felt like the people working there were just a bunch of machines without souls, forced to repeat the same assembly line skill hour after hour. It doesn’t matter whether the products are “truthful” and “healthy,” once again, it all comes down to making the most money no matter what the ethical repercussions.
-Kaitlin Silver
I agree that the "We report, you decide" slogan is ironic. Personally, I've had issues with Fox News since I was a teenager. Unfortunately, some of the radical stories they cover about adolescents taking prescription drugs, drinking until they die, etc...made my adolescent life much more difficult due to my mother thinking at the time that anything the "news said" was right. Fox sensationalized many stories and twisted statistics to make it sound like EVERY teenager in every town was doing these radical things. I used to call Fox, "The station to scare parents". I'm not sure if it is still this bad as I stopped watching Fox News long ago. I agree with Kaitlin in her statements about this media source being completely bias and conservative. Since I don't lean in that direction politically, it is not a news source that appeals to me.
ReplyDeleteLike others have already posted, I also find the court case with Fox and other media companies very disheartening. Actually, it's downright disturbing. There are iron tirangles in every corner of government, and apparently the media works the same. Money unfortunately equals power and control. I applaud these news anchors for their bravery in trying to uncover this case. I also find it extremely scary that it is not illegal to broadcast untruths as news! Why isn't it? That means any media company can make up any lie and feed it to the American public. It may be against FCC rules, but I feel it should be much more serious than that.
I learn about health related issues from internet blogs like homesteading and survival sites. I also subscribe to BBC news on my phone and try to listen to public radio as much as possible. Like others, I'm also an avid reader and pay attention to labels. I rarely eat pork after seeing some pictures online of how they are raised and what they are fed. I also have a garden and grow herbs and fruit that we do not put any chemicals on at all (though only about 1/2 of it is edible due to bugs by the time it's ripe)...I would love to be able to buy more organic foods and grass fed beef, and the like but it is so expensive. Unfortunately, it takes more than knowledge to live a healthier life.
Wendy Knight-Nutty
Unfortunately it is the advertising giants that decide what is aired. Investigative journalists can no longer dive into a story that blasts any high profile corporation, because they are likely funding their operations. Luckily, in today's social media climate, viewers still have access to the information they need to make good decisions online. Any blogger can post relevant and scathing information, and corporations cannot shut them down, but are rather forced to answer for their complaints and comments.
ReplyDeleteThat is where I turn to read important environmental and health issues. I of course compare and contrast what I read/hear on the internet with more reputable sources like NPR and The Washington Post, but I tend to have more faith in these sources than my 24 hour news channels.
Daniel Benn
"We report, you decide" is ironic to say the least. Who is this faceless "we" reporting on the news for America? Unfortunately when the media became a commercial industry and the big media companies emerged, advertisers became a key player in news reporting. Originally, the media was supposed to report the news for the benefit of society. Media was known as the gatekeeper and whistle blower for the general public. Now instead of society, the bottom line is often the determinate of media agenda.
ReplyDeleteAdvertisers play such a big role in what stories run and what stories are dropped. The big media networks know that it is all too easy to fall behind the curve in the competitive industry and are adamant in keeping the money flowing. It was evident in the Jane Akre and Steve Wilson case that the news was secondary to pacifying the concerns of a big time cooperation who had ties to Fox News and their wallet.
I do not believe the public is getting the news that it needs. This is the case across all forms of media but especially in terms of foreign and international news. Shanto Iyengar comments in length about this in his book, "Media and Politics." He talks about how expensive it is to place reporters in other countries and therefore the news is severely lacking in those venues. This goes back to the idea of commercialism of media and how cost almost always outweighs public wellness and information. More news also rarely means diverse news. The media needs advertisers and advertisers want to reach a certain audience, rarely is that "certain" audience minorities. Basically, we are getting a snap shot of news instead of the entire picture.
In order to get accurate news it is important that I rely on public broadcasting as well as foreign venues of news such as BBC. With the technology available today I try to look at multiple sources for news instead of ever relying on one medium. I think for environmental and health news it is important to also do my own reporting. Not to say I am going out with a pen and paper doing investigative journalism daily, but I do ask around. If I am not certain about the effects of a drug I will ask my physician and if there are some environmental issues at hand why not ask the members of the Environmental Management Club on campus. Unfortunately, being informed in a day and age with commercial media is hard work.
Katherine Parker
I think that a lot of the criticism FOX News gets for this (and many other) story is completely deserved, but it is reflective not of only that particular outlet but of corporate media as a whole. This can especially be seen in the way it reflects in the treatment of the subject matter that Jane Akre and Steve Wilson came up against.
ReplyDeleteThis ties in to the larger point that most people are bringing up about the difficulty in finding information on environmental and health issues is due to the fact that they go largely un and underreported. This is a byproduct of the fact that these are often complicated and ornate subject matters that require very specific kinds of knowledge, and the understanding of research and processes that are related to them can't really be dismantled into a 45 second package.
These difficulties have lead to the need for information on these subjects being filled in some cases by independent voices and documentaries, but those by their very nature can not reach the wide audience that corporately affiliated media can. This makes matters of informing on health and environmental issues (along with more complex political and economic issues) so difficult and so rare.
— Jeff Wade
Fox news is a very biased news networking station towards Republicans. Based off of what we saw in the films we watched in class it's unbelievable that anyone actually goes to Fox for trustworthy news. The gatekeepers at Fox obviously want the public to only see what they want them to see. Fox News (when it comes to politics at least) really only shows one side of the issues. I understand when someone agrees with their viewpoint would want to watch Fox, but at the same time I don't understand why viewers would not want to see both sides of the coin. Viewers only see one side of a coin and therefore base their decisions off of that one side, but truly need to see both sides.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I usually obtain my news from web sites. I normally don't actively pursue news so I just read articles from websites such as reddit, yahoo, and anywhere else news naturally comes up on the internet. The internet is the main contributor for my news consumption.
- Josh Stevens
I think it’s a sad truth that news is completely dependent on the advertising dollars. In this case, it wasn’t just that a large corporation (Monsanto) didn’t want the release of a story. They wanted to change the information, and slant it so far away from truth that no one would press further. Fox was willing to put its advertising customer’s needs above those of the general population. It’s terrible, but it makes sense. They were protecting their revenue potential. Their slogan "We report, you decide," should be “We amuse, and you should buy.” They will do anything to make sure their advertisers are happy, because they keep the lights on. It’s not just Fox news. Any corporation, media or otherwise, has a responsibility to its shareholders, and therefore its clients. That responsibility seems to trump all others, even public health and safety.
ReplyDeleteI once had the opportunity to listen to a woman who had worked at a local Fox station in L.A. talk about her experience. She told us that companies sometimes sponsored entire news broadcasts. Most of the time they wouldn’t even mention the sponsor. I asked her the question “If they buy the show, do they determine the content?” Her answer surprised me. Eventually I flat out asked “Is it possible for someone to buy the news?” She told me “Yes,” it was.
I don’t have any really great ideas about how to get environmental and Health News. I used to have a subscription to Men’s Health (Thanks to my aunt). That was mostly ads. I do watch a lot of documentaries, sometimes about these topics, on Netflix. Some of my family watches shows like “The Doctor” and Dr. Oz. Mostly though those just make them paranoid.
- John Huffman