Are Big Media Owners Surpressing Coverage of SOPA?

At a  recent family gathering my much younger cousin (once removed) was trying to convince me that corporate ownership of the mass media biased news coverage in favor of big business interests. I thought I was fairly eloquent in rebutting that myth.

The gist of my argument can be distilled to an observation made by A.J. Liebling, perhaps the most cited press critic of the 1940s and 1950s. He famously wrote in a  "Wayward Press" column that "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” But Liebling also wrote, in another column quoted far less often:

The profit system, while it insures the predominant conservative coloration of our press, also
guarantees that there will always be a certain amount of dissidence. The American press has never been monolithic, like that of an authoritarian state. One reason is that there is always money to be made in journalism by standing up for the underdog…. His wife buys girdles and baking powder and Literary Guild selections, and the advertiser has to reach her.”

 That is, any media owner must keep in mind the audience: advertisers who want to reach potential customers through the media outlet they choose to advertise in. While the owners of the media may have the platform to say what they want, their self-interest pulls in the direction of greater populism.

On the one hand...

Apparently I didn't convince my young cousin. In a recent email he wrote me about the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA):

Just saw this and thought it was an interesting data point given how you've argued that corporate ownership of media was a non-issue in their news coverage in the past, or am I mis-remembering/mis-quoting you?

I'm outraged about SOPA, but they should at least be covering a controversy that has practically every major Internet company considering a "nuclear option" of blacking out their public facing web pages for a day to raise consumer awareness of the issue.... how is THAT now news?

If you, like most of your countrypersons, have not been following the proposed legislation, SOPA, introduced in Congress with bi-partisan sponsors, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. My aim here is not to discuss the provisions of the bill itself, though that would make an appropriate post for The Two-Sided Pancake. Needless to say there are contentious provisions. To draw on the non-judgemental description of the bill from the Wikipedia entry, as it stands today:

Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws especially against foreign websites. They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to buy illegal prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies. Opponents say that it infringes on First Amendment rights, is Internet censorship, will cripple the Internet, and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech.

 But my cousin's concern is that big media, presumably on the pro-SOPA side, is not providing coverage because they want it to slide under the radar. His implication is that the media owners are keeping this quiet.

I could point out that with a handful of exceptions, the "owners" of most media companies are millions of stockholders, pension funds, mutual funds and the like. Ownership is extremely fragmented. Those who, in aggregate, "own" the companies are interested in a return on their investment. Implementation of SOPA might add a cent or two to earnings, but in any event mutual fund managers do not weigh in with the newsroom editors who decide what to cover.

Flipping the Pancake

The lack of big media coverage of this issue is far from a conspiracy or cover-up of any kind. Lack of coverage of SOPA is indeed a non-issue. And here's why: The major video media rarely cover issues.  It has nothing to do with ownership. TV news specializes in events, in action. Look at how these guys cover the elections: it's about the  "horse race." Even the debates, with two minute answers and one minute responses, are about keeping up the pace. SOPA isn't covered because it is not made for TV. The  issue has many facets and subtleties. The arguments are long and detailed. And most people don't care.  And most people shouldn't. They need to worry about their jobs, paying college tuition, fixing the leak in the roof, repairing the muffler. Intellectual property is not high on the "what do I need to worry about" list. They don't see how it will impact their lives. And it won't, even if it passes (and that's not likely) in its present form.

Now, if there is some contentious hearing, where Bono appears before a Congressional committee, then it might get 30 seconds-- with the focus on Bono and a short description of what the hearing is about.

Moreover, even a Mom-and-Pop media firm would be lining up with the big guys on one side.

MSNBC, CBS News and the like do not have you or me as their target market. A relative few of us live in a rarefied world of issues. And covering SOPA is not going to change that. Anyone who is concerned have many avenues to pursue the argument they like, such as at ReadWriteWeb. The mass audience has the Today Show and the ABC Evening News. Maybe the Daily Show will give SOPA the visibility my cousin wants. That's where more of my students seem to be learning about the news anyway, not on CNN or MSNBC.