Why Are Our Media So Pro-war? Look at Their Owners
The US Department of Justice announced that:
1. It has charged two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today) with planting media content designed to interfere in American elections. Did Russia do it? Probably. They would be stupid not to work in their own favor. Does the US government interfere in foreign elections? Do you even have to ask?
2. The DOJ also announced that it has shut down 32 websites that it believes are spreading Russian propaganda.
Thomas Knapp, a libertarian, has published an article about it on Counterpunch. As he points out, the First Amendment does not contain an exception for ideas originating from countries we hate or for ideas that the government finds odious.
On the other hand, if I am reading Russian propaganda, I want to *know* it is Russsian propaganda.
I believe I have a solution to this dilemma: require any website, newspaper, or other journalistic medium not supported by personal or family money to disclose its funding sources and disclose which investment companies own large shares of its stock. Make them post it on their websites instead of requiring Americans to do a "Where's Waldo" search for their financial ties. That way, the American people can make informed decisions about the potential biases of the content they are reading.
When scientists publish a paper, they have to disclose their funding sources and potential conflicts of interest. Our media overlords should have to do the same.
In particular, US media companies should inform the public about ties they have to the US Defense Industry. In a dangerous world where humans insist on behaving like our chimpanzee relatives, a large defense industry is, alas, a necessity. Nothing in this article should be taken as a blanket criticism of this industry. I am thrilled that the US has a powerful military, but I question whether media-military industry ties may bias coverage, and thus public opinion, in favor of wars that may be unnecessary and cost the lives of our men and women, most very young, who care enough about this country to serve in the military.
A large number of networks have large blocks of their shares owned by investment companies that also *huge* investments in the defense industry. This overlap of media and defense industries may explain why our major media corporations largely suppress antiwar views.
A recent example of suppressed antiwar views occurred duringTrump's debate with Harris. He spoke about US involvement in the Ukraine-Russia war and claimed that the death toll is far higher than what is being reported in the press and that we are risking World War III by involving ourselves in it.
ABC properly gave ample coverage to the scurrilous Haitian cat-eating charge which originated with JD Vance and had apparently prepared a response before hand. On the other hand, Trump's claims about death tolls and his warnings about World War III were greeted with total silence. It was almost as if the networks wanted this issue to die in silence.
Here are some examples of the financial ties that news networks have with the defense industry.
- MSNBC is a subsidiary of Comcast. Comcast has defense contracts. Does this tie between MSNBC and a defense contractor influence their reporting on defense-related issues? I don't know, but the American people deserve to know that this concern is at least a possibility.
- ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Corporation. A passage from an article on King's Business Review explains the link between Disney and the military:
. . . the US DOD and Disney have a close working relationship that goes back decades, with loose favours being traded here, whispered suggestions there, and the odd piece of direct and outright intervention. Walt Disney himself was infamously an FBI informant who would provide the names of alleged communists in the states in exchange for the ability to film inside the FBI headquarters. But the potential impact from the weaponisation of popular culture has perhaps never been so great as it is now.
- The Walt Disney Corporation's largest stockholders include Vanguard Group and Blackrock, investment companies with huge investments in the defense industry--see below.
- CNN has changed ownership several times but is currently owned by Warner Brothers Discovery. A very major holder of Warner Brothers Discovery Stock is Vanguard Group Inc., an investment group with huge links to the Defense Industry.
- CBS is owned by Paramount Global, which is owned by National Amusements. National Amusements as 9.7 % equity and 79.9% voting power. However, major stockholders include Blackrock and Vanguard Group, Inc.
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund
- Project Vanguard: A partnership between Vanguard and the National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) that helps small businesses connect with investors and government contracts.
- Vanguard Global Solutions, Inc. A company that bids on and wins federal contracts, and helps small businesses understand the federal marketplace.
- Vanguard Defense Industries, LLC: A company that manufactures search and navigation equipment.
Vanguard also has investments in military contractors, nuclear weapons, and controversial weapons:
The reason high-ranking governent officials must put their assets in blind trusts is because the public recognizes the temptation that money offers to all of us. Our major media companies have financial ties to the defense industry, either directly or indirectly through huge investment funds. Too many media companies have treasure in defense industries.
Question: If a news network whose stock is largely owned by an investment group like Vanguard or Blackrock comes out against a war, will defense stock drop in value? If Vanguard or Blackrock fears the defense stocks will drop in value, will they sell of media stock, causing its share prices to decline? If CNN and MSNBC executives have part of the compensation in stocks, that fact alone would bias these networks toward war.
Comments
Post a Comment