CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE US MEDIA PART ONE

(Cécile COUDRIOU)

Introduction:

This course aims at highlighting and analyzing the main specificities of the US media, the model they
are based on, the way they have evolved and their impact on the rest of the world. It also reflects the
conviction that critical thinking should be encouraged as well as an awareness of what is at stake in a
media model and what the media reveal about a society.

To begin with, we need a definition of the media, so let’s start with the etymology of the word: media
is the plural form of “medium” which means “the middle” in Latin. A medium can indeed be defined as
what is “in between”. It is like a vehicle, or a channel of communication, used to transmit a message
from A to B. We should also bear in mind that the media (and “mass media” even more so) imply a
“one-to-many” communication rather than “one-to-one”. Furthermore, we should include in the
definition the question of scale in the production of messages and the means used for transmitting those
messages. So, the media can be defined as industries which use specific technological means to
communicate the same message - whether information or entertainment – to large numbers of
people who are not necessarily at the same place.

Media can be divided into three categories, based on the technological means used: print media
(newspapers, magazines), audiovisual or broadcast media (the radio, television), and finally digital
media: multimedia, the Internet, and - within that infrastructure - the World Wide Web (created by Tim
Berners Lee in 1989), websites and of course, social media.

Whatever the category, the media can be seen as a kind of conveyor belt of symbolic meaning between
the world and the audiences. They produce images or text about various realities or ideas, not just a
mirror of the world but an interpretation of it. A semiotic approach to the media shows us that the
symbolic meaning is produced within existing cultures and environments. So, the media structure the
world in a way that affects our perception and understanding of it, and it is actually a “two-way street”:
the media shape and are also shaped by the society they operate in. That’s why the way the media are
organized and developed in a specific society, the model they are based on and its evolution, also reveal
a lot about that society and its culture.

Our analysis will focus on the following essential topics: freedom of the press and its limits; the
impact of the American model of commercialism on media content; the concentration of
ownership in the US media landscape and some of its consequences, like the risks of standardization
and political bias; and finally, the impact of technological evolution and of the digitization on the
media, not only in the United States but globally.

Why start with the USA? First because historically, this country has always had a dominant position due
to combination of economic supremacy and a strong tradition of freedom of expression which favored
the development of the media. America was the first country to enter the era of communication, with
the advent of the technological revolution in the 70ies, and this reinforced its power of influence, what
is called “soft power”. Thus, Graydon Carter, editor of the famous magazine “Vanity Fair” declared in
1995: “The power center of America (...) has moved from its role as military-industrial giant to a new
supremacy as the world’s entertainment-information superpower.”

1. Freedom of the press: myth or reality?

Freedom of expression is considered as the core value of democracy, a cornerstone that is the
necessary condition for every other freedom. The ability to speak one's mind, to criticize the policies
of a government without fear of recrimination or punishment by the State is the essential distinction
between life in a free country and in an authoritarian regime or a dictatorship. And a free press is
essential to develop and maintain a democratic society because it provides citizens with a forum for
political debate, public scrutiny of the government, and the objective information they need to make
political judgments.

The attachment to that freedom and its guarantee is particularly manifest in the United States, since it
was officially inscribed in the Constitution (written in 1787 by the “Founding Fathers” of America,
ratified the next year) or more precisely in the Bill of Rights (a text composed of 10 amendments, ratified
in 1791). It is also significant that it appears in the very first amendment (together with the freedom
of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the Government): “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances”.

The press is the only economic enterprise specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, which is
also a sign of its importance in a free society. The “Founding Fathers” had made very clear how essential
it was to guarantee the freedom of the press. In 1789, Benjamin Franklin stated: "My proposal, then is
to leave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor". Thomas
Jefferson had also expressed quite a strong view on a free press in 1787: "The basis of our government
being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me
to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a
government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

The press is traditionally referred to as “the fourth estate”, which means it is placed alongside the three
branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. It is therefore an acknowledgement of its
political influence, its power to challenge governments and authorities. But originally, the expression
“fourth estate”, often attributed to the18th century British philosopher Edmund Burke, was used in
reference to the power of the press compared to the three estates in Parliament – nobility, clergy and the
“Third Estate” or Commoners, (people who did not have a high social status).

With freedom comes responsibility, so the media are also expected to play the role of a “watchdog”.
This means monitoring what the government is doing, holding powerful people accountable and
guarding the public interest by informing citizens who can then build their own opinion.

It is important to understand that in America, the independence of the media is associated with the
tradition of liberalism and “laissez-faire”, which means no national policy of the media and very little
intervention from the federal government (federal means at the national level, as opposed to the state
level, in one of the 50 US states). Apart from a few exceptions and restrictions on free speech, that we
are going to analyze in detail, the government normally cannot regulate the content of speech, according
to the First Amendment. However, there are a few federal laws that media have to abide by, just like
any other business: tax-laws, anti-trust laws, and anti-discrimination - either racist or sexist - laws. And
there is also the notable exception of the 1934 federal legislation, Congress passed to establish the
Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. The mission of this official regulatory body is to
supervise the electronic (or broadcast) media on a federal level. Because there is a limited number of
broadcast frequencies for radio and non-cable television use, the Federal Government licenses access to
these frequencies, permitting some applicants to use them and denying the greater number of applicants
such permission. Apart from granting licenses, the FCC was also created to establish the rules and
regulations for all the broadcasting media and sees to their application. The FCC is directed by five
commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for
five-year terms. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Among the
commissioners, there may be only three members of the same political party and none of them can have
a financial interest in any commission-related business.
Whereas the Constitution protects the freedom of expression of every citizen, “shield laws” protect
more precisely journalists, since they allow them to keep their sources secret. This is absolutely
essential to maintain the possibility of investigative journalism – who would take the risk to talk to a
reporter without the guarantee to remain anonymous? However, shield laws have their limits because
they are state laws, enacted in only 40 states plus the District of Columbia. (The other states, except for
Wyoming and Hawaii, have at least court precedents protecting confidentiality, so on a case-by-case
basis.) So basically, the situation differs according to the state where the journalist works but also
according to the type of case: some protections apply to civil but not to criminal proceedings, and when
it comes to national security issues, the pressure to reveal sources can intensify. This can have serious
consequences on journalist sometimes: In 2005 for example, the New York Times reporter Judith Miller
spent 85 days in jail before she agreed to disclose her sources in a case involving the CIA and the Bush
administration (in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case).

All the attempts to pass a federal shield law since 2004 have been blocked by the Senate in
Congress. The argument put forward is usually that of security and the risks of leaks of classified
information, especially now that modern technologies can make it so easy to disseminate information
globally very quickly. In July 2013, Obama openly supported a bill for a new legislation called “the Free
Flow of Information Act”, which included a kind of compromise between the First Amendment and
national security since it would create an exception in case the latter is at risk. But the Senate blocked
that proposal too. It is a very complex issue because not everybody agrees on the limits of that protection
nor who should be considered as a journalist: for example, should a shield law include bloggers, or even
tweeters?

Now let’s examine the legal limits and restrictions on freedom of expression, bearing in mind that
absolute freedom is obviously a myth even in a democracy. In fact, it is commonly accepted by any
reasonable citizen that there have to be some limits on some specific occasions. However, they are
not so easy to define because they also depend on a specific culture, at a specific time in a specific
society. Thus, outside the country, freedom of expression, as defined and experienced in the USA, can
be a bit confusing. Sometimes, it might be perceived as “permissive” whereas some other limits can
appear as excessive and can be understood only in the light of the American context.

First of all, there is the security issue: in case of war or any danger for national security, if it can be
proved that the threat is real and imminent, the government can suppress freedom of speech. For
example, journalists could be accused of helping the enemy when publishing certain information.
However, we have to be aware of the evolution in the way danger for national security is conceived,
especially since the September 11 terrorist attack, and the appearance of the highly controversial
subject of “war on terror”. The trauma and the anxious need for security justified for some Americans
the establishment of more restrictions on free speech, whereas others started to complain about the
censorship or self-censorship that followed these terrible events, arguing that the First Amendment was
no longer respected. We may indeed contend that democracy is threatened in America when expressing
dissent or criticism is systematically associated to anti-patriotism.

Even artists had to suffer the consequences of a position that was critical of the war in Iraq and
President Bush. A striking illustration can be found in the controversy around the country music band
called Dixie Chicks. Because they declared before a concert in London that they disapproved of the war
and felt ashamed that Bush came from Texas like them, they were the target of a huge controversy, and
were victims of corporate boycott (Clear Channel stations for example removed The Dixie Chicks from
their playlists), demonstrations calling for the destruction of their CDs with bulldozers, and even death
threats…

The famous “USA Patriot Act” (an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”), passed a few weeks after the
attack in the urge to start the so-called “war on terror”, has also been harshly criticized. Because it
increased considerably the possibilities of surveillance (phone and mail) of any citizen under the
pretext of security, it could be considered as a direct threat to civil liberties and particularly the
freedom of expression. Since then, the scandal revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden has
confirmed our worst fears about the impact of the war on terror on individual liberties: with the program
called “Prism”, the CIA is now able to use surveillance programs not only in America but the whole
world.

In relation to the public security issue, the concept of “incitement” is also used to limit free speech
when it could lead to imminent violence or riot, as well as the doctrine of “fighting words”: words that
are so insulting that one can reasonably expect them to create a verbal or physical confrontation if they
are used. There is a subtle difference between the two: incitement is characterized by the speaker's
intention to encourage someone else to do something unlawful, like killing somebody, whereas fighting
words are intended to anger the other person so much that it will certainly cause a reaction against the
person who said those words.

It is important to remember that – however shocking it could sometimes appear in Europe - a bedrock
principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that the First Amendment allows for hate speech, including that
when it denigrates people on the basis of their ethnic origin, gender or sexual orientation. Why? Because
it is generally accepted that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues
even when such debate includes vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in 2011 that the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its vitriolic “God Hates Fags” anti-gay
campaign, could not be prevented from picketing at military funerals. In the landmark 1969 case
Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court upheld the free speech rights of a Ku Klux Klan member who had
invited a reporter to cover a KKK rally. In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses
First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to “imminent lawless action.” The
important word is “imminent.” Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of
violence were protected by the First Amendment, only “true threats” were not.

The second kind of limit is defamation: it is called “libel” when it is a written publication, and “slander”
when it is an oral, and therefore transitory statement. In France or in Great Britain, defamation is strictly
defined as the act of making about someone else a false statement that could harm his or her
reputation. If the person who made that kind of statement is sued for defamation, he or she has to prove
in court that the statement was accurate or that it was “an honest opinion” made in good faith even
though it was false. In the US legal system, it is more complicated because it is not sufficient to prove
that the statement was not true. The “burden of proof” is on the person defamed, who has to prove
in court that it is really a defamation case. And in America, this means it is also necessary to prove
the defendant’s awareness that it was false, and therefore a deliberate intention of harming the
other person’s reputation (what the Supreme Court called “actual malice” in a 1964 case). Because
this is most of the time very difficult to prove, many potential plaintiffs are discouraged from suing the
person who defamed them. So, defamation is a limit that US journalists need not worry too much about,
compared to French or British ones for example.

Last but not least in the US, obscenity is a serious limitation to freedom of expression. It is such a
complex issue that the Supreme Court struggled for decades to define that term. Obscenity has to be
distinguished from pornography, which is defined as “explicit material that is intended to cause sexual
arousal”. It is illegal to distribute pornographic content to children and besides, child pornography is of
course totally prohibited. It is much more complicated to decide what should be classified as obscene
material. The common definition is “something causing repugnance, revulsion and shock, something
offensive to morality or decency”. But isn’t it highly subjective? What offends one person may not
offend another.

There is a constant debate not only at the Supreme Court but also among citizens - on where to draw the
line between what is obscene or not, what should be protected or non-protected speech. In 1973, the
Supreme Court tried to define obscene content with the “Miller test”, by the name of the legal case
Miller vs California: “The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person,
applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. » This could also be challenged as subjective and vague:
for instance, what are “community standards” in the digital age? Who decides what is artistic or not?
So, that debate remains open on what type of expression the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

Obscenity and indecency are often tracked down in various media and punished in the USA. It is
interesting to analyze this specificity in the light of American society and particularly the strong presence
and influence of religion. Legislation – both on the state and federal level – have a special link with
the American puritan tradition. There is a long history of scandals and crusades against “vice” and in
favor of decency in America, and the debate about the first amendment is constantly fueled. The cultural
dimension in the perception of obscenity appears clearly when some scandals seem ridiculous and blown
out of proportion in European countries, whereas they are taken very seriously by many Americans. For
example, who would care in France about the famous incident later called “nipplegate” (a comic
reference to the Watergate scandal), when Janet Jackson’s breast could be seen on screen for a second
during the 2004 Superbowl halftime show? However, that generated 540 000 letters of complaint, it
nearly cost the American network CBS a €550,000 fine, and it led to the 5-second delay in TV
broadcasting in all future live performances! (The network decided to go to court, and the decision was
finally cancelled in 2011.)

Who has the power to determine such a fine to punish “obscenity? The FCC, or Federal
Communications Commission. It is indeed part of its mission to regulate that kind of content, but we
may regret that this to taken so much more seriously than “the Fairness Doctrine” the FCC had
established in 1949. It required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to discussion of
controversial issues of public interest. Broadcasters and journalists were also expected to remain
balanced, by including opposing views and a right of reply. However, the FCC has actually seemed
more inspired by the doctrine of “laissez-faire” (or non-interventionism) so that it has never done
anything against a station that did not respect the Fairness Doctrine, nor has it really cared about the
issue of media concentration or the diversity of content.

In the Reagan era, that doctrine was more and more questioned and was eventually abolished by the
FCC in 1987, based on the idea that it violated free speech rights since it implied intervention in media
content. The Chairman, Dennis R. Patrick used the Constitution justify that decision: “We seek to extend
to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since
our country's inception.” He also expressed his satisfaction at the elimination or amendment of 89% of
existing rules and was quite proud of such a wave of deregulation. Actually, that was a denial of the
real intention of the doctrine, which was to defend the citizens’ right to build a well-informed opinion
with fair and balanced journalism. So, while claiming to fight for “free speech”, broadcasters who
lobbied the FCC for that abolition were actually more interested in “profitable speech”. This is an
illustration of a common belief in America that state intervention is incompatible with freedom,
particularly freedom to do business, as the word “liberalism” indicates.

Ironically, the role of the FCC has been reduced to smaller and smaller areas, essentially cracking down
on indecency or obscenity, with ever-larger fines imposed on broadcasters. We might argue that such a
policy also violates the First Amendment but again, from a cultural point of view, it is much more
acceptable in America to limit freedom of expression when it is claimed to be motivated by the
defense of morality and decency. Besides, as each state has its own legislation and its limited
competence, in defamation cases or obscenity matters for example, the situation can be apprehended in
very different ways depending on where it occurs. That is why sometimes a case goes as far as the
Supreme Court of the United States, the final arbiter, as it is the highest tribunal in the Nation for
all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
So, in conclusion to this first part, we can underline a paradox about freedom in the American media:
on the one hand some restrictions may appear excessive, for example in relation to the FCC’s actions
against indecency, or the abusive measures related to the war on terror. But on the other hand,
deregulation and non-interventionism of the government is the general rule, even if it eventually
prevents the FCC from protecting the citizen’s right to have access to accurate, fair and balanced
information.

2. Commercialism:

First of all, to understand the US media and their evolution, we should always bear in mind a very
important specificity: they are first and foremost considered as a commercial enterprise. From its
colonial origins, American news production has been marked by private ownership, so that in the
American prevailing conception, the media are industries, businesses just like any other. They are run
by businessmen for whom it is only logical to make as much money as possible and use profit-oriented
strategies. The problem is that such a commercial approach, called “commercialism”, may sometimes
create a fundamental conflict - both for print and broadcast media - between giving priority to what we
call public interest information, and favoring a media content that will seduce and interest as many
people as possible to maximize profit. The fact that journalism and media are "market-driven" means
that audiences are seen not as citizens to inform but consumers to attract. Therefore, market needs
come into conflict with democratic needs. In other words, the risk is to neglect what should be the
media’s primary concern in a democracy: provide content that can help the public build an informed
opinion on public interest issues.

This model of commercialism has given birth to a specific broadcast media landscape in the US, where
there is no such thing as a balance between the public and the private sectors. What is striking on
the contrary is the great disproportion between a huge commercial sector and a small non-commercial
one. How public non-profit media organizations manage to survive in an ocean of commercial media?
Thanks to private funding a well as the State’s small financial role. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting - or CPB - is a private non-profit corporation established by Congress in 1967 to
distribute funds to public broadcasting organizations. The CPB is run by a Board of Directors whose
members are appointed by the President of the USA and approved by the Senate. It is not allowed to
own or operate the broadcasting organizations, so as to guarantee independence and prevent and
interference in program content. It is funded by private donations of members, foundations and
corporations, state and local taxes and federal government (only around 15 % of the total funds)

One of the most important beneficiaries of the CPB’s funds is the Public Broadcasting Service, or
PBS, a non-commercial network founded in 1969 that provides educational content for 356 member
TV stations across the country. Each non-profit PBS member station is charged with the responsibility
of programming local content such as news, interviews, cultural, and public affairs programs for its
individual market or state that supplements content provided by PBS and other public television
distributors. Another exception to the commercialism in the media is the National Public Radio, or
NPR, launched in 1970. That network comprises 1190 radio stations, also financed by the CPB or
private funds. All in all, CPB supports about 1500 public TV or radio stations, operated locally, and
many of them by universities, schools and other public institutions.

The public sector does deserve credit for its high-standard mission to inform, educate and
entertain the American public with quality and diverse content, including children’s programs like the
famous Sesame Street. It is no surprise that PBS proudly declares on its website its intention to treat its
audience as citizens, not simply consumers. However, its ratings battle against the commercial sector
looks a lot like David versus Goliath! (For example, PBS’s average audience rate is 2%).

Now let’s have a look at the way the TV landscape is organized in America (outside streaming
services):
First of all, we must understand there are different types of TV: networks, affiliated stations,
independent stations, cable or satellite channels, plus a pay-per-view or VOD systems:

A network, unlike a station, is national. Beside PBS, the public broadcasting network, there are 5
national commercial networks: the historical “big three” ABC (American Broadcasting
Corporation), CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System), NBC (National Broadcasting Corporation); they
dominated the TV market until they were challenged by Fox, launched in 1986; and since 2006, the
CW, which is the smallest one.

These networks broadcast the same programs through different local affiliated stations to maximize
their audience. There are around 200 affiliated stations for each network (except The CW) that work in
collaboration with them without being owned by them. Affiliation means that the stations get paid by
one or sometimes several different networks to broadcast their programs in certain slots, which means
at certain times of the day. These affiliated stations rely on syndication and other local sources for the
rest of the day’s program.

American viewers can also watch “off-network programs” on independent channels which organize
their own system of syndication and scheduling. The term “independent” might be a little confusing
though, because they are independent from networks but most of them are actually bought up by
multimedia groups as soon as they start getting successful. In that case, they have to accept a certain
programming strategy defined by the parent group rather than the local manager.

Next, there is cable and satellite TV which boomed in the 80ies, with various packages that people
could choose to subscribe to. And finally, there is a system called “pay-per-view” which appeared in
the 90ies, a system which allows you to pay only for the program you choose to watch. That offer was
overshadowed from 2000 by VOD - video on demand – because, unlike the pay-per-view system which
has a fixed schedule, VOD allows viewers to watch when they want the program they have paid for. Of
course, all these types of TV are today under pressure with the growing competition of digital
platforms like Netflix or Disney +. In the early 90ies, 60% of Americans watched TV via a cable
subscription. In 2021, it dropped to 45% when streaming jumped from 20 to 37%.

In the world of US broadcast media, the dominant model remains that of commercialism. So, let’s
examine more in detail the way that model may influence the form and content of a medium, knowing
that the average American adult consumes 3 hours of television programming and 1,39 hour of radio
programming per day. And let’s see how a commercial approach may sometimes come in
contradiction with the notion of public interest, which is officially claimed to be the media’s primary
concern.

First, when profit prevails, the media, like any industry, are bound to rely on the sacred principle of
“parsimony”, which means increasing profits by reducing costs. Such an objective inevitably affects
the quality of programs, whether in the entertainment world or in the news sector. It is very tempting
for instance to rerun the same broadcasts as much as possible, or to decrease the number of foreign
correspondents and rely more and more on news agencies such as AP (Associated Press). The principle
of parsimony has given birth to a system unique in the world: “syndication” (which has nothing to do
with trade unions, “syndicats” in French!). There are two types of broadcast syndication. If the program
is “first-run syndication”, it means that it was originally created by a syndication company to be sold to
local stations, so it is immediately broadcast on local channels nationwide. If it is “off-net syndication”,
it means that they are rerun on various channels after being originally shown on the networks, usually
in prime time.

So, such a system allows media businessmen to avoid risks and save money by reducing production
costs. It also exists in the newspaper industry, where comic strips, horoscopes and national columns are
often syndicated. A company has the right to sell the content to various local papers across the country.
In broadcasting, independent TV channels may use syndication to buy programs, like games, serials or
sitcoms from another company instead of producing their own. It reduces the risk again, because even
if the initial run of any particular television series may lose money for its producing studio, the ensuing
syndication will generate enough profit to balance out any losses. This system is so cost-efficient
that some broadcasting networks like CBS have their own syndication companies instead of using an
independent syndicator.

Second, advertising is central to the logic of commercialism. Both the print and the audiovisual press
need advertising revenue to survive. Daily papers and magazines have subscription revenue too, but
terrestrial TV and radio depend exclusively on advertising, since there is no such thing as a license
fee to finance the broadcasting media in the USA. Only cable and satellite TV stations can rely on
subscription money too, and the irony is that they run ads anyway!

Just a few figures to measure the presence of advertising in the US media today: ads take up between
40 and 75 % of the space in the print press. Ten years ago, the broadcast networks already averaged
13 minutes of commercial time per hour. Today it is closer to 15 minutes, and even a bit more on cable
television. At the same time, the number of 30-second commercials has declined while the number of
15-second spots have increased. Not only is more time being devoted to ads, but more spots are being
jammed into commercial breaks. Most of the time, there is not even a “warning” with a jingle, to grab
the viewer’s attention more easily when maximize the impact.

Because mass advertising demands a huge investment, it also gives advertisers power to influence the
form and content of the media. This is quite openly assumed, as we can see for instance in this
declaration made in 1997 by the CEO of Westinghouse (CBS) in “Advertising Age”: “We are here to
serve the advertisers. That is our raison d’être.” When you think that the average cost of a single 30-
second TV spot during the Super Bowl game (seen by 100 million viewers) has reached US$4.5 million,
this might seem easier to understand…

In a book entitled “The Media Monopoly” (Beacon Press, first published in 1983), the journalist Ben
Bagdikian is very critical of the impact advertising and corporate interests have on the way the media
design the news and other contents. He contends that attracting and pleasing advertisers has become the
top priority, and that media owners therefore embrace advertisers’ “cause”, which is to seduce and
entertain rather than to inform and educate. Besides, advertisers have an obvious interest in the context
of their ads in the medium. They want to control the environment in which their ad will be seen to make
sure they will attract as many people as possible, and of course preferably a young and affluent audience.
To avoid alienating audiences for advertisers, broadcasters – especially big networks - focus on what is
called LOP, the least objectionable program. That means that programming tends to become non-
controversial, light and nonpolitical, as if everything is designed to create and maintain a “buying
mood”.

Another source of concern is a tendency in the media to protect private corporate interests. It is
indeed tempting for broadcasters to choose stories that do not endanger these interests, especially if the
corporation is actually a parent-firm or a faithful sponsor, and rather focus for example on the flaws and
scandals in the public sector, or on entertainment. Few media seem to remember what the famous
journalist Pulitzer used to say: “a newspaper should have no friends”. This is done in an insidious way,
so that few journalists can complain they have been fired, demoted because of their work on a specific
subject. But still, most of them know what can be “news” and what they’d better forget about. Open
censorship is rare, but it can be used by the manager himself, if it is judged necessary: this is illustrated
for example in the 1999 movie “The Insider” based on the true story of the TV network CBS and the
tobacco industry scandal. Another example, this time on NBC, is when an animated short movie
"Conspiracy Theory Rock", was banned in 1998 from the Saturday Night Live show. The official reason
was that it "wasn't funny", but we can’t ignore the fact that the film was highly critical of corporate
media ownership, including NBC's ownership by the giant corporation General Electric/Westinghouse.
In most cases, the pressure is hard enough to create an effect of self-censorship, a more subtle but no
less efficient form of censorship. In “The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest”,
published in 2006, David Croteau and William Hoynes report that such corporate censorship in
journalism is commonplace, reporting the results of studies revealing that more than 40% of journalists
and news executives stated that they had deliberately engaged in such censorship by avoiding
newsworthy stories or softening the tones of stories. More than a third of the respondents stated that
news organizations would ignore news that might hurt their financial interests. A similar fraction stated
that they self-censored in order to further, or not endanger, their careers.

In conclusion to this second part, we can highlight another paradox about the US media: on the one
hand, the First amendment guarantees their political freedom and their independence of the three
branches of government, but on the other hand, those two same principles can be endangered by
commercialism and the media’s dependence on economic interests. Besides, the rush for profit too
often implies economic choices of low-cost programming, which rarely rhymes with diversity and
quality. Commercial media are caught up in a pernicious logic: to attract advertisers and maintain or
increase advertising revenue, they have to launch into a ratings battle and attract as many viewers or
listeners as possible with the same old strategy: favoring entertainment rather than information – not to
mention education - and also encouraging binary oppositions, spectacular clashes rather than a real
reflection.

Sometimes, “infotainment”, which implies blurring the line between information and entertainment,
can destroy the possibility of serious journalism. We should not generalize though, because it can also
give birth to good quality content where entertainment allows to seduce viewers with humor while
bringing valuable information (for example The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, the late Show with
Stephen Colbert, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver).