With thanks to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting August 2009:
| Media Corporation | Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies |
|---|---|
| Disney/ABC | Proctor & Gamble |
| GE/NBC | Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck |
| Time Warner | AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals |
| Fox/News Corp | GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech |
| New York Times Co. | First Health Group, Eli Lilly |
| Tribune Co. | Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals |
| Gannett/USA Today | Chubb |
While a recent New York Times/CBS poll (6/20/09) has found yet again that the majority of Americans believe the government would both provide better coverage and keep costs lower than private insurance companies, a single-payer plan as an option for healthcare reform continues to be underrepresented in the media (Extra!, 6/09). A single-payer plan would allow the delivery of healthcare to remain private, but the government would pay for it out of a single federal health insurance fund. Like Medicare or Canada’s healthcare program, it would cut out the middleman by bypassing private health insurance companies. But such companies are well-represented on the boards of directors of media conglomerates—a factor that may help explain the blackout of such a popular possibility for reform.
When a director from one company sits on the board of directors of another company, that’s known as an interlocking directorate. For example, directors of the New York Times Co. also sit on the boards of several other large companies, including Chevron, Verizon and Ticketmaster. These directors are expected to act in the best interest of each company they direct; when one of the corporations in question is a media company, this can pose a conflict. Would someone who sits on a media company’s board object to coverage that damages another company that board member directs? Extra! has pointed out this conflict in the past (e.g., 9–10/01), noting that “even if these board members do not attempt to influence coverage of their businesses, their presence likely suffices to make media executives think twice about covering certain stories.”
A recent FAIR study of nine major media corporations and their major outlets, Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), CBS, Time Warner (CNN, Time), News Corporation (Fox), New York Times Co., Washington Post Co. (Newsweek), Tribune Co. (Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times) and Gannett (USA Today) found connections to six different insurance companies. Five out of the nine media corporations studied shared a director with an insurance company; two insurance companies—Chubb and Berkshire Hathaway—were represented by more than one media corporation director.
The study also found crossover between these media corporations and several large pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly, Merck and Novartis, whose profits would also likely be negatively impacted by a single-payer system. Out of the nine media corporations studied, six had directors who also represented the interests of at least one pharmaceutical company. In fact, save for CBS, every media corporation had board connections to either an insurance or pharmaceutical company.
For example, the board of directors of the Chubb Corporation, whose accident and health division has offered health insurance for over 30 years, shares directors with two major media companies: Gannett and General Electric. A search of the Nexis database from January 1 through June 30, 2009, found just six articles mentioning single-payer in USA Today, Gannett’s major outlet. Out of those, only one (6/12/09) is from an advocate—a reprinted block quote from Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-Vt.) originally published in the Huffington Post (6/8/09). On NBC News, GE’s major outlet, single-payer was mentioned on only two occasions in the past six months. Of those two occasions, one was on Meet the Press (6/28/09), in which both Republican strategist Mike Murphy and former Governor Mitt Romney asserted that a public option would lead to a single-payer plan. The other NBC News mention of single-payer was favorable, but very brief—PBS’s Tavis Smiley named Obama’s move away from the plan as one of his concerns after Obama’s first 100 days (4/25/09).
At the Washington Post Co., two directors are on the board of insurance conglomerate Berkshire-Hathaway, whose subsidiary General Re sells health reinsurance. In fact, Washington Post director Warren Buffet not only chairs Berkshire-Hathaway’s board, he is the company’s CEO. (Berkshire-Hathaway is also one of the 10 biggest U.S. advertisers, along with pharmaceutical company Abbott Labor-atories—Ad Age, 6/22/09.) Another Washington Post director, Thomas Gaynor, is the vice president of insurance company Markel Corporation. In the past six months, the Washington Post has published hundreds of articles on the subject of healthcare reform, fewer than 25 of which mention single-payer. Fewer than 30 percent of the sources who spoke about single-payer in these articles were advocates of the plan.
In all, though healthcare reform has been mentioned thousands of times in the output of these media corporations’ major outlets, single-payer was mentioned in only 164 articles or news segments from January 1 through June 30, 2009; over 70 percent of these mentions did not include the voice of a single-payer advocate. Over 45 percent of the pieces that did include a single-payer advocate were episodes of the Ed Show, an MSNBC program whose host, Ed Shultz, frequently advocates for single-payer healthcare. Without the Ed Show, just 19 percent of articles or news segments that mentioned single-payer would have included an actual advocate of the plan.
- Disney (market value: $72.8 billion)
- AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion)
- Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion)
- General Electric (owner of NBC, market value: $390.6 billion)
- News Corporation (market value: $56.7 billion)
- Yahoo! (market value: $40.1 billion)
- Microsoft (market value: $306.8 billion)
- Google (market value: $154.6 billion)
Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google are newer media companies compared to the other “traditional” 5 players. Most of these companies are in the global elite of media companies, too.
At the end of the 1990s, there were 9 corporations (mainly US) (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406) that dominated the media world:
- AOL-Time Warner
- Disney
- Bertelsmann
- Viacom
- News Corporation
- TCI
- General Electric (owner of NBC)
- Sony (owner of Columbia and TriStar Pictures and major recording interests), and
- Seagram (owner of Universal film and music interests).
#1 by Woodrow Marks on July 6, 2012 - 5:06 pm
Quote
The link between drug companies and media is undeniable, especially where the Murdochs are concerned. James Murdoch served on the laughably-entitled corporate responsibility committee at GSK!
This drug company was found fraudulently marketing dangerous drugs (because of a heightened threat of suicide) to be given to children even when not approved for that use.
What a betrayal!
The media scaremonged the public into believing there’s a pandemic of some dangerous flu which ended up with a stockpile of useless (and suspect) vaccines which made some drug cartel an awful lot richer. I noticed that the media is at it again on this flu trip after seeing a recent article in the Mailonline. What was noticeable was that the majority of comments from readers were scathing and asked who was going to get rich this time and that it’s man-made.
These comments may hold some truth but heed this:
If a huge, rich company such as GSK can afford to pay billions in fines, which incidently wasn’t any where near commensurate with how much profit they’d already made on the drugs, then what are they capable of?
These companies have an apparent lack of respect for human life so in my view and others I am associated with, the idea that they could manufacture a virus, then release it to infect people, then scare them into getting vaccinated (making a shit load of bucks) is no longer a conspiracy theory. There was a lot of media hype about the possibility of mandatory vaccinations for school children during the ‘pandemic.’ This may have occurred elsewhere in the world. Now we find out that the definition of pandemic was changed, and doesn’t mean that people are dropping like flies due to an infection.
In view of the evidence in the recent case of GSK found guilty of wining and dining doctors, paying for trips to Hawaii, ski trips, golf trips, paying them $2500 per speech (some 3 times per day) to push their drugs even when they were not legally authorised to do so (note these doctors are trusted members of their copmmunities) I ask the question:
Are these drug companies capable of paying for and running a campaign to change public opinion regarding the efficay of natural medicines because ‘they know they don’t work’………or because they do and people actually get well. There’s no money in good health!
#2 by Woodrow Marks on July 6, 2012 - 5:45 pm
Quote
And one more thing! It isn’t justice that GSK gets a $3bn fine. Justice is exposing the ciminals that sanctioned the crimes comitted. It’s outrageous that a fine will suffice and blind people into thinking justice has been served. No! That’s what GSK wants you to thin and is exactly what they do. Manipulation.
We want the criminals named, exposed and jailed. We want justice to serve as a deterent to those who would even consider a repeat of those actions!
#3 by ChristyRedd on July 11, 2012 - 1:29 am
Quote
Woodrow Marks,
Well said!
#4 by Gil Ross on July 14, 2012 - 1:11 pm
Quote
Very forthright. This is of great concern in fact mega concern, as all these fines are paid for by the hard up patients.
The deluded pseudo skeptiics and pharma muppets will have us all exposed to this fraud and unspeakable greed.