"Massa’s media plus Mass Hypnosis = Mindless Masses:" How Advertisers’ ‘Invisible Strings’ Control What You Read and Watch

/

Amos Wilson explained that 'a Goal of the Media is to Make White Dominance and Control Over Everything Seem Natural' According to FUNKTIONARY:

mass media – “Massa’ Media. Massa’s media plus (+) Mass Hypnosis = Mindless Masses. 2) The “Mess” Media. 3) wholesale retale— retelling the whole tale (propaganda) exactly as you’re told, consistently and relentlessly. How can you possibly relate when you are framed by the very debate wherein you are an unwilling spectator? Let’s be perfectly clear on this. There’s no counteroption or outlet to vent when you’re under the controlled thoughtform of mass-think manufactured consent. “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” ~A.J. Liebling. (See: Media, T.V., Mass, Alienation, Spectacle Society, NEWS, ABCTV, Propaganda, Legislation & The New God Economy)

From [CHD] In 2020, while writing for a popular online news platform geared toward millennials, I proposed what I thought was a timely and non-controversial story.

As marijuana legalization was spreading to more and more states, lots of my peers were looking to cut back on their drinking — which had gotten out of control during the pandemic — and turning to cannabis as an anxiety-reducing replacement.

So, I pitched my editor on an experiential piece: For a few weeks, I’d swap my nightly glass of wine with a popular new celeb-backed cannabis beverage and share the effects. She didn’t go for it, but not because she didn’t find the idea interesting or relevant to our audience.

“Unfortunately, our advertisers won’t like it,” she said. “We just can’t do any cannabis stories, period.” Her feedback left me wondering which of our sponsors wouldn’t approve the topic due to conflicting interests.

Was it oh-so-wholesome Disney? An alcohol brand that saw cannabis as a threat to business?

I’ll never know. But regardless of the specifics, the experience left a sour taste in my mouth.

I hadn’t realized until that moment that the advertisers had so much control over what we did and didn’t cover.

As it turns out, research has repeatedly shown this to be a common problem:

  • In response to a survey I conducted back in April, 50% of journalists said they’d been told to avoid certain topics that might conflict with advertisers’ interests.

  • In a 1992 survey of editors at daily newspapers, a staggering 90% reported that advertisers tried to influence stories and applied economic pressure in response to reporting — and 37% of editors had given in to that advertiser pressure.

  • A 2000 Pew Research and Columbia Journalism Review survey found that 30% of journalists admit to purposely avoiding newsworthy stories or “softening the tone” of stories that could adversely affect advertisers.

  • A 2013 study of U.S. daily newspapers showed that conflicts between the business and journalism sides of these operations are rampant. Advertising directors at chain-owned newspapers and small newspapers were more likely to support compromising editorial integrity in order to please or avoid riling advertisers.

  • A 2009 study revealed that whether due to overt pressures or a subconscious desire to please advertisers, publishers tend to give their sponsors special treatment.

  • In a 2021 Mass Communication & Society study, most editors admitted that they feel advertisers pose a significant source of pressure on the newsroom.

  • A 1992 study examined this potential influence and found dozens of examples where news organizations buried stories out of fear of offending advertisers. Some of them didn’t even attempt to deny or hide it. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had outright told a columnist not to criticize advertisers, and at the time, the managing editor said: “We do not hire opinion writers to trash advertisers … No newspaper would do that.”