PDA

View Full Version : The corporate ties between insurers and media companies


rastaman
08-10-2009, 11:26 AM
Single-Payer & Interlocking Directorates
The corporate ties between insurers and media companies

By Kate Murphy

How often are employees allowed to work on projects that might put some of the people they work for out of business? That’s the conflict of interest that journalists reporting on the healthcare reform debate are often put in by the boards of media corporations they work for, which frequently include representatives of the insurance industry.

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.

While it should go without saying that correlation is not causation—and MSNBC’s example proves that interlocking directorates are hardly the only factor in media coverage—this study indicates that, at the very least, corporate media and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries’ interests are fundamentally aligned.

Rohirrim
08-10-2009, 11:29 AM
While it should go without saying that correlation is not causation—and MSNBC’s example proves that interlocking directorates are hardly the only factor in media coverage—this study indicates that, at the very least, corporate media and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries’ interests are fundamentally aligned.

That's probably why Obama gave up on fighting big pharma. He's enough of a pragmatist to realize there was no possible way for him to win.

alkemical
08-10-2009, 11:56 AM
Rastaman -

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=52978

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/

GE

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-ge.gif

Time warner

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-timewarner.gif

Disney

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-disney2.gif

news corp

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-news-corp.gif

CBS

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-cbs.gif


viacom

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-viacom2.gif

rastaman
08-10-2009, 12:07 PM
While it should go without saying that correlation is not causation—and MSNBC’s example proves that interlocking directorates are hardly the only factor in media coverage—this study indicates that, at the very least, corporate media and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries’ interests are fundamentally aligned.

That's probably why Obama gave up on fighting big pharma. He's enough of a pragmatist to realize there was no possible way for him to win.

True, and not to mention Obama already knows that powerful incumbent senators in both parties are heavily influenced by corporate lobbyist money needed for their re-relection.

Unless there is a massive grass root movement by Democrat liberal/progressive voters to unseat the corporate senate democrats in the pocket of BIG PHARMA and Private For Profit Healthcare; and find a way to send to Congress newly elected Senators who advocate for true healthcare single payer reform, the citizens in this country will have to settle for compromised healthcare reform which allows the status quo of the healthcare industry to continue to poision the well when it comes to healthcare in this country.

Garcia Bronco
08-10-2009, 12:11 PM
So rasta man wants to trade one supposed monopoly for an actual health care monopoly. Gordon Gekko would be proud. Pssssst Blue Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel

rastaman
08-10-2009, 12:13 PM
Rastaman -

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=52978

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/

GE

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-ge.gif

Time warner

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-timewarner.gif

Disney

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-disney2.gif

news corp

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-news-corp.gif

CBS

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-cbs.gif


viacom

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-07/tv-viacom2.gif

Rep! You were onto the fact that the news and investigative reporting was canceled since corporation took over our news media to TURN PROFITS. If it doesn't sell and make the shareholders money.......IT AIN'T NEWS!!

alkemical
08-10-2009, 01:06 PM
Rep! You were onto the fact that the news and investigative reporting was canceled since corporation took over our news media to TURN PROFITS. If it doesn't sell and make the shareholders money.......IT AIN'T NEWS!!

Well, i figure - since you brought up the big pharma - i wonder...if maybe say...GE owns some stake in a PHARMA company, or owns one, etc... You get where i'm going on this one.

NUB
08-10-2009, 01:52 PM
Depressing.

footstepsfrom#27
08-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Most people have no idea what kind of intersecting private interests motivate corporations and those who own them. Several years ago I decided to do some serious checking into a psychiatric hospital I once worked for. I researched corporate filings in Westlaw, the database used by criminal and civil law practitioners and researchers. After weeks of digging through all kinds of misleading information and analyzing company records in the public domain across 6 states I traced the company's ownership to a doctor in New Jersey and an anonymous entity holding one of three positions inside a private trust fund. Proving this would require the power of subpoena, but I'm 99% sure that a pharmaceutical company owns this facility, and 13 others in Texas like it...a major conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Corporate America is the new mob.

TexanBob
08-10-2009, 05:24 PM
So, why then did all these news companies suck Obama's dick for the past 18 months? If corporate America is so in bed with Big Pharma, insurance companies, etc. why did they help elect the biggest shill for socialism the White House has ever seen? Didn't they realize who their media companies were cheerleading for?

alkemical
08-10-2009, 06:59 PM
not if you let them write it ala bush. we are in a corportacracy. Neither big biz or big gov can be trusted. we are bred to be consumers...we are shills..we pay to advertise for companies...lol - how ****ed up is that?

Odysseus
08-11-2009, 04:55 AM
most people have no idea what kind of intersecting private interests motivate corporations and those who own them. Several years ago i decided to do some serious checking into a psychiatric hospital i once worked for. I researched corporate filings in westlaw, the database used by criminal and civil law practitioners and researchers. After weeks of digging through all kinds of misleading information and analyzing company records in the public domain across 6 states i traced the company's ownership to a doctor in new jersey and an anonymous entity holding one of three positions inside a private trust fund. Proving this would require the power of subpoena, but i'm 99% sure that a pharmaceutical company owns this facility, and 13 others in texas like it...a major conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Corporate america is the new mob.

qft

Smiling Assassin27
08-11-2009, 08:49 AM
Hey, here's an even better scoop. Obama has entered into an alliance with the drug companies in which he pledges to NOT negotiate lower drug prices should his initiative pass in return for $150 million in advertising from the drug companies. What this likely means is, yes, HIGHER costs for prescription drugs for all of us. The drug companies pay off the government and get to basically charge whatever they want, creating MONSTROUS profits for the drug companies--something Obama and his team have bemoaned in other sectors from day one.

Sidenote: Anybody recall what our President said about lobbyists and the role they'd play in his administration?

Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Many Democratic lawmakers have railed for years against what they consider the industry’s excessive profits and pointedly insisted in recent days that they do not feel bound by the White House’s commitments.

Sources briefed on the drug industry’s plans, speaking on condition of anonymity because the details remain confidential, say top officials of the industry’s trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, are scheduled to meet next week to finalize its fall plans. The final budget could be less or more than what was authorized, the sources said.

By comparison, President Obama’s presidential campaign spent about $236 million on television commercials while the campaign of the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, spent about $126 million. Few expect the opponents of the health care overhaul to muster as much advertising muscle as its backers, including sympathetic business groups, labor unions and ideological allies. The drug makers stand to gain millions of new customers from the expansion of health care coverage.

Ken Johnson, a spokesman for PhRMA, declined to discuss the specific sums. “Our board has agreed to make a significant investment in support of comprehensive reform,” he said. “Our August plan is pretty much in place, but we have not finalized all the details of the fall campaign.” He said it would include grassroots outreach as well. The scale of the drug industry’s plans was first reported Saturday by The Associated Press.

The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name.

All of the commercials closely echo common Democratic themes about medical care for all, consumer protection and “health insurance reform.” Some supporters of the overhaul have hired public affairs and advertising firms with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, including GMMB, which worked on the Obama campaign, and AKPD, which previously included David Axelrod, who is now the president’s top political adviser.

Rohirrim
08-11-2009, 09:29 AM
Hey, here's an even better scoop. Obama has entered into an alliance with the drug companies in which he pledges to NOT negotiate lower drug prices should his initiative pass in return for $150 million in advertising from the drug companies. What this likely means is, yes, HIGHER costs for prescription drugs for all of us. The drug companies pay off the government and get to basically charge whatever they want, creating MONSTROUS profits for the drug companies--something Obama and his team have bemoaned in other sectors from day one.

Sidenote: Anybody recall what our President said about lobbyists and the role they'd play in his administration?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2499233&postcount=1