SUNDAY MORNING POLITICAL TALK SHOWS IGNORE CORPORATE POWER ISSUES

Executive Summary

Sunday morning political talk shows help set the agenda for debate in Washington. Issues concerning corporate power directly impact people’s lives, constitute substantive fodder for political discussion, and are scintillating enough to attract large television audiences. However, this quantitative study of four Sunday morning programs – Meet the Press, The Mclaughlin Group, Face the Nation, This Week – demonstrates that the shows avoid addressing issues related to corporate power.

The study found that:

• Topics related to corporate power -- the environment, corporate crime, labor, mergers, consumer rights, corporate welfare, national health care, free trade agreements, redlining, blockbusting, multinational capital flight, tort reform, renewable energy, the commercialization of children, etc. -- make up less than 4% of the shows’ discussion topics.
  
• An overwhelming majority of invited guests on the shows are lawmakers, government officials, and politicians -- a skew that tends to reinforce narrow parameters of discussion and exclude issues of corporate power.
  
• Corporate influence over the networks, the shows and the guests in part explains the remarkable omission of issues related to corporate power. Multinational conglomerates own the networks, major corporations sponsor specific shows, businesses regularly pay celebrity journalist lecture fees, and massive corporations fund the campaigns of the guest newsmakers.

••••••••

Full Report: SUNDAY MORNING POLITICAL TALK SHOWS IGNORE CORPORATE POWER ISSUES

On June 28 1995, FBI agents swarmed the headquarters of Archer Daniels Midland, "Supermarket to the World," in Decatur, Illinois. Two months later, ADM fired Mark Whitacre, a leading candidate to become the company’s next president, after discovering he had been secretly tape-recording meetings between ADM executives for two years as an FBI informant. Whitacre tried to commit suicide in late August 1995, but his gardener pulled him out of his fuming BMW unconscious. And so began the sensational unraveling of the biggest price-fixing scandal ever. On October 15, 1996, ADM pleaded guilty to two criminal antitrust charges and paid $100 million, the largest criminal antitrust fine in history. On December 3, 1996, three top ADM executives were indicted on federal charges of conspiring to fix prices in the worldwide market, and on July 9 1999, Federal Judge Blanche Manning sentenced the three executives to 24 months in prison.

The nation’s leading newspapers found the story so newsworthy that during the 1995 - 1996 year, for four unconnected weeks, the ADM scandal was front-page material on the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Boston Globe. On October 15, 1996 and December 4, 1996, it headlined the front pages of the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and USA Today. "The drama at Archer Daniels Midland, already a high-stakes tale of money and power, informants and intrigue, betrayal and corruption, keeps getting more lurid," wrote Ronald Henkoff in the February 3, 1997 edition of Fortune magazine. In September 2000, New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald published a book, The Informant: A True Story, about the ADM scandal that was widely reviewed and characterized as being "as engaging as a Grisham thriller."

Despite the high drama of the corporate saga, the leading Sunday morning political talk shows - This Week (with David Brinkley), Meet the Press, The Mclaughlin Group, Face the Nation, and Inside Washington - all failed to say a word about the scandal. Instead, the Sunday morning roundtables focused on the state of the Republican Party, Ross Perot, Dole’s campaign, Colin Powell, and Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately, the talk shows’ failure to cover or even mention the ADM case is routine. Reviewing the issues discussed on four shows representing the three networks - Meet the Press, Face the Nation, The Mclaughlin Group, This Week - we found that the exclusion of topics relating to corporate power is the norm. To conduct our study, we read every transcript of the four Sunday morning talk shows aired between June 1995 and June 1996 and during the last six months of 1999. We then tallied the issues discussed and the guests invited. Any issue, whether it be women’s soccer or welfare reform, was recorded if substantial time or conversation was devoted to it. (These study intervals bracket but do not include the period of media infatuation with the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and Elian Gonzalez and only slightly overlap with the O.J. Simpson trial. They include some of the last two presidential election seasons, but not the height of election coverage.)

The top twenty issues discussed between June 1995 and June 1996 were: presidential elections, congressional warfare over balancing the budget, Colin Powell, Bosnia, welfare reform, Whitewater and Travelgate, Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, Bob Dole, shutting down the government, the state of the Republican Party, Pat Buchanan, abortion, Steve Forbes and his flat tax, O.J. Simpson, affirmative action, China, Ross Perot, discrimination and racism, Israeli elections and the Middle East peace process, income tax reform, and immigration.

Aside from welfare reform, the most talked about issues of the June 1995 - 1996 year consisted primarily of horse-race politics. The shows gave cursory treatment or never addressed basic issues related to corporate power, even when these issues are plainly central to the political economy. Neither military spending nor the industrial military complex was selected as a topic for discussion while the effect of military base closings on President Clinton’s reelection campaign was an issue for debate. The highest ranked issue concerning corporate power was campaign finance reform, ranked 33 and discussed less than Bob Packwood’s affair with his aide and far less than Steve Forbes’s flat tax.

In fact, between June 1995 and June 1996, the only topics well covered (discussed on at least two different shows) related to corporate power or its abuses were campaign finance reform, the tobacco industry, and corporate downsizing. The topic of downsizing was raised only because of two aggressive guests, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, who appeared on Sunday shows as presidential candidates. These same two guests also forced meager discussion of GATT/NAFTA, and Nader spoke about the effects of corporate power on democracy. A single episode of Face the Nation stands out for focusing on CEO salaries.

The numbers demonstrate how horse-race politics displace conversation about issues related to corporate power. During the June 1995 - June 1996 period, Colin Powell was the topic of Sunday morning conversation 47 times, corporate crime 0. Travelgate was an issue 27 times, whereas corporate welfare was mentioned once in a list of Clinton’s accomplishments. The shows discussed O.J. Simpson 16 times, environmental matters 0. They talked about the Christian right 9 times, but never about consumer issues such as bank charges, phone charges, HMO abuses. They reviewed the difference between Congressional Budget Office numbers and Office of Management and Budget numbers 7 times; they ignored deregulation, privatization, the commercialization of children, and proposed federal restrictions on tort laws. Roundtable pundits argued about Oliver Stone’s "Nixon" on 2 occasions but never discussed renewable energy, redlining or blockbusting. The shows never even mentioned the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, or foreign aid, but one show made the weather, complete with a guest from the National Weather Service, the center of discussion. Only a single program, This Week, so much as discussed the telecommunications bill and media mergers, which relate closely to the owners of these Sunday programs. Instead of mentioning Channel One, union-busting, multinational capital flight, and the World Trade Organization, panelists and guests chattered about Rush Limbaugh, ChickenGate, a new fat hormone, Cal Ripken, flag burning, legalizing prostitution, and daytime talk shows. Topics related to corporate power - the environment, corporate crime, labor, mergers, consumer rights, corporate welfare, national health care, etc - make up less than 4% of the shows’ discussion topics.

Numbers from the last six months of 1999 reveal the same narrow parameters of discussion. The top twenty issues discussed between June 1999 and December 1999 were: presidential elections, Hillary Clinton and the New York Senate race, the budget surplus and tax cuts, George W. Bush’s personality and history, Pat Buchanan, clemency for Puerto Rican FALN members, John McCain and campaign finance reform, the Waco investigation, Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear lab, JFK Jr.’s death, Al Gore, the Reform Party, the nuclear test ban treaty, Columbine shooting and gun control, Jesse Ventura, the Brooklyn Art Museum exhibit vs. Mayor Giuliani, Egypt Air flight 990, Barak and the Middle East peace process, Bill Bradley, and Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr. Campaign finance reform was thrust into the spotlight only because of McCain’s remarkable presidential run and his nine guest appearances.

Aside from the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, the most discussed issue concerning corporate power was HMOs and a Patient Billof Rights, ranked 26, well after Ken Starr, the Middle East peace process, the controversial Brooklyn art exhibit, Egypt Air Flight 990 and Jesse Ventura. The only other issues concerning corporate power discussed during the second half of 1999 were free trade with China and the Microsoft antitrust case. The Mclaughlin Group also devoted a segment of a single episode to urban sprawl. Instead of addressing consumer issues, environmental matters, corporate crime, the IMF, the WTO, labor rights or the minimum wage, shows devoted time to topics like the women’s World Cup soccer victory, a moon landing tribute, Jerry Springer’s possible senatorial campaign, a heat wave, Tina Brown’s kickoff party for Talk Magazine, mail order brides, father’s day, and football player Reggie White’s religious views.

An overwhelming majority of invited guests on the shows are lawmakers, government officials, and politicians -- a skew that tends to reinforce narrow parameters of discussion and exclude issues of corporate power. The top ten guests on the four Sunday morning political talk shows aired between June 1995 and June 1996 were: GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole, GOP presidential candidate Phil Gramm, GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Chairman of the Budget Committee John Kasich, Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Chairman of Empower America William Bennet, Senator Pete Domenici, House Minority Leader Richard Gephart, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator John McCain, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Executive Director of the Christain Coalition Ralph Reed, Secretary of Defense William Perry, Chairman of Dole’s campaign Steve Merrill, Chairman of the Republican National Committee Haley Barbour, Senator Christopher Dodd.

Except for presidential candidates, not a single guest of the 215 guests was an environmentalist or consumer advocate. Ralph Nader was invited to the show as a presidential candidate. John Sweeney and Thomas Donahue, candidates for the presidency of the AFL-CIO, were the only guests who were labor leaders. From June 1999 to December 1999, the top five guests were all presidential candidates. Not a single guest from the second half of 1999 was an environmentalist, consumer advocate or labor leader. Instead of worker representatives, the shows invited the CEO of United Airlines, the CEO of Continental Airlines, a Goldman and Sachs analyst, a women’s soccer player, retired basketball stars, and political satirists.
(Ralph Nader's repeat appearances on the Sunday shows during the 2000 election season demonstrates that it is possible to force some discussion of corporate power issues on the Sunday shows. But the fact that Nader -- along with, to some extent, Buchanan and McCain -- was so atypical a guest, and that even Nader appeared repeatedly only after mounting a significant presidential challenge, actually highlights how resistant the shows are to guests who will discuss issues of corporate power.)

Sunday morning political talk shows promise the clarification of weekly issues and provocation of the engaged citizen -- healthy ingredients for a functioning democracy. Yet, as our numbers have demonstrated, the shows select narrow parameters of discussion, not only failing to fulfill their potential, but skewing public and elite opinion-making conversation further away from issues related to the impact of corporate behavior. Our survey shows that issues concerning corporate power are generally excluded from the Sunday morning talk shows. Our point is not that the shows should focus exclusively on corporate power issues. But these issues -- from banking and telecommunications regulation to corporate subsidies, from international trade policy and governance to antitrust enforcement -- are both central to Washington policymaking and to the condition of people's lives. A BusinessWeek poll, published in the September 11, 2000 issue of the magazine, revealed that 72% of Americans believe business has too much power over too many aspects of their lives, and 74% believe big companies have too much political influence. The policy debates over these issues can be heated, simplified and typically invoke passion when put in understandable terms (infuriating problems with telephone billing, contaminated drinking water, factory closings and lost jobs, to take three examples). They should be attractive fodder for any talk show that is not foreclosed to discussion of corporate power issues.

Is it too much to suspect that corporate influence over the networks, the shows and the guests in part explains the remarkable omission of issues related to corporate power? Multinational conglomerates own the networks, major corporations sponsor specific shows, businesses regularly pay celebrity journalist lecture fees, and massive corporations fund the campaigns of the guest newsmakers. Archer Daniels Midland, notably, is a huge advertiser on NBC (The Mclaughlin Group, Meet the Press) and sponsors Meet the Press and This Week. (Indeed longtime This Week host David Brinkley is now a paid spokesperson for ADM.) Might this account in some measure for the shows' failure to mention the ADM scandal, despite its simultaneous newsworthiness and entertainment value?

Whatever the reasons, one thing is clear: the shows overwhelmingly avoid issues touching on corporate power.

The basic defense of these roundtable programs is that they are show businesses. Eleanor Clift, a regular panelist on The Mclaughlin Group, called the show "the Superbowl of bullshit," and there certainly is merit to Clift’s claims. These combinations of interview and roundtable commentary too often reduce themselves to unadulterated sensationalism. Horse-race and tactical political analysis replaces civil, intelligent debate over substantive issues. But while it may be accurate to describe the shows as full of bluster and bombast, it does not follow that they are no more politically consequential than professional wrestling (Jesse Ventura notwithstanding). These shows are targeted toward a very elite beltway audience -- only Washington DC ratings are measured -- and every Sunday, White House staff and Congressional aids review them to determine the "hot" issues confronting public. These shows are important in setting the agenda for debate in Washington, and the core issues of core concern to Americans – job security, a decent wage, clean air, pensions, privacy, good healthcare at a fair price – are excluded.

Issues 1999

Issues 1996

Guests 1999

Guests 1996

Top Twenty Issues 1999

Top Twenty Issues 1996

Top Twenty Guests 1999

Top Twenty Guests 1996

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rob Weissman for all his guidance, patience, and editing. We would also like to thank John Richard and Ralph Nader for making this study possible.