Media Conglomerates’ Effect on Journalistic Etiquette

Daniel J. Neumann

Dr. Coleman Myron

WRIT INT FIRST YR SM.23

18 November 2008

Media Conglomerates’ Effect on Journalistic Etiquette

     Virtually every artificial sight and/or sound, that any man may perceive, originates from a single, biased entity under the banner of ten super corporations. These elitists, CEOs and shareholders, disseminate a false impression that many companies exist independently—or, at least, that these few media sources compete against each other (Witmer). Ownership has concentrated into Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T, and Liberty Media (<http://www.cjr.org/resources/>). A capitalist society, theoretically, asks for one company to rise above the rest, with each citizen, ideally, owning one share (Dictionary.com). Some, such as Michael Eisner, former CEO of Disney, see the media oligopoly as an extension of American, free market ideals: “We have no obligation to make history; we have no obligation to make art; we have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.” (Eisner qtd. in Media & Culture). But the media cannot be considered so lightly as to be, merely, a commodity. The media encompasses advertising as well as creative art and factual reporting; thus, media defines our culture (Witmer). It also serves as the informant to daily life, protection against government corruption, and the forum to public debate. In some ways, journalism (which requires the media in order to function) grants society a fourth branch of government checking the other three, yet not affiliated with the other three at all, but an adversary to the government on behalf of the people. If those controlling the media deny responsibility to this crucial service—to inform accurately and beneficially—than democracy may grow out of favor in an increasingly globalized world.

     The media refers to the group of mediums, like television, radio, newspapers, books, the internet, etc, that publish mass communication (Dictionary.com). Mass communication began with Gutenberg and the advent of book publishing. The first book may have been the Bible, but soon other ideas began to be broadcasted to the people. Written law emerged; records of humanity’s endeavors cemented in time; and, once the general population became literate, journalism materialized (Hartzok). As publishing material costs money, a business sector has always existed—separate but in harmony—with the editorial staff of news companies. Naturally, some of these news companies merge with others in order to maintain themselves financially. The government imposed some restrictions, however, to ensure that no single voice could dominate an entire region by owning both the newspapers and the television stations… until the year 1996 (Media & Culture 471).

     After the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which ended government oversight and regulations on the media, merges ran wild (Witmer). Disney bought ABC for $19 billion; GE assimilated RCA and NBC; Microsoft partnered with NBC to make MSNBC; Time Warner bought Turner Broadcasting and AOL (Media & Culture 468-9). Consolidation continued to persist as more deregulatory legislatures passed, such as in 2001:

“On September 13, when the minds of the American people were on something else, the commission's GOP majority voted to ‘review’ the last few rules preventing perfect oligopoly. They thus prepared the ground for allowing a single outfit to own both a daily paper and a TV station in the same market--an advantage that was outlawed in 1975. (Even then, pre-existing cases of such ownership were grandfathered in, and any would-be owner could get that rule waived.) That furtive FCC ‘review’ also portended the elimination of the cap on the percentage of US households that a single owner might reach through its TV stations. Since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the limit had been 35 percent. Although that most indulgent bill was dictated by the media giants themselves, its restrictions are too heavy for this FCC, whose chairman, Michael Powell, has called regulation per se ‘the oppressor’” (Miller).

Michael Eisner would argue, “Big is bad if it stifles competition… but big is good if it produces quality programs.” Yet, the current trend in television has been Reality Television , which requires no writing staff, talented cast, or an expensive set (Media & Culture 156). According to a Time poll, “More than half of Americans say that there is too much ... reality programming (65%) on broadcast television” (Regan). Even the creator of Survivor , a highly successful Reality TV show, admitted that “it’s all about economics and commerce” (Stepp, Welch quoting Mark Burnett). Rarely do innovative and talented, but new, writers receive the large contract deals that time-proven investments, like celebrity authors, enjoy. And the news now caters to exposing celebrity gossip and political punditry over government scandals and human rights violations (Miller).

     It seems as if the only type of media innovating lately has been advertising, which has grown from thirteen minutes per average prime-time hour to an astounding eighteen, taking up more than half the space in most newspapers and magazines, sponsoring a record number of sports’ teams, lining our highways with billboards, placing products in popular movies, shows, and books, and littering the online experience with intrusive pop-ups . “By some research estimates, the average American comes into contact with two thousand forms of advertising each day” (Media & Culture 389). An oligopoly owns this branch of media, as well:

“Besides dominating commercial speech, a $500-billion-a-year industry, these four companies…—… Omnicon… Interpublic… WPP… and… Publicis—also hold incredible sway over the media. By deciding when and where to spend their client’s ad budgets, they can indirectly set network television schedules and starve magazines to death or help them flourish” (Stuart Elliot qtd. from the New York Times).

One problem with America can be traced to the current economic boom in marketing: The United States has transformed from a production-oriented society to a consumer-oriented society. For example, a production-oriented America, such as in the economic state during World War II, would use advertisements in order to distinguish products from others. The attitude of the production schema contends each citizen as a sort of mini-entrepreneur, proficient at innovating and concerned over legacy, and certainly capable of selecting his or her own purchases. A consumer-based society, conversely, judges success based off of the accumulation of wealth, perceiving each citizen as a customer first, with commands issued by those selling. The difference is clear: The producing American values intangible concepts such as family and love, and has autonomy in his or her decisions. The consuming American craves materials for self-assurance, and almost subconsciously buys on the whims of his or her television set (Council for Foreign Relations).

     The largest problem occurred when news information began to be treated the same as advertising—that it is okay to stretch the truth or ignore inconveniences in reporting, just as it is acceptable for a Budweiser commercial to associate sex with its product and sensationalize its potential to unreasonable proportions, while failing to mention alcohol’s toll on the liver and heart system (Witmer). It creates an extra bias in the newsroom: A reporter for ABC, for example, may not be able to run a story concerning Disney’s use of sweat-shops around the world, since ABC is owned by Disney Corp. The gatekeepers’ keys have changed hands from editors to financial advisors (Witmer). The story of the ABC reporter, exposing, perhaps, the senseless human rights violations in a Bangladesh sweatshop, would not go unpublished due to poor writing, factual inconsistencies, or even for any political or moral reasons, but because it would harm the image of the parent corporation.

     Modern journalism takes more than just coverage cues from the business sector. One may look back to the Disney example and understand the full implications of exclusive corporate control on the media. Using the concept of “synergy,” Disney creates an animated movie (using, maybe, its recently acquired Pixar studios) for both theatrical and DVD release, have ABC News interview one of the celebrity voice actors, make a cartoon series to play on its ABC Saturday-morning-line-up, release a book version with its Hyperion Press, air a “Making-Of” documentary on the Disney Channel, write up an article of its success in their Disney Adventures magazine, name a roller-coaster after it at Disney World, and merchandise thousands of trinkets from hats to dog bowls (Media & Culture 474). While certainly allocating resources efficiently, corporate media convergence starves its audience of significant and practical content. When, on January 25^th, 2006, ABC News published an article on soon-to-be Pixar (Disney) movies, Human Rights Watch reported on the effects of Libya emerging from long-term, international isolation (Human Rights Watch). Therein lies the biggest threat to Journalism since British rule amidst colonial times: It is cheaper to spread recycled content through the numerous veins and subsidies of a corporation than to devote capital to original ideas.

     If one contained enough imagination to assume the role of Time Warner CEO Richard D. Parsons, the question presents itself coldly: Why spends thousands of dollars on travel fees, medical bills, and recording equipment for investigative journalists to uncover human rights violations when you can feed your consumer-base with tons of free, syndicated content and out-source all real news to wire services such as Reuters or the Associated Press? At the end of the day, it makes no fiscal sense to be responsible. Time Warner would know, with its net worth in 2001, $280 billion, making it richer than some small countries (Hartzok).

     The competency of these CEOs comes into question, however, when one considers the President and Chief Executive Officer at Time Warner, Herbert M. Allison, Jr., also owns the infamous Fannie Mae, accredited for engagement of the 2008 economic crisis.

     Most would expect competition between these ten media giants. Sitting on Disney’s board of directors, however, Robert W. Matschullat previously served as Vice Chairman for the board for the Seagram Company Ltd, which once owned Universal, until it was acquired by Vivendi. The name, Stephen F. Bollenbach, turns up on the list of board directors for Time Warner, previous Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer to the Walt Disney Company. James I. Cash, Jr, a proposed board of director in General Electric’s 2008 election, is also a director of The Chubb Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Phase Forward, Inc. Robert W. Lane, another candidate for the upcoming GE board of directors election, is a director for Verizon Communications Incorporated. Charles E. Phillips, Jr. now serves on Viacom’s board, but, prior, worked as Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of Bell Atlantic (Verizon’s predecessor). The examples of intermingled corporate thought abound; clearly, these companies could not compete against each other out of conflict of interest.

     To understand the full girth of just one of these corporations, one may look to Time Warner’s holdings:

“Time Warner owns HBO, Cinemax, HBO Video, HBO Independent Productions, HBO OnDemand, International, HBO Mobile International, Adult Swim, Boomerang, CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, CNN Headline News, CNN Headline News in Latin America, CNN Headline News in Asia Pacific, CNN Mobile, CNN+, CETV, CNN Newsource, CNN Pipeline, CNN To Go, CNN fn, CNN Radio, CNN Interactive, Court TV (with Liberty Media), Time Warner Cable, Road Runner, New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC), Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary), In Demand, Metro Sports (Kansas City), Warner Bros., Warner Bros. Studios

Warner Bros. Television (production), The WB Television Network, Warner Bros. Television Animation, Hanna - Barbera Cartoons, Telepictures Production, The CW Television Network, Kids' WB!, Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Home Video, Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution, Warner Bros. International Television Distribution, The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.), Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries), Warner Bros. Online, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Warner Bros. Technical Operations, Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Warner Bros. Studio Facilities, Time Magazine, Time Asia, Time Atlantic, Time Canada, Time Latin America, Time South Pacific, Time Money, Time For Kids, Fortune, Fortune Asia, Fortune Europe, FSB: Fortune Small Business, All You, Sports Illustrated, Sports Illustrated International, SI for Kids, Money, People, Who Weekly (Australian edition), People en Espanol, Teen People, Entertainment Weekly, In Style, Southern Living AT HOME, Southern Accents, Cooking Light, Cottage Living, This Old House, Sunset, Health, Hippocrates, Coastal Living, Real Simple, Wallpaper (U.K.), Bride To Be, English Woman’s Weekly, Practical Parenting, Who, In Style Australia, 25 Beautiful Homes, 4x4, Aeroplane Monthly, Amateur Gardening, Amateur Photographer, Angler’s Mail, Beautiful Kitchens, Cage and Aviary Birds, Caravan Magazine, Chat, Chat - It’s Fate, Classic Boat, Country Homes and Interiors, Country Life, Cycle Sport, Cycling Weekly, Decanter, European Boat Builder, Eventing, Family Circle, Guitar, Hair, Hi Fi News, Homes and Gardens, Horse, Horse and Hound, Ideal Style, In Style (U.K.), International Boat Industry, Land Rover World, Living etc, Loaded, Mountain Bike Rider, MiniWorld, Model Collector, Motor Boat and Yachting, Motor Boats Monthly, Motor Caravan Magazine, NME, Now

Nuts, Park Home & Holiday Caravan, Pick Me Up, Practical Boat Owner, Prediction, Racecar Engineering, Rugby World, Ships Monthly, Shoot Monthly, Soaplife, Sporting Gun, Stamp Magazine, SuperBike Magazine, The Field, The Railway Magazine, The Shooting Gazette, TV & Satellite Week, TV Easy, TVTimes, Uncut, VolksWorld, Web User, Wedding, What Digital Camera, What’s on TV, Woman, Woman & Home, Woman’s Own, Woman’s Weekly, Yachting World, Your Yacht, Ambientes, Audi Magazine, Balance, Chilango, EXP, Expansion, IDC, Life and Style, Manufactura, Obras, Quien, Vuelo, Yachts, In Style Mexico, DC Comics, Vertigo, Wildstorm, Mad Magazine, Online Services, CompuServe Interactive Services, AOL Instant Messenger, ADTECH, Advertising.com, AOL.com portal, Digital City, AOL Europe, GameDaily.com, Lightningcast, ICQ, The Knot, Inc. - wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer Winblad Funds 18%), MapQuest.com, Spinner.com, Relegence, TACODA, Third Screen Media, Truveo, Userplane, Weblogs, Inc., Winamp, Xdrive, CNNStudentNews.com, NASCAR.com, PGA.com, Road Runner, Warner Publisher Services, Time Distribution Services, American Family Publishers (50%), Africana.com, Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises (owns/operates international theme parks), TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television (TNT), Turner South, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network in Europe, Cartoon Network in Latin America, TNT & Cartoon Network in Asia/Pacific, TNT Latin America, TNT HD, TCM Asia Pacific, TCM Canada, TCM Europe, TCM Classic Hollywood in Latin America, Adult Swim, Boomerang, CETV, GameTap, TBS, Pogo, Toonami, TrueTV, Peachtree TV, New Line Cinema, Fine Line Features, Picturehouse, Turner Original Productions, Atlanta Braves, Turner Learning, CNN Newsroom (daily news program for classrooms), Turner Adventure Learning (electronic field trips for schools), Turner Home Satellite, Turner Network Sales, Netscape Communications, Netscape Netcenter portal, AOL MovieFone, iAmaze, Amazon.com (partial), Quack.com, Streetmail (partial), Switchboard (6%), Advantages, and European Magazines Limited” (Columbia Journalism Review).

     A corporate oligopoly, by definition, controls the media. And a journalist relies on mediums—whether it is a book, newspaper, television show, or internet site—in order to inform the public. A journalist, therefore, must adhere to the motives of corporate interests. Consider Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns both the would-be conservative television channel, Fox News, and the allegedly liberal newspaper, the New York Post. One may ask, How could the same man influence such divergent schools-of-thoughts? The answer to the seemingly perplexing conundrum is both economically brilliant and morally disgusting: Murdoch wishes to capitalize on a divided America, to reap the benefits of an artificial conflict started by imaginary terms. As Barack Obama famously said, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is the United States of America.” Since independent media sources, virtually, do not exist, and because these top media conglomerates share board members, it may be rare to hear sentiments like that from anyone else but a politician.

     In the meantime, a phenomenon called, citizen journalism , has been attempting to diversify the pool of thoughts by encouraging “average-Joe” Americans to blog on the Internet (Witmer). These would-be articles behave more as Op-Eds than objective news , typically fail to meet Standard English mechanics, and have, on average, absolutely no editorial accountability (Guardian). Citizen Journalism, nevertheless, with all its flaws but small promise, cannot skirt Corporate Media’s rule. The Internet, too, is owned by the corporate oligopoly. Google, for example, censors content on its blogs under the terms of use, “Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity. … We do not allow the unauthorized publishing of people’s private and confidential information.” The wire-service, Associated Press, put it this way:

“Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that’s controversial but otherwise legal. … They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors. The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services — from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video — become more central to public discourse around the world” (Associated Press).

     Consolidation of media ownership has not just affected the United States, but the entire world. The richest nations control these corporations, and a sort of cultural imperialism takes place. In a globalized world, one language—indeed, one culture—must unify the consumer-base: the English language, the American culture (Witmer). Imagine a man struggling to survive in the (fictitious) third-world country of Cazonastan, and passing a billboard for Coca-Cola, even though he cannot afford to buy that product; or visualize him tuning into an American soap-opera, Guiding Light , on a bar television-set, even though he cannot identify with the characters.

     The same alienation ensues when the ideas of ten corporations, working together, attempt to inform the entirety of America. Despite the obvious attempts by CEOs like Murdoch to procure the illusion of opposing thought, there, unavoidably, is a public sense of a narrowed window. According to a poll by Zogby International, “Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.” The current state of journalism has left young adults searching for news by satirists like Stephen Colbert, who exposes the ridiculousness of punditry, emulating Bill O’Reilly on Comedy Central (Media & Culture 200, 501).

     The only way to solve the current down-trend in journalism—and restore the ideals of news being a watchdog service, reporting on the significant over the trivial, and to have the health of the American people in mind rather than corporate interests—is to ask the government to regulate the media, to restore the antitrust laws before the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Supreme Court’s duty remains breaking up these corporations into smaller companies, in a fashion that demands competition between them.

      The constitution demands a free-press, so how could government regulation of the press be a good thing? one may ask. As counter-intuitive as it seems, the government imposing laws to prevent merges between news organizations actually secures the freedom of the press in a crucial way. Currently, there seems to be a global trend of super-corporations and small business, with no medium-sized enterprises. To personify the issue, consider the economic structure of the Dark Ages in Europe: There were the rich nobles and there were the poor peasants, and not much in between (Hartzok). As the common adage goes, “The rich got richer, while the poor got poorer.” In contrast, a middle-class allows for social mobility. By analogy, medium-sized business could provide a bridge for innovators on the bottom to reach for the top. The news machine needs fresh ideas, a diversity of opinion, and a passion for the job. A corporate oligopoly in the media starves a democracy of the government watchdog it needs.

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Witmer, Stephanie Anderson. Course Lecture. Rowland Hall. Shippensburg University.

     Fall 2008.

Thesis:     Professor Stephanie Anderson Witmer explains in her college course, Introduction to Mass Communication , how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has influenced modern Journalism practices. Her teachings advocate public media literacy , in which every citizen should understand the mechanisms behind mass communication. Four large media conglomerates, Disney, Time Warner, Sony, and News Corporation, own virtually all media channels—leading to a decrease in competition (which, one may postulate, decreases innovation), an increase of outsourcing (using a foreign workforce), and lazy journalism (wired syndication and talking heads over original content and investigative journalism ). Complacency from the people maintains this broken system of four sources distributing every piece of information.

Evaluation:     Professor Witmer’s lectures are my primary source for this research paper. If her doctorate and position at Shippensburg University is not enough proof to her expertise, she also creates media herself (Killer Pies and Killer Chili ). I never observed any instances of bias in her teachings.

 

McChesney, Robert W. "The New Global Media." The Nation. 2008. 28 Oct. 2008
     <http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney/single>.

 Thesis:    Robert W. McChesney condemns the oligopoly of the eight major Transnational Companies (TNCs). He exposes the cultural imperialism by English-speaking companies—that is to say, the inability of regional media groups to compete with global media groups, which results in American programming being more than accessible, but mandatory.

Evaluation:     Robert W. McChesney is the research professor at the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois, and author of Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy and creator of Free Press . His insights concerning corporate dominance add a global perspective to the impact of media conglomerates on Journalistic etiquette.

Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media & Culture. Ed.

     Erika Gutierrez and Simon Glick. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008.

Thesis:     Media & Culture: an introduction to mass communication strives to inform its readership of “the impact of media ownership on democracy.” The book goes on to state, “Knowing about media ownership or who owns what in the mass media, is part of critically understanding mass communication and how it affects the media you receive.” It ties in nicely with the media literacy lectures from my primary source, Professor Stephanie Anderson Witmer. Plenty of photos, examples, and excerpts supplement the text.

Evaluation:     Richard Campbell directs the journalism program at Miami University in Ohio, authored 60 Minutes and the News: A Mythology for Middle America in 1991, and coauthored Cracked Coverage: Television News, the Anti-Cocaine Crusade, and the Reagan Legacy in 1994. Bettina Fabos serves as Assistant Professor of journalism, and Christopher R. Martin works as the Associate Professor of journalism at the same university as Campbell. The fact that all three writers come from the same college seems a bit suspect. (Had they checked each other as critically as if they had not worked at the same place?) After reading a majority of the textbook, however, I feel confident it is a valid resource for understanding the current media ownership trends.

"Who Owns What." Columbia Journalism Review. Colombia University. 30 Oct. 2008
     <http://www.cjr.org/resources/>.

Thesis:     This website, created by the Columbia Journalism Review, allows any user to select one of the major media corporations and see what it owns. Clicking on the item, News Corporation , for example, reveals that it owns Fox, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, most of the Australian media, dozens of magazines, HarperMorrow, General Books Group, and many, many more. This will provide statistics to back up my logos.

Evaluation:     Columbia University is world renowned for its Journalism program. Their credibility is solid. Their purpose jives with my paper’s intention. The mission statement from the creators of this website put it clearly:

“Columbia Journalism Review’s mission is to encourage and stimulate excellence in journalism in the service of a free society. It is both a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms, from newspapers to magazines to radio, television, and the Web. Founded in 1961 under the auspices of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, CJR examines day-to-day press performance as well as the forces that affect that performance. The magazine is published six times a year, and offers a deliberative mix of reporting, analysis, criticism, and commentary. CJR.org, our Web site, delivers real-time criticism and reporting, giving CJR a vital presence in the ongoing conversation about the media. Both online and in print, Columbia Journalism Review is in conversation with a community of people who share a commitment to high journalistic standards in the U.S. and the world.”

Dictionary.com, LLC. "Media Definition." Dictionary.com. Ask.com. 16 Nov. 2008
     <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media>.

Hartzok, Justus. "World History I." Dauphin Humanities Center 206. Shippensburg

     University. Fall 2008.

Miller, Mark Crispin. "What's Wrong With This Picture?" The Nation 20 Dec. 2001.

     17 Nov. 2008 <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/miller>.

Elliot, Stuart. "Advertising's Big Four: It's Their World Now ." The New York Times 31

     Mar. 2002. 17 Nov. 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
     fullpage.html?res=9804E4DF163AF932A05750C0A9649C8B63>.

Regan, Tara. "Americans: Too Much Sex and Violence on TV - But Government Over-

     reacted to Janet Jackson 'Malfunction.'" Abt SRBI 18 Mar. 2005. 17 Nov. 2008  

     <http://www.srbi.com/time_poll_tv.html>.

Council for Foreign Relations. "Japan, China and the United States: Economic Relations

     and Prospects." Foreign Affairs Summer 1979. 17 Nov. 2008

     <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19790601faessay9931/saburo-okita/japan-china-

     and-the-united-states-economic-relations-and-prospects.html>.

Human Rights Watch. "Libya: Need to Deepen Human Rights Reform." Human Rights

     Watch. 17 Nov. 2008 <hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/libya12520_txt.htm >.

Disney. "The Walt Disney Company." The Walt Disney Company. 17 Nov. 2008     

     <http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/bios/robert_matschullat.html>.

Time Warner. "Time Warner." Time Warner. 17 Nov. 2008     

<http://www.timewarner.com/corp/management/board_directors/bio/bollenbach_stephen.html>.

General Electric. "Election of Directors." General Electric 2007 Proxy Statement. 17 Nov.

     2008 <http://www.ge.com/ar2006/proxy/election.htm>.

Guardian. "Citizen journalism: the good, the bad and the ugly." The Guardian. 17 Nov.

2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2006/dec/22/citizenjournalismthegoodth>.

Zogby. "67% View Traditional Journalism as 'Out of Touch.'" Zogby International. 17

     Nov. 2008 <http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1454>.