The Structural Subordination of Western Media to Finance Capital - Part I
The Structural Subordination of Western Media to Finance Capital
1.1-. Liberal Theory: Media as
the Independent "Watchdog" over Power
The bourgeois theory of freedom
of the press historically was directed against feudalism and absolute
monarchy—against non-economic methods of coercion. The slogan of freedom of the
press was progressive in the 17th century—a weapon against
feudalism and absolute monarchy. Despite its bourgeois class character, it
represented a step forward in human emancipation.
But this progress was dialectical.
Once the bourgeoisie consolidated power, the slogan underwent a dialectical
reversal. The "freedom of the press" became the freedom of
capital to publish. The bourgeoisie that had once demanded freedom from feudal
censorship now imposed its own restrictions on the working class. The class
essence of bourgeois press freedom came to the fore simultaneously with the
assertion of bourgeois rule.
When the working class emerged within the new system and claimed its share of "freedom," as Marx pointed out:
"The
bourgeoisie not only did not give him freedom of the press, but also harassed
and repressed the publications of their organizations." Marx, "Communism and the Augsburg
Universal Gazette"
The historical record confirms
Marx's analysis:
|
Country |
Publication |
Year |
Suppression
Method |
|
France |
Réveil (International
Workingmen's Association) |
1868 |
Suppressed |
|
Germany |
Social-Demokrat |
1878–1890 |
Banned under
Anti-Socialist Laws |
|
Britain |
Poor Man's
Guardian |
1831 |
Prosecuted
for seditious libel |
|
United States |
Appeal to
Reason (circulation 500,000+) |
Early 1900s |
Harassed;
editors prosecuted for anti-war and pro-labor content |
Thus, the bourgeois class essence
of press freedom was not a hidden truth—it was manifest from the beginning.
The dialectical reversal of the slogan—from progressive weapon
against feudalism to reactionary shield for capital—was already apparent in the
mid-19th century. The working class, which had helped secure bourgeois freedom,
was denied its share. The working-class organizations and parties practically
did not have the means to publish their newspapers. In cases where they created
the conditions and means through collections among the workers and members,
with great sacrifices, the bourgeoisie deprived them of the right to publish
them through various ways.
Newspapers became
"commodities" for the rich, which exposed the very essence of the
bourgeois concept of freedom of the press. The economic foundations of the
bourgeois press determined and coincided with its ideological functions in
serving the interests of its own bourgeois class. Publishing became part of
capitalist production. Owning the political system, all the laws enacted by
bourgeois extended to the activities of newspaper and magazine companies.
As Marx wrote in Capital:
"A
commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood.
Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in
metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
The newspaper is a commodity
produced for sale. Its content is the "use value" that attracts
buyers. But the content is shaped not by the pursuit of truth, but by the need
to sell copies and attract advertisers. The "news" is a product, and
the product is shaped by the market. The "freedom of the press" is
the freedom of capital to shape this product in its own interests.
The fallacy of the theory of
freedom of the press and its conflict with the concrete reality of the
bourgeois system has become blatant. The freedom of the press did not even
exist for all categories of the bourgeoisie, but only for the richest publishers.
The narrative about freedom of the press turned into pure hypocrisy under the
conditions of bourgeois realities with numerous publicized cases in recent
history.
The pattern is consistent across
all bourgeois states. The legal apparatus of the state—the courts, the police,
and the licensing authorities—was deployed against working-class publications
not as an exception, but as a rule. The "freedom of the press" was
freedom for capital to speak, not for labor to be heard.
The historical record shows that
the press was never independent—it was always owned by capital. The myth of
objectivity emerged precisely when the press was becoming concentrated and
commercialized. It was not a discovery of truth—it was a marketing strategy
designed to maintain credibility while serving the interests of capital.
1.2- The Myth of Journalistic
Objectivity
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto
honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the
lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage
laborers." Marx &
Engels, The Communist Manifesto
We have established that the bourgeois theory of press freedom was historically
progressive against feudalism but underwent a dialectical reversal once the
bourgeoisie consolidated power. The "freedom of the press" became the
freedom of capital to publish. The working class was excluded. The press became
a commodity—produced for sale, shaped by the market, and serving the interests
of its owners.
This structural reality created a
crisis of legitimacy. The press could not openly admit that it served
capital—it needed to maintain the appearance of neutrality. The solution was
the myth of objectivity. Objectivity was not a discovery of truth. It was a
response to a crisis of credibility—a marketing strategy designed to
maintain legitimacy while serving the interests of capital.
The myth of objectivity is one of
the methods of activity of bourgeois journalism, the system of techniques with
which it performs its functions of manipulating public opinion and
consciousness in bourgeois society. Bourgeois theorists reject the principles
of objectivity, opposing it with the principles of relativism and the refusal
to search for truth, the comprehension of which, in their opinion, is
impossible.
In reality, being objective,
revealing the truth, the laws of social progress are contraindicated, because
this is contrary to the interests of the class a professional journalist
represents. Bourgeois professional journalism gives leading prominence to various
techniques and methods of suggestion in the field of propaganda, aiming to
cultivate specific attitudes in the audience. When addressing the masses,
it often avoids detailed argumentation and instead employs a technique of
suggestion based on principles that almost completely deprives the
audience of the opportunity for reasoning.
Professional journalists offer
ready-made solutions and do everything to ensure these solutions are ingrained
in the consciousness of their viewers and listeners, even against their
will. In essence, bourgeois journalism employs methods of ideological
violence against readers, viewers, and listeners.
In disinformation techniques and
systems for influencing the masses, emotional techniques, particularly those
characteristic of professional journalists, play a significant role.
Information policy occupies an important place in bourgeois propaganda. The
abundance of messages gives the audience the appearance of awareness, access to
information sources, the ability to draw their own conclusions, and make their
own assessments.
Meanwhile, for a bourgeois
professional journalist, the selection of facts is the first and most important
method of disinformation. The selection of facts as a method of disinformation
is not a theoretical abstraction—it is a documented practice:
|
Example |
Year |
Technique |
Outcome |
|
Iraq War (WMDs) |
2003 |
Prominent coverage of
administration claims; suppression of dissenting intelligence |
Public misled
into supporting war |
|
2008 Financial Crisis |
2008 |
Promotion of "housing
market stability" narrative; downplaying warnings |
Public misled
about economic risks |
|
COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory |
2020–2021 |
Dismissal as
"disinformation" in 2020; acknowledgment as "possibility"
in 2021 |
Public misled
about the origin of the pandemic |
In each case, the selection of
facts served the interests of the ruling class. The "objective"
journalist presented a partial picture—and in presenting a partial
picture, they misled the public.
And it is no coincidence that
today we speak of a pollution of consciousness in bourgeois society. The
abundance of trivial messages presented as important, the frequent suppression
of the most important events, contributes to the formation of a distorted
picture of the world, which in turn prepares the ground for the technique of
lying.
The myth of objectivity is not
a failure of individual journalists—it is a structural feature of
bourgeois journalism. The journalist is a wage laborer. They work for a
corporation. They are subject to the profit imperative, the editorial policy,
and the threat of firing or blacklisting. The "objective"
journalist is not neutral—they are conforming to the interests of their
employers.
This is the dialectical
connection we will develop throughout this article: the ownership of the
means of mental production by capital determines the content of mental
production. The myth of objectivity is the ideological mask that conceals
this structural reality. It allows the press to present itself as neutral while
serving the interests of its owners.
Regardless of a journalist's
class position, there is no such thing as abstract objectivity. While there may
be some differences in qualitative and mass information flows, in the
presentation of factual information, capitalist journalism consistently and
steadily defends the interests of the ruling class, spreading bourgeois
ideology through misinformation, disinformation and mal-information.
As we will see in the next
section, the professional standards of journalism are not standards of truth—they
are mechanisms of enforced conformity designed to ensure that journalists serve
the interests of capital.
The "objective"
journalist—the professional who claims to stand outside class interests—is a
later invention, a response to the crisis of legitimacy created by this
contradiction. It was not a discovery of truth—it was a marketing strategy designed
to maintain credibility while serving the interests of capital.
The liberal theory presents the
press as an independent "watchdog" over power—but the historical
record shows that the press was never independent. It was always owned by
capital. Its "freedom" was the freedom of capital to shape public
consciousness. The "watchdog" does not bite the hand that feeds it.
As we will see in the next section, the myth of journalistic objectivity was
not a description of practice but a strategy for marketing and manipulation—a
professional standard designed to maintain the credibility of a press that
served the interests of its owners.
This is the structural foundation
upon which the myth of the "Fourth Estate" was built. This theory is historically specific to the
bourgeois epoch. It emerged as a weapon against feudal absolutism. It was
progressive in its time.
But the theory is false as a
description of reality. The press is not independent of power—it is integrated
with power. It is owned by the same class that holds political and economic
power. The "watchdog" does not bite the hand that feeds it.
1. 3- The Theory of Social
Responsibility as Crisis Management
"The
intellectuals are the dominant group's 'deputies' exercising the subaltern
functions of social hegemony and political government." Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks
The myth of objectivity, as we
have demonstrated, was a response to the crisis of legitimacy of bourgeois
journalism. It allowed the press to present itself as neutral while serving the
interests of its owners. But the myth was not sustainable. The contradiction
between the claim of objectivity and the reality of class-serving journalism
grew increasingly blatant.
In the 1940s in the United
States, a new bourgeois concept emerged concerning the position and role of the
press in society, known as the "social responsibility theory of the
press." This theory aimed to replace the exposed falsity of the "freedom
of the press" theory. Although "freedom of the press" continues
to exist as an independent theory, and the vast majority of bourgeois
journalists still adopt and disseminate it as the main theory in their
journalistic activities, the falsity and inconsistency of this theory have
become so obvious, especially in recent years, that it is in fact only
applicable as a demagogic slogan to an inexperienced audience and clearly lacks
any correspondence with reality.
The authors of this new
concept—bourgeois journalists and theorists—acknowledging that there was no
true freedom of the press in the US, argued that discussing it was pointless,
but clung to the fantasy that a situation could be achieved that would limit
the influence of monopolies over the media. These theorists also proposed the
creation of private institutions to control the activities of the media.
The emergence of this new concept
raised several important questions. First of all, the advancement of the theory
of social responsibility of the press confirmed and emphasized the absence of
such social responsibility in the bourgeois world, and simultaneously the
indefensibility of the theory of freedom of the press. In this context, it was
argued, again with the same idealism, that it had become necessary to consider
how to ensure societal control over the media.
The discourse on social
responsibility had become fashionable in the world after the Second World War.
Ultimately, the concept of social
responsibility, aimed at controlling the press, manifested itself in the
necessity of reinforcing the class position of the bourgeoisie through press
activity via the intervention of the bourgeois state.
The state's creation of special
bodies to control the press essentially resulted in further suppression and
surveillance of the press, thereby completely eliminating the possibility of
press opposition. In this sense, social responsibility theory has paved the way
for fascist theories in journalism. Therefore, regardless of the authors'
primary intentions, the biggest supporters of social responsibility theory have
been far-right individuals and groups.
History confirms this pattern. In
Italy under Mussolini, the press was brought under state control through the
use of "social responsibility" rhetoric. In Germany under Hitler, the
press was coordinated (Gleichschaltung) in the name of national unity and
social responsibility. In Japan during the war, the press was controlled
through the Information Bureau.
History has proven this fact in
numerous fascist countries:
|
Country |
Period |
Mechanism of Control |
Rhetoric Used |
|
Italy
(Mussolini) |
1922–1943 |
Press brought under state
control |
"Social
responsibility" |
|
Germany
(Hitler) |
1933–1945 |
Press coordinated (Gleichschaltung)
in the name of national unity |
"National unity,"
"social responsibility" |
|
Japan |
1937–1945 |
Press controlled through
Information Bureau |
"National security" |
|
United States |
1917–1918
(WWI); 1942–1945 (WWII); Cold War |
Committee on Public Information;
Office of War Information; CIA funding of media organizations |
"National security,"
"anti-communism," "defense of democracy" |
In the United States, the pattern
is more subtle but no less real. During World War I and World War II, the US
government established censorship and propaganda agencies—the Committee on
Public Information (1917) and the Office of War Information (1942)—that
controlled the flow of information in the name of "national security"
and "social responsibility." During the Cold War, the CIA funded and
influenced media organizations (e.g., the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which
published Encounter magazine) in the name of "anti-communism" and
"defense of democracy."
In each case, the "social
responsibility" of the press was invoked to justify state control and the
suppression of dissent.
In addition, bourgeois theorists,
in order to strengthen and support the theory of the social responsibility of
the press, created a new concept about the place of the professional journalist
in society. They put forward the slogan of "freedom of the journalist"
in place of the slogan of freedom of the press, which has proven impossible to
achieve under the capitalist system. Here, the theorists ignored the fact that
the "journalist" cannot be free because of the employer-employee
relationship.
This is the dialectical
contradiction at the heart of the theory: if freedom of the press is denied
because it is "related to ownership" of the means of production, how
can freedom of the journalist be possible under the same owner-employee relationship?
The journalist is a wage laborer.
They are employed by a corporation. They are subject to the profit imperative,
the editorial policy, and the threat of firing or blacklisting. The
"freedom of the journalist" is a fiction—it assumes that the journalist
can be "independent" while being paid by a corporation that has its
own interests.
The employer-employee
relationship is the structural barrier to freedom. The journalist cannot be
free because they are dependent on their employer for their livelihood. The
"freedom of the journalist" is not a solution to the crisis—it is an
ideological mask that conceals the structural reality.
The theory of social
responsibility and the slogan of freedom of the journalist collapsed in
practice—they failed to address the structural crisis of bourgeois journalism.
But they remain dominant in the bourgeois liberal world as ideology. They serve
to maintain the appearance of reform while leaving the structural reality
untouched.
This failure is not accidental.
The theory of social responsibility cannot succeed because it does not address
the root cause: the ownership of the means of mental production by capital. As
we will demonstrate in the following sections, the professional standards of
journalism are not standards of truth—they are mechanisms of enforced
conformity designed to ensure that journalists serve the interests of capital.
The crisis of legitimacy of
bourgeois journalism is structural, not behavioral. It cannot be reformed. It
must be replaced.
1.4- The Professional Standard
as Enforced Conformity
"The ideas
of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which
is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling
intellectual force." Marx &
Engels, The German Ideology
The theory of social
responsibility collapsed in practice—it failed to address the structural
crisis.
But if reform is impossible, how
does the system maintain control? The answer lies in the mechanisms of enforced
conformity that are embedded in the structure of professional journalism. These
mechanisms do not require direct censorship—they operate through the selection
of gatekeepers, the threat of punishment, and the internalization of boundaries
through self-censorship.
In the practice of the modern
Media of the West, the various manifestations of the political control of the
capitalists can be reduced to the following main types: 1) absolute control, 2)
two-tier control, 3) corporate control, 4) mixed control. However, at the final
analysis, all comes down to the "gatekeepers"—hand-picked editors.
As Marx wrote in The
German Ideology:
"The
class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently
also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who
lack the means of mental production are, in general, subject to it."
The types of control we have
described are the mechanisms through which this control is exercised. Whether
absolute, two-tier, corporate, or mixed, the outcome is the same: the
journalist is a wage laborer, and the content they produce serves the interests
of their employer—the class that owns the means of mental production.
1. Absolute Control. This
is defined by the political and economic control of the media being in the
hands of a single owner or family group. Absolute control openly and
consistently follows the political views of an influential group of big capital
and the associated bourgeois party. This type of control was a characteristic
structure, especially in the early period of press monopolization, before the
dominance of financial capital. However, as we will see, it is still practiced
in many countries of Western Europe today.
"From the
first page to the last...whatever comes out has to reflect my view, and that is
the way it is." Henry Luce,
founder of TIME magazine
In Asian countries, the media
ownership of capitalist families in India and Japan is close to this type. The
form of absolute control is very typical in many Latin American countries;
however, the political line of local press owners also expresses the interests
of the American monopolies that are in power there.
2. Two-tier control. In
this system, ownership of the information outlets remains in the same hands,
but the day-to-day running of operations is entrusted to the editor-in-chief.
In the US, Newhouse holds a press monopoly, while Robert Holmes Thomson's
publishing house owns numerous newspapers in the UK, US, Canada, and many other
countries.
3. Corporate control is
very similar to the previous type of control, but the difference is that
ownership of the press is "corporatized," meaning it is in the hands
of a group of shareholders or holding companies.
4. Mixed control
(state-monopoly) in media with so-called public status. These types
include radio and television services of the Western European capitalist state,
as well as those of Canada, Japan, and many other countries. The political line
of such media is determined either directly through government officials or
through constituent councils that adjust this line taking into account the
interests and influence of various groups within the ruling bourgeoisie.
The political control of capital
over the bourgeois press manifests itself in specific forms in different
countries, determined by the historical and socioeconomic characteristics of
each nation. However, it shares a number of common features with all countries.
The process of concentration and monopolization of the bourgeois press
minimizes the number of individuals and organizations responsible for the
media.
Editors primarily have the
responsibility and authority to select, organize, and highlight or revise the
author's main idea within the information presented. Western media talks and
boasts about journalistic ethics. However, in practical reality, these ethics
are determined by the journalist's position as a paid employee of the media
outlet. Ultimately, the media owner, publisher, and editor-in-chief think and
make decisions on behalf of the journalist. The final product never belongs to
the journalist but to the editors.
This is not a phenomenon unique
to capitalism. Similar but contrasting in context in socialist systems. In the
Soviet Union, for example, simply reading Lenin's letters to the editors of the
Party newspapers is enough to see how meticulously he approached the
reliability of the materials published and the facts used in those letters. One
aims at presenting the fact; the other aims at misrepresenting the facts.
There are fundamentally two ways
of "punishment" for crossing the boundaries drawn by the capitalist
media industry. One is administrative punishment (legal actions), the
second is "firing" and/or "blacklisting" in the field of
media since they are all owned by the same finance capital in the final
analysis. In the first case, the main purpose is to prevent the publication of
undesirable material by making an "example" when the border is
crossed. That is, although for the media and publications, we have seen numerous
examples of that being used for individuals. The second is for the individuals, for which there is no need to expand on their deterrent effects.
The effectiveness of these
punishment mechanisms depends on the concentration of media ownership. As we
will document in Part II, six families and three asset managers control the
vast majority of Western media. There is no "alternative" outlet—blacklisted
journalists cannot find work elsewhere because elsewhere is owned by the same
capital. This is the structural reality that makes the punishment mechanism so
effective. The journalist who deviates has no place to go. They must conform,
or they must leave the profession.
These punishments in different
forms and degree bring about voluntary "self-censorship" for any
alternative media and individuals.
The self-censorship mechanism of
information organs, despite some differences, shares common characteristics in
all capitalist countries. This, in addition to laws restricting the right to
publish and the right to access information, is the most common "survival"
mechanism for alternative media and journalists. This self-censorship manifests
itself in the hypocrisy of adopting a "politically correct" and
"balanced" approach in news and commentary.
"Politically
correct" has been redefined by the right as a critique of
left-wing cultural norms. But in practice, it functions as a system of enforced
conformity within journalism—a set of boundaries that journalists must not
cross. The journalist who deviates from these boundaries is labeled
"biased" or "extreme" and faces punishment.
"Balanced" is
presented as a virtue—the journalist who presents "both sides" of an
issue. But "balance" is a mechanism of false equivalence. It allows
the journalist to present the interests of capital and the interests of labor
as if they were equally valid. It avoids the truth—that class interests are not
equal, and that capital exploits labor.
The adoption of these approaches
is not a matter of ethics—it is a matter of survival. It is the safest way to
remain within the confines of "capitalist professional journalism."
Conclusion of Part I: The
Liberal Myth Exposed
We have now completed our
examination of the liberal myth of the "free press." What we have
found is a structural reality that contradicts every claim of bourgeois
ideology:
- The "freedom of the press" was
historically progressive against feudalism but underwent a dialectical
reversal once the bourgeoisie consolidated power. It became the freedom of
capital to publish—not the freedom of labor to be heard.
- The myth of objectivity is not a
description of practice. It is a marketing strategy, a method of
manipulation that employs suggestion, emotional manipulation, and the
selection of facts to shape public consciousness in the interests of
capital.
- The theory of social responsibility is an
admission of crisis. It acknowledges that the press has failed in its
social responsibility—but it proposes reform within the existing
structure, leaving the ownership of the press by capital untouched.
- The professional standards of journalism are
mechanisms of enforced conformity. Through gatekeeper editors, punishment
mechanisms (firing, blacklisting, legal action), and self-censorship,
journalists are trained and disciplined to serve the interests of their
employers—the class that owns the means of mental production.
The liberal myth of the
"free press" is, in reality, a system of class rule. The press is not
independent—it is integrated with the state and capital. It is not objective—it
is structurally biased in favor of the ruling class. It is not free—it is
constrained by the profit imperative, the ownership structure, and the threat
of punishment.
Having demolished the myth, we
now turn to the structural reality that replaces it.
The Structural Subordination of Western Media to Finance Capital- Part II
