Blog Post #7

 

Mainstream media outlets often rely on advertisers and corporate sponsors for funding.  These websites, such as Antiwar.com and Theamericanconservative.com, don't have larger sponsors that have a greater agenda. They only have sponsors such as a book about stopping Ukraine and Phone Banking for keeping the National Guard out of wars. Doing more research, as stated on their website, they are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Their operations are primarily supported by the contributions of individuals who align with their antiwar mission. Shockingly, most media organizations have economic and political relationships with defense contractors, the government, and other powerful entities, which can discourage critical coverage of military interventions. According to the Pew Research Center, political advertising generates a significant amount of revenue.

 But what does that mean? If you have a specific agenda, then you get rid of some potential sponsors.  You wouldn't have trump advertising on CNN or Harris on Fox. You can say the same thing about the Medical Industry. This financial dependence can create a bias in coverage, leading to more favorable portrayals of certain drugs, treatments, or medical practices, potentially downplaying risks or controversies.  When they appear, there is a real risk of potentially downplaying risks or controversies.  According to the Guardian, " Pharmaceutical companies spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians. Drugmakers have poured close to $2.5bn into lobbying and funding members of Congress over the past decade". Swaine, Jon. "Big Pharma's Money and Lobbying Behind the Opioid Crisis." The Guardian, 19 Oct. 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/big-pharma-money-lobbying-us-opioid-crisis.

This is a significant amount of money that may raise some issues when politicians may have a conflict of interest.