How Billionaires Manipulate the Public

What changed during the 20th century to cause this?

Photo by Myznik Egor on Unsplash

The general public feasts on a steady diet of billionaire-fueled propaganda. Whether they get their information from Fox, The Washington Post or The Economist, most sources of information are controlled by a relatively small group of people.

While some news sources may be more objective than others, the lack of political endorsements during the recent election proves the power to dictate the agenda remains with the owners. This was an egregious example, but even in day-to-day reporting, journalists and talking heads know who signs their paychecks. Naturally, they self-regulate to appease their masters.

Society unknowingly is steered to suit the needs of corporate overlords, whose agenda is to consolidate wealth and power. People can become heavily influenced or "brainwashed" by editorialized news media through a combination of psychological, social, and structural factors.

Media influence relies heavily on cognitive biases like confirmation bias—where people favor information aligning with their beliefs—and the illusory truth effect, where repeated ideas become credible. Simplified, repetitive narratives often prevail over nuanced or complex truths, as they are easier for people to process and remember. Combined with emotional appeals and identity-based messaging, such mechanisms subtly shape public opinion. Emotional appeals, such as fear, outrage, or identity-based messaging, further amplify this effect, as people are drawn to media that validates their identity or evokes strong emotions.

Social media algorithms create filter bubbles, exposing users to content reinforcing their beliefs while limiting diverse perspectives. This phenomenon, exacerbated by the illusory truth effect, entrenches ideological divides.

A lack of media literacy exacerbates the issue. Many people struggle to distinguish between fact and opinion or to recognize bias and manipulation in media content. Without strong critical thinking skills, they may accept editorialized narratives as factual. Trust in authority figures, such as charismatic pundits or historically credible outlets, also plays a role. When people perceive a source as trustworthy, they are less likely to question its content, even if it is biased.

Editorialized media often uses framing, selective omission, and agenda-setting to shape public perception, while overwhelming audiences with a flood of information. This can lead to decision fatigue, where individuals rely on familiar sources or oversimplified narratives to reduce cognitive strain. Distrust in alternative viewpoints or media further reinforces their loyalty to these sources.

This is not to say there are no news sources with integrity. Many do a fine job questioning the status quo and speaking truth to power. However, nuanced reporting is overpowered by infotainment.

It was not always this way.

As the table illustrates, media ownership is highly concentrated among a few families and corporations, underscoring the influence of private interests on public information.

The Origins of News Media as a Public Service

The early days of television news were shaped by its role as a public service. Broadcasters operated under the guidance of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which mandated that networks serve the public interest, a requirement rooted in the scarcity of broadcasting frequencies. News divisions were not designed to turn a profit but to fulfill a civic obligation, often described as a "loss leader" for the broader network. This approach provided audiences with factual, unbiased reporting on important issues, free from overt commercial or ideological influences.

However, this model began to shift with the rise of cable news and the introduction of the 24-hour news cycle in the 1980s. Cable networks like CNN demonstrated that news could be a profitable venture, sparking a competition among outlets to retain audiences by any means necessary. As the demand for constant content grew, sensationalism and opinion-based programming started to replace traditional journalism. This marked the beginning of the editorialization of news.

The Evolution of the Fairness Doctrine and Deregulation

The Fairness Doctrine, established by the FCC in 1949, was a regulatory measure designed to ensure broadcasters presented balanced and diverse perspectives on controversial issues. Its two key mandates required broadcasters to (1) cover significant public issues and (2) provide fair representation of opposing views. The Doctrine reflected the belief that access to the limited public airwaves carried an inherent responsibility to serve the democratic process.

The Doctrine played a crucial role in shaping the early media landscape, but it also faced criticism. Media owners and journalists argued that the Doctrine infringed on their First Amendment rights and discouraged coverage of contentious topics for fear of regulatory repercussions.

By the 1980s, the media environment had changed dramatically, with the proliferation of cable networks reducing the scarcity of broadcast frequencies. In this context, the Reagan administration pursued a deregulatory agenda, culminating in the FCC’s decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

The Fairness Doctrine once ensured balanced reporting on public airwaves, but its repeal in 1987 facilitated the rise of partisan programming and profit-driven content. Deregulation also paved the way for media consolidation, allowing a handful of owners to dominate public discourse.

This concentration of ownership has affected the delivery of news in several key ways:

Agenda Setting and Bias

Media owners often use their platforms to promote personal or political interests, shaping public discourse through agenda-setting and selective framing. Sensationalism and emotionally charged narratives further divert attention from critical issues to maximize engagement and profits.

Decline in Investigative Journalism

Investigative journalism is expensive, time-consuming, and often risks antagonizing powerful figures or corporations. Under pressure to maximize profits, many media organizations have reduced their commitment to in-depth reporting. Instead, they favor cheaper, faster content like punditry or sensational headlines, leaving critical stories about corruption, inequality, and systemic issues underreported.

Homogenization of Content

As conglomerates acquire smaller outlets, the diversity of perspectives in the media shrinks. Local news stations, once a cornerstone of community-level accountability, are often absorbed into larger networks and lose their independent voices. The Sinclair Broadcast Group, for instance, has been accused of distributing centrally scripted content across its affiliate stations, eroding local autonomy.

Commercialization and Sensationalism

Profit motives have also led to the prioritization of sensational stories that attract high ratings and advertising revenue. Celebrity gossip, crime, and emotionally charged narratives frequently overshadow substantive reporting. This shift not only distorts the public’s understanding of important issues but also fosters a culture of infotainment over information.

Media outlets have discovered that catering to specific ideological audiences is profitable, leading to the rise of partisan programming. Fox News, for instance, appeals to conservative viewers, while MSNBC targets liberal audiences. These become ideological echo chambers where individuals consume content that reinforces their beliefs while excluding opposing perspectives. This segmentation deepens societal divisions and undermines the shared reality necessary for constructive democratic debate.

How to Mitigate Media Concentration

Unfortunately, many are unaware they're being manipulated.

The few who are aware can counter the negative effects of media consolidation and editorialization in several ways:

1. Seek Out Independent Sources of Information

Independent media organizations often operate outside the influence of large corporate interests, making them valuable alternatives to mainstream outlets. Independent platforms that rely on grassroots funding rather than ad revenue offer an alternative to corporate-driven media.

2. Diversify Media Consumption

Relying on a single source of news can create a narrow and biased understanding of events. Instead, individuals should follow multiple outlets across the political spectrum to gain a more balanced view.

3. Practice Critical Media Literacy

Individuals should ask questions about the ownership, funding, and potential biases of the outlets they consume. Fact-checking tools can help verify claims and combat misinformation.

4. Support Local Journalism

Local news outlets are often the first to uncover stories that affect communities, from corruption to public health crises. Supporting these organizations through subscriptions or donations helps sustain independent journalism at the grassroots level.

5. Advocate for Media Transparency

Transparency in media ownership and funding is essential for holding outlets accountable. Individuals can support initiatives that promote disclosure and advocate for policies that prevent further consolidation of media ownership.

Media bias is one of the reasons Collapse 2050 exists. The limited number of mainstream articles related to existential issues conclude with unwarranted optimism. Nobody was telling the truth about existential risks because collapse isn't profitable. Thankfully, our small but thriving community of collapse aware people - on BlueSky, Collapse 2050, YouTube and elsewhere - are working to challenge corporate-driven narratives, hopefully building a more informed and prepared society.