The Truth Is Out There (Part Two)

"Boeing has been awarded a four-year, $48 million contract by the Air Force to develop a solar orbit transfer vehicle..." (2/25/98); "The cold war is over, but the American public still wants a strong defense and is willing to pay billions for the next generation of high-tech weaponry, says U.S. Navy Secretary...That's always reassuring to Boeing and Lockheed Martin." (12/18/97); "The Pentagon is investigating whether it is paying too much for off-the-shelf airplane parts it buys from Boeing under a new procurement policy." (11/13/97).

Last week, we began a review of the Seattle Times' business section--the only section of the paper in which meaningful news occurs with any regularity--with an eye to what the casual reader (not just the investor) can learn about the world.

For one, we learn that our local icons of free enterprise are succeeding with an enormous amount of public assistance (aka "welfare"):

"Government gives Boeing $3 Billion phone contract." (9/18/97); "Boeing gets $70.7 million INS copter order." (8/13/97); "Microsoft gets foot in door with Air Force contract...the company is gaining a toehold in the U.S. government market." (7/8/97); "Boeing wins $216 million contract to improve bomber." (7/2/97). But the piece de resistance came on July 20, 1997. Two articles, under the heading, "A superpower in aviation, and now in foreign policy," detailed Boeing's influence in determining U.S. foreign policy.

We'll give a few morsels here, but it really won't do justice to these two long, slavering "analyses." It's worth your time to look them up yourself. The more entertaining is in the Times Web archive, at www.seattletimes.com. Just search for "boeing," and it's about the sixth or seventh one down. Here's a small sampling of what you'll find:

"Last year, Boeing held a meeting of its board of directors in Beijing in an unusual gesture of support for China and a subtle acknowledgement of the company's central role in U.S. foreign policy...Boeing is seen as a shining example of Clinton's vision of the corporate world...In that position, Boeing also gets the ability to make its opinions known and felt...After the [McDonnell Douglas] merger, Boeing will stand alone in the market as the 'American Supplier.' No matter what is said, it will be seen as a commercial extension of the U.S. government...a move was made in the U.S. Senate to restrict most-favored-nation (MFN) status for China...One of the first senators to oppose the move was Murray."

The other article recounted, in loving detail, all the high-tech weapons systems contracts that will come under Boeing's purview as a result of its purchase of Rockwell's "defense and space divisions." In toto, readers were, on this fine Sunday morning, treated to 60 gut-busting paragraphs giving us all the low down on Boeing's cuddly relationship with your friend and mine, the United States Government. They were treated, that is, only if they happened to read the Business section.

The Business section is also where to look for world news (since, of course, our happy Pacific Rimming state has no conceivable international interests other than trade). "The International Monetary Fund is helping to bail out [South Korea], but it's also imposing some stiff economic conditions. So Koreans have put a twist on the IMF moniker. The IMF now stands for 'I Am Fired.' If you are a business owner, it means 'I Am Failed.'" (1/30/98); "In return [for the $60 Billion IMF bailout] Korea said it will lift all capital-account restrictions and accelerate financial-industry reforms. South Korea also will allow banks to dismiss large numbers of employees, removing a key obstacle to acquisitions by foreign rivals." (12/26/97); "Politics may be delaying $2 Billion order, Condit says." (10/9/97); and then: "...keeping politics out of China's Boeing deal...'Clinton is embarrassed that his policy looks like commerce first.'" (10/28/97).

Consumer news, too: "Chrysler is recalling several makes of minivans and automobiles because of potential seat-belt and steering problems." (10/7/97); "U.S. consumers, weighed down by heavy credit-card debt, filed for bankruptcy in record numbers during the second quarter despite a buoyant economy." (8/16/97); "Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, for the second time in two months, is questioning Boeing's quality control...[a former 767 machinist] contends Boeing let quality control slip during a produciton and delivery slump in the late 1980's." (11/26/97); "Ford has launched a safety recall of 1.1 million vehicles in the U.S. and Canada." (11/1/97) Important information that you'd think the proles might be interested in. The question arises: do the corporate media intentionally "hide" what many would consider newsworthy items in the Business section, knowing that most people won't bother to read it (but that bosses and investors, who need to know how policy will effect their, um, interests, will)?

While Media Watch loves a good conspiracy theory as much as anybody, this question is irrelevant. Corporate media are not democratic institutions. They don't belong to us, they belong to advertisers. Like it or not, we aren't going to reform them. The important point is, we can glean valuable information from the corporate media, so long as we know where and how to look. Rather than banging our collective head against a brick wall, let's take what we can get from them, and then spend the bulk of our energy creating and/or supporting our own media.

MediaWatch is written every two weeks by members of the MediaWatch collective, a local group monitoring Seattle news media. Our next meeting will be Monday, Apr. 27 at 6:00 PM, 3rd floor Univ. Baptist Church (4554 12th Ave. NE in Seattle). For info or to get involved, e-mail mediawatch@u.washington.edu or call 206-632-1656.