Heather Welch

Fall 2002

Magazine Analysis

Questioning the Media: Who Owns Who?

As I passed through my campus convenience store the other day, I grabbed a copy of the October issue of People magazine. Though not an avid reader of any magazine in particular, I have been known to skim a couple issues from the limited selection of magazines in my doctor’s office. People is almost always among this selection. As I flipped through my newly-purchased issue, I noticed that plugs for “AOL” and “Warner Brothers” appeared among several advertisements. They were subtle, but definitely present. My curiosity was sparked and I decided to further research the maze of names in the tangled web of media ownership. After a great deal of frustration and shock, I came to the undoubted conclusion that People magazine is nothing but a carefully organized booklet-form advertisement for the enormous media conglomerate AOL-Time Warner.

My first hint was an advertisement for author Sandra Brown’s new book entitled “The Crush.” Directly beneath the picture of the novel, her association with “Warner Books” is printed in large, bold script. “Warner Books” is then further identified as “An AOL Time Warner Book Group” in smaller, fainter type. At a glance, most readers would skim this ad and not think twice about its connection to higher ownership. Having recently learned about the five main media companies and their control of most of the market, however, I began to pay closer attention.

Sure enough, more examples of the AOL-Time Warner began to surface as I flipped through my People magazine. An advertisement for the movie Queen of the Damned is pictured with a Pay-Per-View plug. The movie is presented by Warner Home Video, another sublet of AOL-Time Warner. Another more obvious advertisement featured Time Magazine, observably owned by AOL-Time Warner, on a full page and a half of the issue. In addition, several smaller references appeared in advertisements, such as one for Doubleday Book Club that recommended an AOL Keyword to give more information on-line.

At this point, I began to research the ownership of People Magazine and my suspicious were proven correct: People is owned by AOL-Time Warner. So what? Okay, they choose their ads to help their company. Isn’t that the purpose of advertising anyway? I was not too disturbed by this discovery. As I thought more about it, however, I began to wonder about the actual content of the magazine. The same famous faces are pictured repeatedly in all of the issues. Most of these celebrities are either musicians or actors and actresses, both of whom are represented by a company label in all aspects of their career. If the creators of People, and in essence, AOL-Time Warner, select ads for products they own, would they go so far as to only feature the stars they represent?

The first face that came to mind was Jennifer Lopez. She was all over the place in my issue of People, being featured in an advertisement for her new perfume, “Glow,” and also on the cover for her involvement with the VH1 fashion awards. As I leafed through the issue, looking for the VH1 feature of J-Lo, I was shocked to find that the article was a general overview of many stars that attended. Jennifer Lopez was pictured standing next to David Bowie- and that’s it. There was no write up, no quote, no nothing. So why would she have been shown on the magazine cover for such a minor mention? Suspicious, I went to J-Lo’s official web-site and found that her contract is with Sony—a recording label with which AOL-Time Warner has many “joint-ventures.” Coincidence? I highly doubt it. In this case, Jennifer Lopez is used by People as a tool to attract her many fans in an effort to sell this magazine and inevitably, to make money for the huge media conglomerate, AOL-Time Warner. Thanks to ownership cross-connections, this deceptive practice is not only allowed, but is likely a common procedure in many companies.

As I flipped to the front once more, I examined the cover story—“A Mother’s Crisis: Faith Renewed.” It described Faith Hill’s frightening experience with her daughter’s premature birth. I read the article and though it was certainly a serious time for Faith and her family, it was made to sound more dramatic than the event actually was. The article took up six pages in the issue and quickly moved from her “motherhood crisis” to her new album “Cry” and overall career success. If one were strictly going by the cover, it would be assumed that the article mainly covers the premature birth of her daughter. This, however, was not the case. I researched Faith Hill’s label, which turned out to be Warner Brothers, also owned by AOL-Time Warner. By highlighting the success of Faith Hill and promoting her new album, AOL-Time Warner is trying to boost her sales and consequently, make more money off of her. And so the cycle continues.

Sarah Brown, Queen of the Damned, Time Magazine, Jennifer Lopez, Faith Hill—they all tie back to AOL-Time Warner. I am certain that if I had time to further research the background of more ads and celebrities in People, my point would be further proven. Since AOL-Time Warner is so powerful in the “media scene,” it maintains the ability to control a huge part of our lives through television, movies, books, internet sites, and as I learned, magazines. These people not only decide who and what we see, but they control how we see them. It is dangerous when a corporation has the ability to monitor our perception of the world to such a great extent. It just goes to show that in today’s society, it is fundamentally impossible to escape bias.