The Media and the Corporate Manipulation of Public Opinion

The Corporation

The Corporation is a documentary that critically explores the role of corporations in society and the global economy. It uses the premise that if corporations were legally persons, their behaviors would be seen as psychopathic, because they put profits before all else—before people, before society’s needs, before the environment: profits are all that matter to the corporation. Yet governments are virtually controlled by them through special interest groups and lobbying firms that represent the interests of these same corporations. They get legislation passed that benefits them through regulatory capture. They muscle out smaller competition and keep the market all for themselves so that they can increase the profits. They benefit from and exploit total war. They are not held responsible (unless slaps on the wrist equate to accountability) when their actions harm the public. Overall, the documentary shows that the corporation is a legal way for people (investors, mainly) to get rich without ever having to justify themselves or their actions to the public. They can hide behind the corporate veil.

The film provides several examples of corporations' behaviors that are grossly problematic. For instance, it shows how corporations regularly engage in exploitative labor practices (especially by off-shoring labor to the Third World, where labor laws barely exist), environmental degradation, lobbying for favorable laws, and manipulating public opinion via advertising and control over media. The documentary shows that the corporation controls or influences virtually every sphere of society: its hand is on all the levers. As a result, this control has devastating effects when it comes to democracy and the politics of public opinion.

The documentary also makes the argument that corporations significantly manipulate public opinion through advertising and media control. This power is not merely about selling products or services; rather, it includes molding consumer behavior, perceptions, and societal norms in ways that align with corporate interests. In other words, the documentary puts forward the idea that corporations are virtually involved in brainwashing the public to buy and love their products. It is a good argument and one that works.

For example, corporations use sophisticated psychological techniques in advertising to shape consumer behavior and to get people to desire their products. Some advertising strategies are designed to create perceived needs where none really exist or existed. This in turn drives demand for new products. As a result, people are not just passive receivers of information but rather are steered towards particular beliefs and behaviors. They become consumers. They live to consume the products the corporations make. There is not really a need for a car that produces 700 horsepower—but TV commercials create that need through advertising, and car magazines play into a car culture that drives the industry.

This is particularly significant when one considers how public opinion influences policy and legislation. If corporations can sway public opinion through their marketing strategies and media influence, they can indirectly shape policies that favor their interests. That is why an informed citizenry is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society, and the potential manipulation of public opinion by corporations can undermine this (American Government, n.d.).

In terms of media control, corporations often own or heavily sponsor media outlets. They produced the first soap operas so that they would have a vehicle for advertising their products. The entertainment industry is there to support the corporations that advertise. And that includes the news shows. This could potentially lead to biased news coverage that aligns with the corporation's interests. In fact, it has in the past and still does today. With Pfizer, for example, sponsoring news programming, no news outlet dared question Pfizer vaccine safety during the COVID hysteria. News narratives could be skewed to represent corporations favorably and downplay any harmful actions or implications—and they have done just this. What this means is that the public does not get a balanced perspective on issues, and thereby the corporation is distorting public discourse. It leads people, in turn, to look for unbiased news elsewhere—like in alternative media or the technological citizenship. It leads to people like Elon Musk buying Twitter so as to make it a bastion of free speech. When corporations start insisting that Big Tech companies censor or silence voices crying out that might harm corporate interests, things like this can happen. It is called blowback.

But this type of action on the part of corporations is routine and has been going on for years. This media control becomes more concerning when one thinks about the lack of media diversity. With fewer independent outlets, the public is exposed to a narrower range of perspectives.

Coming to the question about the functioning of the American political system: the film presents an argument that could be seen as supporting both viewpoints. On the one hand, it depicts a system where corporate influence is unchecked, suggesting that the political system is not working as intended. On the other hand, the film could be seen as demonstrating a political system working exactly as it was designed to – protecting property rights and facilitating commerce, albeit with unintended negative consequences.

Yet, in Federalist #10, James Madison argues that factions, groups united by a common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or the community, are inevitable in a free society. However, the danger comes when a faction gains so much power that it begins to undermine the rights of others or the stability of the society. In Madison's view, a large republic like the United States, with a diverse array of interests, would prevent any single faction from gaining too much power.

The Corporation" raises questions about whether corporations, as a faction, have gained too much power and influence. If one considers the influence that corporations wield through their economic power, lobbying efforts, and control of media and public opinion, it should become abundantly clear that they do indeed represent a very powerful faction within society. The film thus argues that corporations have accumulated so much power that they can effectively dictate terms to society and governments, challenging the balance of power that Madison envisioned. In other words, the documentary pulverizes The Federalist notion of security—or what Madison peddled as basically a false sense of security to the American public.

The rule of the corporation could also be seen as a distortion of the pluralistic model of democracy that Madison proposed. Pluralism suggests that power should be distributed among many groups in society, thereby ensuring a balance where no single group can dominate (American Government, n.d.). However, if corporations have indeed gained disproportionate influence, it could be argued that they are skewing this balance and undermining the pluralistic nature of society. The government exists to represent the businesses—not the people.

In a broader context, this situation raises questions about the efficacy of current mechanisms for balancing power and protecting the public interest. It highlights the need for stronger regulations and controls to ensure corporations act in the public interest. It shows that there is a big need for government regulation and public pressure to counterbalance corporate influence. But can the public apply such pressure? How? If the backlash to Bud Light’s recent campaign to promote transgenderism is any indication, such pressure can perhaps be applied through the purse—by boycotting.

Still, one criticism of the film could be its overall negative portrayal of corporations. Not all corporations act irresponsibly, and some contribute positively to society and the economy. The film kind of paints all corporations as being huge, evil organizations. Yet corporations do create jobs, some do spur innovation, many contribute to economic growth, and often provide essential goods and services. Some corporations also engage in responsible practices, such as environmental sustainability, fair labor practices, and community development initiatives. They may even leverage their influence to champion social causes or support cultures that mean something to people. Perhaps a more nuanced view of the subject would recognize the duality of corporations. The documentary could have been deeper and maybe less sensational by showing that corporations can be sources of both societal harm and benefit, often simultaneously. That might have provoked more discussion and perhaps less outrage. How to maximize their benefits and minimize their harms would have been a great question to explore. But the film does not go deeply into the subject.