• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Corporate controlled news, how extensive is it?

Why do I consider this fake news?

Here's one reporting on this.

H.RES.895

Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.
Why wasn't a certain New York city newspaper that ran an unapologetic front-page story on this "secret" program to monitor bank data mentioned by name? Out of the well over eleven hundred words of this HR 895, four were remarkably absent.

The Wall Street Journal.
 
Why do I consider this fake news?

Here's one reporting on this.

H.RES.895

Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.

Why wasn't a certain New York city newspaper that ran an unapologetic front-page story on this "secret" program to monitor bank data mentioned by name? Out of the well over eleven hundred words of this HR 895, four were remarkably absent.


The Wall Street Journal.
I found and interesting addendum to your post while looking for more fake news.

Providence Journal: Does America's Press Believe in Freedom of the Press? (7/10/06) by John R. MacArthur
Lamenting "the Wall Street Journal's alarmingly mendacious suck-up response to the Bushwhacking of the [New York] Times" by government officials, who gave the Journal their version of the SWIFT surveillance story directly in hopes that the paper (in its editorial's words) "would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle."
What childish nonsense. Anyone who has spent five minutes in the news business knows the drill: A public official learns that an embarrassing story is about to break. The official or his subordinate tries to blunt the impact of the incipient scoop by giving some of the information to a competing news organization, preferably one that's friendlier to the official. Even if the competitor isn't that friendly, the official's dropping the information on that newspaper's reporter at the last minute forces the competitor to rush into print with a version more favorable to the official, if only because the reporter (in this case, Glenn Simpson) has had less time than his rivals (The Times's Eric Lichtblau and James Risen) to flesh out the story and find critical reaction. Meanwhile, the original version of the story, no longer exclusive, has lost some of its glamour.

"Straighter story" really means a story that is better for the Bush administration—which was evidently very worried about the "privacy angle." And, in fact, the Journal's version of the story cites not a single critic of the secret Treasury spying program. It does, however, feature lengthy quotes from Treasury Secretary John Snow...on just how scrupulous the government has been in respecting the privacy of non-terrorists. I'm sure that Wall Street Journal readers everywhere were relieved to learn from Snow that the spying program "is not 'data mining,' or trolling though the private records of Americans," and that "it is not a 'fishing expedition,' but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity." I couldn't have written it better in a press release.

Turns out the White House gave the story to the Wall Street Journal in order to get a better version out before the leaked one. No, you definitely don't hear any calls to charge the WSJ with treason. Let's see, was that an image problem or leaked information that would tip off the enemy in time of war? Wonder why we haven't heard much about the preemptive leak?

-
 
gumboot, take a look at that site I mentioned above and click on the chart and look at it for 10 minutes. Then come back and tell me if you don't have your answer.
And while you're at it, gumboot, you might want to spend some time actually reading the posts in the thread. Your comments show clearly you haven't read much of what's here.

The GAO stated why it was illegal for the government to produce VNRs without identifying the source.
"In a modest but meaningful way, the publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience. . . . In limiting domestic dissemination of the U.S. government-produced news reports, Congress was reflecting concern that the availability of government news broadcasts may infringe upon the traditional freedom of the press and attempt to control public opinion. See B-118654-O.M., Feb.12,1979."

You can’t trust the news.
The use of video news releases (VNR’s) by television news shows is on the increase. VNR’s are short videos produced to resemble TV news stories but their purpose is to sell you something. VNR’s are provided free to news programs and are used to a varying degree by all television news shows. They usually cost $6,000 to $10,000 to create and are typically distributed nationally via satellite feed. TV stations use them because they have limited budgets and VNR’s provide free content that they can easily plug into their news shows.

VNR’s are used by corporations to announce new products, do "damage-control" on negative publicity, and create positive attitudes toward their products or services. An example would be a "news clip" showing an interview with an expert who says that eating a particular food product has a health benefit. The viewers don’t know that the news clip is really a video news release paid for by the company that produces that food product.

And if you really think Nazi propaganda was factual, you haven't read much about that history either. Maybe you should start there.
 
Last edited:
Ok, let's go with that, it's a valid concern. Pick a news source. Any news source and identify the fake news?

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://news.myway.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=
http://abcnews.go.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/http://abcnews.go.com/

Let's find out exactly what it is you are talking about? I'm assuming you are not simply talking about some anecdotes but a systemic and pervasive problem, right? So you should be able to identify it, right?
If one could recognize the fake news, it would be less of an issue. On the other hand, there is a wealth of links to fake news on Google. Here are some more in addition to all the links in the OP. Frankly, I'm even more overwhelmed than I was overwhelmed by how pervasive the stuff is the more I look into it.

Here's what Source Watch had to say about the Center for Media and Democracy article in my OP:
This multi-media report is the result of an intensive ten-month investigation by CMD's senior researcher Diane Farsetta and research consultant Daniel Price. It documents for the first time how commercial propaganda -- fake TV news created by PR experts -- is being extensively broadcast as TV "news".

Wiki is always good for links.

This article lists example after example while describing various techniques and specific problems like Monopoly Media Manipulation & Suppression by Omission.

FAIR- Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has a wealth of examples, including the following:

Good News! The Rich Get Richer, Lack of applause for falling wages is media mystery
Media’s tendency to tacitly promote the official storyline came through in the decision by a number of outlets (ABC’s Good Morning America, NBC’s Today, CBS’s Early Show, CNN’s American Morning, 12/5/05) to “cover” Bush’s economic stumping with solo interviews of White House counsel Dan Bartlett; and in the ubiquitous tactic of bracketing straightforward information that might undermine the White House view as the detractions of “Democrats.”

Thus for the L.A. Times (12/6/05) it was only “Democrats” who were “not persuaded by Bush’s upbeat rhetoric, arguing that his policies, especially the across-the-board tax cuts, have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest segments of society.” Having devoted the first 15 of 17 paragraphs to unchallenged stenography of Bush and his advisers, AP’s account (12/5/05) offered a comment from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, prefaced with the line, “Democrats were quick to criticize the president’s speech.”

Ingenuous reporting of Bush rhetoric was pervasive, as with his exhortation of corporate America to “keep your promises” to workers. That phrase made headlines, but reporters merely wrote it down, rather than take the somewhat obvious step of researching Bush’s record on the issue. As David Sirota noted (Huffington Post, 12/6/05), a quick Google search would’ve shown Bush’s “major concrete action” in this arena to be his push to legalize controversial “cash balance pensions” schemes, though government auditors have said these reduce the pensions promised to longtime workers (New York Times, 3/9/03)....
and

Harper's: 'I Was a Mouthpiece for the American Military' (7/7/06) by Ken Silverstein
A former television news producer anonymously describes U.S. embedding policies so restrictive that "during her 45 days in Tikrit [in 2003 and 2004] she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq"—forcing her to conclude that "there was no balance. What we were doing wasn't real journalism."

[Information Minders?] She provided pool coverage for Reuters TV and Associated Press TV (which was fed to other media outlets). When insurgents attacked civilians, she told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.... But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm [reports of "civilians being killed or injured by American troops,"] her requests were invariably turned down.... "We wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the Public Information Officer for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark—and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said. The producer said that it was impossible to pursue stories frowned upon by the military—for example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops—because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own.

Truthout describes the extent of fake news provided by the Bush admin. and again offers many specific examples.
It is a sizable industry. One of its largest players, Medialink Worldwide Inc., has about 200 employees, with offices in New York and London. It produces and distributes about 1,000 video news releases a year, most commissioned by major corporations. The Public Relations Society of America even gives an award, the Bronze Anvil, for the year's best video news release.

Several major television networks play crucial intermediary roles in the business. Fox, for example, has an arrangement with Medialink to distribute video news releases to 130 affiliates through its video feed service, Fox News Edge. CNN distributes releases to 750 stations in the United States and Canada through a similar feed service, CNN Newsource. Associated Press Television News does the same thing worldwide with its Global Video Wire....

In the end, [Ms Ryan, a news caster in one of the VNRs that came to light] said, the jump to video news releases from journalism was not as far as one might expect. "It's almost the same thing," she said.

There are differences, though. When she went to interview Tommy G. Thompson, then the health and human services secretary, about the new Medicare drug benefit, it was not the usual reporter-source exchange. First, she said, he already knew the questions, and she was there mostly to help him give better, snappier answers. And second, she said, everyone involved is aware of a segment's potential political benefits.

Her Medicare report, for example, was distributed in January 2004, not long before Mr. Bush hit the campaign trail and cited the drug benefit as one of his major accomplishments.

The script suggested that local anchors lead into the report with this line: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare." In the segment, Mr. Bush is shown signing the legislation as Ms. Ryan describes the new benefits and reports that "all people with Medicare will be able to get coverage that will lower their prescription drug spending."

The segment made no mention of the many critics who decry the law as an expensive gift to the pharmaceutical industry. The G.A.O. found that the segment was "not strictly factual," that it contained "notable omissions" and that it amounted to "a favorable report" about a controversial program.

And yet this news segment, like several others narrated by Ms. Ryan, reached an audience of millions. According to the accountability office, at least 40 stations ran some part of the Medicare report. Video news releases distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including one narrated by Ms. Ryan, were shown on 300 stations and reached 22 million households. According to Video Monitoring Services of America, a company that tracks news programs in major cities, Ms. Ryan's segments on behalf of the government were broadcast a total of at least 64 times in the 40 largest television markets.....

On Sept. 11, 2002, WHBQ, the Fox affiliate in Memphis, marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with an uplifting report on how assistance from the United States was helping to liberate the women of Afghanistan.

Tish Clark, a reporter for WHBQ, described how Afghan women, once barred from schools and jobs, were at last emerging from their burkas, taking up jobs as seamstresses and bakers, sending daughters off to new schools, receiving decent medical care for the first time and even participating in a fledgling democracy. Her segment included an interview with an Afghan teacher who recounted how the Taliban only allowed boys to attend school. An Afghan doctor described how the Taliban refused to let male physicians treat women.

In short, Ms. Clark's report seemed to corroborate, however modestly, a central argument of the Bush foreign policy, that forceful American intervention abroad was spreading freedom, improving lives and winning friends.

What the people of Memphis were not told, though, was that the interviews used by WHBQ were actually conducted by State Department contractors. The contractors also selected the quotes used from those interviews and shot the video that went with the narration. They also wrote the narration, much of which Ms. Clark repeated with only minor changes.

As it happens, the viewers of WHBQ were not the only ones in the dark.

Ms. Clark, now Tish Clark Dunning, said in an interview that she, too, had no idea the report originated at the State Department. "If that's true, I'm very shocked that anyone would false report on anything like that," she said.

How a television reporter in Memphis unwittingly came to narrate a segment by the State Department reveals much about the extent to which government-produced news accounts have seeped into the broader new media landscape.

The explanation begins inside the White House, where the president's communications advisers devised a strategy after Sept. 11, 2001, to encourage supportive news coverage of the fight against terrorism. The idea, they explained to reporters at the time, was to counter charges of American imperialism by generating accounts that emphasized American efforts to liberate and rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq.

An important instrument of this strategy was the Office of Broadcasting Services, a State Department unit of 30 or so editors and technicians whose typical duties include distributing video from news conferences. But in early 2002, with close editorial direction from the White House, the unit began producing narrated feature reports, many of them promoting American achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq and reinforcing the administration's rationales for the invasions. These reports were then widely distributed in the United States and around the world for use by local television stations. In all, the State Department has produced 59 such segments....

The 'Good News' People: A Menu of Reports From Military Hot Spots

The Defense Department is working hard to produce and distribute its own news segments for television audiences in the United States....

Examples of VNRs

More VNRs
 
Last edited:
Regarding Democracy Now: I wish there was a program with DN's subject choice, but someone else reporting. I used to like the show, but after a while you notice the slant and feel like you're not getting all the facts.

I do still love it when she hosts a debate--and someone on an opposing side agrees to talk. The results are often quite interesting.
 
Regarding Democracy Now: I wish there was a program with DN's subject choice, but someone else reporting. I used to like the show, but after a while you notice the slant and feel like you're not getting all the facts.

I do still love it when she hosts a debate--and someone on an opposing side agrees to talk. The results are often quite interesting.
Just what facts are you not getting? Not enough Republican talking points puppets on the interview list for you or what? I can understand the previous post about Goodman's personality and/or personal bias grating on some people's nerves, but to claim you aren't getting all the facts on Democracy Now is ludicrous. You'll have to be more specific if you want to make your point about not getting all the facts.

The people interviewed are who they are. Their positions are clearly identified. You judge for yourself how slanted or not their perspective is. Everyone sees things from their own point of view no matter who you are.

For example, I trust I am getting the whole story from an unembedded Iraqi reporter in Baghdad who at least is reporting on what he has seen. I certainly don't trust an embedded American reporter being led around by the nose by some 'military minder"'to be giving me the whole story.

If there was an equally direct news program which choose more people to interview from the 'right', it would be well worth watching. But right now, the people representing the 'right' are people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Republican Party spokespeople, scripts in hand. These folks don't put out stuff with first hand knowledge. They put out distorted facts and outright lies. Bias is one thing, Swift Boat fabricated attacks are quite another.

The guy from Al Jazeera news relating the story about the Blair/Bush memo where Bush discusses bombing the Al Jazeera broadcast station in Qatar is clearly biased in how he sees the events. If it was your news agency the memo talked about bombing, who wouldn't have a point of view about it? But the events are real, the memo was real and verifiable. If someone honest from the State Department was to be interviewed and said something to the effect the memo was fake and here's the evidence; or, we contemplated the mission because we believed Al Jazeera was inciting a riot but in our process of checks and balances we decided the mission was not allowable, then you'd have an interview of the other side of the story.

But instead you have a State Department that likely didn't care about what was allowable and knew their actions were very UNdemocratic and hypocritical and certainly didn't want their real side of the story out there. So perhaps a look at why "all the facts" are not in Goodman's presentations is worth some thought.
 
Just what facts are you not getting? Not enough Republican talking points puppets on the interview list for you or what? I can understand the previous post about Goodman's personality and/or personal bias grating on some people's nerves, but to claim you aren't getting all the facts on Democracy Now is ludicrous. You'll have to be more specific if you want to make your point about not getting all the facts.
Democracy Now seems like a way biased source to me. (I'm admittedly an irregular listener.) Do you have any thoughts how we could test our opinions about them? Such as, we could pick a topic, outline a range of reasonability, then see if DN's coverage fairly represents that range. (In a new thread maybe?)

I enjoy this thread btw -- thanks.
 
Democracy Now seems like a way biased source to me. (I'm admittedly an irregular listener.) Do you have any thoughts how we could test our opinions about them? Such as, we could pick a topic, outline a range of reasonability, then see if DN's coverage fairly represents that range. (In a new thread maybe?)

I enjoy this thread btw -- thanks.
All news sources are biased, some more than others. The problem changes from bias to propaganda when the news is purposefully biased and includes fake or known distortions of the facts.

If the news media put out these video news releases and said, "this is a VNR from _________" there would be less of an issue. If the news media said, "we are only going to give one side of this story because we sell the product the story covers" there would be less of an issue. If the government didn't make fake Jessica Lynch rescue videos or knowingly claim a sports hero died in heroic combat when they knew full well he was killed by friendly fire, there would be less of an issue.

You can explore the accuracy and fairness of Democracy Now in this thread. The point isn't fairness in coverage, it's honesty and integrity in coverage but if you think the bias on Democracy Now results in distorted point of view, then it needs to be discussed. If OTOH, you want to see if DN balanced its real news with an appropriate dose of fake news, I'll be happy to take you on.

How about seeing if DN is covering both sides of the current Israeli invasion of Lebanon?

Let me pose some criteria.
  • Who is being killed on both sides?
    Who started the latest round? (But keep in mind it really started thousands of years ago or at least in 1967 depending on your definition of the crisis.)
    Who stands to gain?
    Who controls Hezbolah and Hamas?
    What is the world's opinion, not just George Bush's?

And after you've looked at DN, try the same questions on CNN's or MSNBC's coverage. (We already know FOX news is fake news) It might also be interesting to see what Al Arabia or Al Jazeera had to say as well.
 
This article lists example after example while describing various techniques and specific problems like Monopoly Media Manipulation & Suppression by Omission.
From your link.

In sum, the news media's daily performance under what is called "democratic capitalism" is not a failure but a skillfully evasive success. We often hear that the press "got it wrong" or "dropped the ball" on this or that story. In fact, the media do their job remarkably well. Media people have a trained incapacity for the whole truth. Their job is not to inform but disinform, not to advance democratic discourse but to dilute and mute it. Their task is to give every appearance of being conscientiously concerned about events of the day, saying so much while meaning so little, offering so many calories with so few nutrients.
Like this?

Samuel Beckett, the peerless Irish playwright, is widely regarded as the epitome of art for art's sake aestheticism. He hated salesmanship of any kind, famously describing it as “mercantile gehenna.” Yet, despite his anti-business reputation, Samuel Beckett is a perfect role model for our paradoxical times. His “fail better” philosophy is very much in keeping with today's creativity-driven, hyper-competitive, warp-speed world of fads, fashions, and here-today-gone-tomorrow consumer crazes. This article argues that, in a world where every organization is customer oriented and every executive is au fait with best textbook practice, Beckett's idiosyncratic esthetic encapsulates several salient secrets of business and branding success.
From the Harper's essay, Godot For It, that examines this article: Fail Better! Samuel Beckett's Secrets of Business and Branding Success:

There's more to marketing than selling solutions: the problems for which we have solutions have to be sold as well.

It follows, then, that instead of continuing to pander to customers, it's time to become more Beckett-like in our dealings with them. Rather than strive to be ever more consumer-centric, it is better to become congenitally concept-centric; that is, to situate the brand, the product, the service, the offer, the message, the experience, or the something we're selling at the center of the corporate universe. That's what all great brands do, and that's how great businesses are built.
 
Well did you need whiter shirts until you heard about Tide detergent? Does it matter if you take "8 pills" in a day for your arthritis pain? You could be taking 2 pills, clearly something you needed.

Marketing the problem is as common as rice.
 
For those of you still not getting the point of this thread, try the Plame game of disinformation:

Look at all the different sources of misinformation about the Valerie Plame outing. How is this not a concerted effort, either via retarded reporters and planted talking points, or by a knowledgeable effort on the part of the news media owners/editors/ &/or friends of Bush?


This one took the prize:

Napolitano made the false -- and absurd -- claim that Wilson listed Plame's CIA employment in Who's Who entry

And to steal the joke from Al Franken, they scripted the news broadcast like an infomercial.
NAPOLITANO: And he has indicated that he learned who Valerie Plame was from her husband's listing in Who's Who in America.

DOOCY: Wait a minute. A book that anybody could just check out of the library? That's where her name came from?

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely. And guess who decides what goes in your listing in Who's Who? You do. So therefore, it is Mr. Wilson who told Who's Who to put that his wife was a CIA operative.
 

Back
Top Bottom