BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Fake news in the US

  
 
sleazenation
10:01 / 30.05.06
This thread is reall prompted by this report that the FCC is investigating over 700 incidents of "items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news."

Many of the politically produced fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq.

This strikes me a particularly worrying development. I am a bit alarmed that broadcasters are adopting what appears to be a 'all he disinformation we're paid to print' policy.

Having said that, I can easily see how such things could happen - lazy editorial staff accepting contributiuons that free up a chunk of their budget to be re-allocated elsewhere - propritors seeking to push their own political agenda.

I can also see the use for propaganda, I can also see how such things can be exploited by failing or less than perfect governments.

So, yeah what do people make of this news - are you worried that the news you are watching is being presented as free and impartial when it is anything but?
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
12:09 / 30.05.06
I think we can all agree that all news is biased in some way, so from that point of view, no, it isn't shocking to hear that the news isn't "fair and balanced".

I'm just glad to hear that the FCC is finally bringing this to light, instead of letting the media rot away as it has up until now.
 
 
Ganesh
12:15 / 30.05.06
I think there's a difference between hearing the news isn't fair and balanced and hearing it's the uncritical regurgitation of paid propaganda. The situation strikes me as similar to that of much big pharmaceutical research (and I'm thinking about this because I've just posted about it in the social anxiety Conversation thread), where respected 'names' are essentially bought by the multinationals and paid lavishly (directly or indirectly) to present heavily biased marketing in the guise of independent research.
 
 
w1rebaby
13:01 / 30.05.06
I think it's been appreciated for some time that the best way to get your talking point into the news is to make things as easy as possible for journalists - even if they then add in another talking head for a bit of "balance", you're still dictating the agenda. All sensible people looking for publicity have press packs nowadays, for instance. Rolling news is particularly susceptible to this due to its very nature of constantly requiring something to feed it, no matter what.

The Republican campaign during the last election made things even easier by not only providing talking points, but also having a bunch of pundits ready-primed to talk about them whenever desired. Now that saves loads of time for a harried editor. It's not a big step from that to actually just making the damn report yourself and sending it out.

Given that there's precious little actual investigative reporting that takes place (let alone analysis - that would be bias!) and that modern news media channels are mostly just aggregators of other people's press releases anyway, I wonder if this isn't the way of the future - a series of party broadcasts from interest groups. Here's the Republican story. Now here's the Democrat story. Here's the ACLU's video, now here's the Minutemen's video and so on. That's really what they do now, only they have to put it all together themselves. Think of the time and money saved!
 
 
Slate
17:49 / 30.05.06
So did anyone catch this story 6 months ago how the U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press. If so then the above piece of news shouldn't appear that out of place really. More reports from months back can be found here and here and even here and here. There is the Lincoln Group who own Iraqex doing their bit for the US Military's JPOSE (Joint Psychological Operations Support Element) to brainwash everyone with a eyes and ears in Iraq that everything is totally cool. Some more information here as well.

I find it saddening that in Iraq it is called Psyops, but everywhere else in the western world it is a mixture of marketing, news media and current affairs.

I got my healthy dose of cynicism from doing corporate Audio Visual events for 10 years and most events were plain corporate propaganda.

I can back up what Ganesh says entirely:

where respected 'names' are essentially bought by the multinationals and paid lavishly (directly or indirectly) to present heavily biased marketing in the guise of independent research.

The Pharmaceutical companies, yes. I don't know how many gigs I used to do sitting in hotel ballrooms full of medical specialists and some hospital GP's all decked out in bow ties eating the best meal on the banquet menu, drinking the most expensive wine and listening to this respected 'name' warble on through a power point presentation about how this new drug will be the best thing yet. After the expert finishes his diatribe the Pharmaceutical GM would pop up on stage, and I am NOT making this up, he would offer incentives like trips away abroad for entire families for the person who could sell the most scripts for their new wonder drug within a certain period of time, yes, it was a competition to sell sell sell those drugs.

So Ganesh, what is the difference here? None for me because the 'fair and balanced' tag can only be applied to the total news coverage. OK so when the evening news is made up of a mixture of paid hard sell stories(VNR's) after something that might be in fact real news, then promoting this entire segment as all news is simply wrong. Or have I mistaken your point here? You seem to leave it up to the individual to decide, but most people out there cannot and in some cases will not, and trust the idiot box that it is all true.

Information and where you get it from is one of the biggest PR battles going on right now. Your mind and opinions are the goal posts and massive amounts of money are being spent to get in your face, through all and every means necessary. The FCC are just a means to an end, and they don't have a squeaky clean past either but that is for another thread on another day.
 
 
Tsuga
00:46 / 20.04.08
Today's NY Times has a great piece of investigative journalism about many of the "military analysts" that commonly appear on news programs, and how they are often far from impartial in their information dispersal; beyond the expected militaristic viewpoint, they are often in the employ or on the boards of defense contractors who stand to make a great deal of money off of the war, and at times the Pentagon will use the promise (or threat of loss) of high-level access or military contracts to sway these people. It's not that it's much of a surprise, but it's a great example of a journalist knowing where to look for things and digging out the details, some of which were not that hard to find— it just took the looking in the first place.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
 
 
grant
01:28 / 01.05.08
I have a feeling the silence greeting this announcement is an utter lack of surprise.

Which is kind of sad.
 
  
Add Your Reply