CDZ An idea regarding the American media

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,696
Reaction score
5,986
Points
280
Perhaps, given that bias is inevitable and profit is such a major driving force, media outlets should not claim to do journalism, but rather state their allegiance openly. That way you know going in that you are not going to get an unfiltered view of what happened but rather the story someone wants you to get. Then the discerning viewer could select the same story from multiple viewpoints and maybe arrive at the actual truth. The closest I've seen to unbiased political reporting is CSPAN plopping a camera down in Congress and just broadcasting everything the politicians say with no commentary. Naturally, that's boring as crap so no one wants to watch it.

The bottom line is, there is no easy answer that allows for both a free press AND reliable, unbiased truth in journalism.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
29,407
Reaction score
11,181
Points
900
So, you want an official arbitrator to tell folks what to think?

:eusa_think:

Mika Brzezinski: It's our job to control exactly what people think
No. How did you get that from my post?
Because that is what you get with your proposal.

How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media



After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

". . .
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.

The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business.

In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.. .. "


. .etc.

 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,109
Reaction score
25,477
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
So, you want an official arbitrator to tell folks what to think?

:eusa_think:

Mika Brzezinski: It's our job to control exactly what people think
No. How did you get that from my post?
Because that is what you get with your proposal.

How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media



After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

". . .
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.

The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business.

In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.. .. "


. .etc.

This body would have no connection to the government in any way, as I pointed out in the OP.
 
Last edited:

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
906
Points
140
A twenty four hr news program has to hype & blow every thing out of proportion in order to keep viewers glued to their station for hours. both sides of politically hard leaning 24 hour stations need to have their air time cut 75%. Life is much more interesting when we fill our life's with things more meaningful than being glued too the hate fest that is competing political points of opinion, rather than just mostly facts news. If we cant change it at least limit your viewing time.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,305
Reaction score
12,124
Points
2,180
When it comes to media I am uncomfortable with any sort of regulatory body.
I am too, actually. I'm trying to weigh the drawbacks vs. not doing anything.
Oh please we know exactly what you want.

Just look at Katie she was supposed to be an unbiased journelest (spl)
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
26,698
Reaction score
8,987
Points
900
Location
On a hill
You will get nowhere I am afraid.
America is a corporatocracy. That is, our central government is primarily a useful tool for corporate interest/special interest.
It has been this way since at least the late 1970's. And it will not change without a revolution or some extreme circumstance.
The SEC is a joke. IT OBVIOUSLY doesn't work.
A great example is big pharma. Since 2008 health insurance cost have risen 43%. (Thank you Obama, and thank you Trump for promising to reverse this trend...but doing nothing) What does Big Pharma have to do with it? Because medical prescriptions across the board have risen SHARPLY. Often 200% and more over the same period. Obamacare - DID ZERO TO EVEN ADDRESS IT, let alone do anything about it. In fact, Big Pharma's profits grew more AFTER Obamacare than before.
Remember the young CEO that was brought in before Congress to answer why he rose the price of a cancer drug something like 7000%?
Guess what? He wasn't even close to the only one. Pharma companies across the board have done this with 100s of drugs. And what we saw was Congress and the Senate doing their USUAL worthless posturing and sound bytes... and then DO NOTHING.
Those drugs they grandstanded about? - They are still as high as they were. NOTHING CHANGED.

The press is the same thing. Corporations took over the press. And the vast-vast majority of news organizations now exist to primarily serve corporate interest. Namely - distract and divide. You think the government is interested in doing anything about it? Why? They do the same thing. They both serve the same masters.
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
670
Points
163
Location
Texas
We need to go back to getting commentary and opinion shows away from the newscasts. How many here think that Tucker Carlson is a newscaster? Rachel Maddow? There are so many of them, and with the 24 hour cable shows shuffling them around between newscasts, many people mistake opinion for news.

From the link:
Early network TV shows featuring news analysis and commentary were strictly segregated from nightly newscasts. It applied to all three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a virtual pantheon of broadcast news giants like Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds, and Edward R. Murrow, followed this template.


Sadly, this is no longer a common practice. Networks on both the right and left of the political spectrum (a problem in itself) routinely cloud news reporting with personal “takes,” comments, and outright editorializing. This practice has helped undermine, if not completely destroy, the credibility of the national TV news media.

Everyone has become an instant expert or political operative more interested in scoring points for “their side.” This troublesome practice has only become more acute and widespread during the Trump presidency and the resulting political polarization.

Who can we trust? Is there still a TV network out there somewhere that plays it straight?



 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
26,698
Reaction score
8,987
Points
900
Location
On a hill
We need to go back to getting commentary and opinion shows away from the newscasts. How many here think that Tucker Carlson is a newscaster? Rachel Maddow? There are so many of them, and with the 24 hour cable shows shuffling them around between newscasts, many people mistake opinion for news.

From the link:
Early network TV shows featuring news analysis and commentary were strictly segregated from nightly newscasts. It applied to all three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a virtual pantheon of broadcast news giants like Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds, and Edward R. Murrow, followed this template.


Sadly, this is no longer a common practice. Networks on both the right and left of the political spectrum (a problem in itself) routinely cloud news reporting with personal “takes,” comments, and outright editorializing. This practice has helped undermine, if not completely destroy, the credibility of the national TV news media.

Everyone has become an instant expert or political operative more interested in scoring points for “their side.” This troublesome practice has only become more acute and widespread during the Trump presidency and the resulting political polarization.

Who can we trust? Is there still a TV network out there somewhere that plays it straight?



It did NOT get worse during Trump's 4 years. At all.
The only thing different was the efforts changed.
It was equally worse with Obama, only the media used what you described quite well to PROTECT Obama.
They used that method to ATTACK Trump.
And it worked.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
26,698
Reaction score
8,987
Points
900
Location
On a hill
This is America today........ PERIOD.

divide-and-conquer-cartoon-pinterest.jpg


And don't try to pretend you are not right there in the mix. The only question, is which side?
While the sheep citizens parrot their talking points, only concerned about blaming the other side - corporations and the government have done truly amazing bad things to us. Things they would have never gotten away with 2 generations ago.
But now... everyone is so involved in the cat fight they don't even notice.
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
670
Points
163
Location
Texas
It did NOT get worse during Trump's 4 years. At all.
The only thing different was the efforts changed.
It was equally worse with Obama, only the media used what you described quite well to PROTECT Obama.
They used that method to ATTACK Trump.
And it worked.
That it became more acute in the last four years weren't my words, and I don't believe that line either.

It's been pretty much a problem since cable TV came to town with the 24 hour news networks. So it's been going on for over thirty years. Protecting Obama and attacking Trump are just some of the results. Separate the talking heads from the newscasters and it should benefit everyone.

Some will still seek out Hannity to know what is going on, but some seek out youtube. Stupid cannot be fixed across the board.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
26,698
Reaction score
8,987
Points
900
Location
On a hill
2010 - Obamacare was enacted.... and look at drug prices. Coincidence??

drugs.png


Why is this in this thread?
Because this illustrates my point perfectly.
1) The government has done exactly fuck all about it but posture and have hearings... and then do shit.
2) We are all so distracted by our own involvement in the above cat fight to take a moment and even take notice.
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
2,940
Points
1,893
This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
Why don't you first work on not exterminating everything that doesn't agree with your tiny worldview, then we can talk about regulation.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,104
Reaction score
13,635
Points
1,100
Corporations will always have some sway in our government... It's the nature of capitalism, but this is too much.
This isn't the nature of Capitalism. This is the nature of Politics.

"When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold and legislators"


-- P.J. O'Rourke

We can't blame business people for buying politicians. We have to blame ourselves for electing politicians that require business to buy them in order to stay in business.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
90,120
Reaction score
22,399
Points
2,180
Location
in between
When it comes to media I am uncomfortable with any sort of regulatory body.
I am too, actually. I'm trying to weigh the drawbacks vs. not doing anything.
Educating people to be critical thinkers - to learn how to find sources, gage what is reputable/not reputable, recognize red flag language :dunno:
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,109
Reaction score
25,477
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
When it comes to media I am uncomfortable with any sort of regulatory body.
I am too, actually. I'm trying to weigh the drawbacks vs. not doing anything.
Educating people to be critical thinkers - to learn how to find sources, gage what is reputable/not reputable, recognize red flag language :dunno:
But who would do that? And why would people pay attention to it?
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
22,715
Reaction score
15,945
Points
2,365
This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
I knew a guy from pakistan and he claimed that the media in his county was free to tell the truth

and the government decides whats true and what isnt

I think he would approve of Mac1958’s idea
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,109
Reaction score
25,477
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
I knew a guy from pakistan and he claimed that the media in his county was free to tell the truth

and the government decides whats true and what isnt

I think he would approve of Mac1958’s idea
Another one who didn't read what I said.

Good thing I wasn't expecting much here.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,304
Reaction score
9,443
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
I don't accept your premise. For the most part, traditional media sources ( NYT, WP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, ) all have standards which allow us to trust their reporting.

When they fuck up, they retract and correct. They clearly wall off news and editorial content. The idea that the media is “left leaning” is accurate. But the reason for it is absolutely valid and unavoidable.

Good try, though.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
2,959
Points
198
Corporations will always have some sway in our government... It's the nature of capitalism, but this is too much.
This isn't the nature of Capitalism. This is the nature of Politics.

"When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold and legislators"

-- P.J. O'Rourke
If the government owns all the companies... It's a little hard for a company to buy a politician.

We can't blame business people for buying politicians.
Oh, if it's deemed illegal, you can bet your ass I can.

We have to blame ourselves for electing politicians that require business to buy them in order to stay in business.
That too. But I gave what I think the first step should be.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top