News on the News: Fake News


Karlin
+1
#1
http://tinyurl.com/ky3ec

"how corporations use local news shows to sell their message"

Several examples of where a corporation produces a video and the local news channels show it for them, but make it appear that it is news. This will skew the viewer's awareness of the world, so it become a corporate one. It has happened allready...
 
fuzzylogix
#2
Yes, absolutely, the media blurs reality for us and presents things in a way to subvert the truth with rubbish.
 
Laika
#3
The media is just a filter!

Propaganda Model
 
Pangloss
#4
Commercial/political interests feeding stories to newsrooms is not news. . .F.A.I.R. has been telling this story for at least twenty years.

Having worked in newsrooms for better than twenty-five years, I know this issue well. It's no conspiracy; rather it is the careful use of the media by some very smart spin doctors and other media manipulators.

Let's say I have an issue that I want people to see my way. The best way to get the newsrooms to repeat my point of view without any contradicting voices is to make the story impossible to ignore and difficult to rebut.

How do I make the story impossible to ignore? If I am a Cabinet Minister or Captain of Industry, this is easy. I release the story to one newspaper or t.v. station and tell them they have an exclusive until tomorrow. Right there, the need to be first, to "break" the story, forces the newsroom's hand. If I am from a small community group, good luck. The story had better be pretty compelling for a news director to even take interest.

How about difficult to rebut? Also fairly easy; release the story to the press very close to the end of that day's news cycle. That was, the newsroom only has time to get my version out, and will have to wait until the next cycle, usually the next day, to find opposing voices. In the meantime, I've had a whole day to myself, and the first impression is often the one that sticks.

There are lots of websites that explain this way more exhaustively(sp?) than I think appropriate for a forum. You could start here: http://www.fair.org/index.php

Pangloss
 
snowles
#5
Not much to add to what Pangloss said; he summed it up perfectly.

Having worked for some years at a newspaper as well, I can attest to the sheer volume of propaganda that places try to pass off to the media as legitimate news. Whenever an announcement is made, about anything, the government has at least a dozen "press releases" sent to us by the time the story hits the media. Likewise, within minuntes of something happeneing, we are inundated with press releases from all sides of the spectrum; it was especially heavy (and equally disgusting) on September 11; within 5 minutes at least 50 of them were clogging up the fax machine and the email from politicians, spiritual leaders and the rest - how they were written so quickly I have no idea. I always found religious organizations and environmental groups to be the highest perpatraitors of this technique.

What shocks me though is how much the media is willing to use these "news" pieces verbatim. For example, its use and verbatim reprinting in the major media outlets re: technology and law vs. pirating of music, short of Ottawa University's Michael Geist, has been nothing short of sickening. Inflated and purely hypothetically delusional numbers from the CRIA, RIAA and MPAA are bandied about without even a second consideration of their inaccuracy and fictionalization.
 
eh1eh
+1
#6
Indeed. People tip their heads back, open their throats and let the mass media pour it in. I am very often branded a negitive nelly, but just as often I get the last laugh when a story comes out being 'not as portaited in the media'. Then I tell the naysayers, 'told you so'. But there is so much BS on the go sometimes you just can't tell.
 
Curiosity
+1
#7
Ahem.... did I miss the words "reporting honest reliable information" ???

The media seems to have forgone fact for fabrication and/or fiction in order to gain the readers' interest. News leaks gain more attention than a leader's speech to the nation.

Perhaps the public don't care or believe any more?

It is good to let "breaking news" settle in for a few days until the real situation finally emerges without hysteria.
Last edited by Curiosity; Mar 16th, 2007 at 05:35 PM..
 
Stretch
+1
#8
"News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress,
the rest is just advertising"
- Lord Northcliffe, British Press Baron


"Our job is to give people not what they want,
but what we decide they ought to have."
~Richard Salent, former President of CBS News.



"We tell the people what they need to know,
not what they want to know." ~~Frank Sesno, CNN News

 
eh1eh
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

"News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress,
the rest is just advertising"
- Lord Northcliffe, British Press Baron

"Our job is to give people not what they want,
but what we decide they ought to have."
~Richard Salent, former President of CBS News.


"We tell the people what they need to know,
not what they want to know." ~~Frank Sesno, CNN News

You see I view those quotes as bad. Do you think they're good Strech?
Last edited by eh1eh; Mar 16th, 2007 at 06:21 PM..Reason: sp
 
CDNBear
+2
#10
This is nothing new really. The broadcasters have actually gotten into the game themselves. Just look at the constant bombardment of pro kyoto/humans to blame pap, played adnauseum by the left agenda Canadian media. There is no hard equation, just theory, being sold as fact. The people love to be conned and doom and gloom sells ad spots.
 
Pangloss
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

"News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress,
the rest is just advertising"
- Lord Northcliffe, British Press Baron


"Our job is to give people not what they want,
but what we decide they ought to have."
~Richard Salent, former President of CBS News.



"We tell the people what they need to know,
not what they want to know." ~~Frank Sesno, CNN News

I find it difficult to argue with the above sentiments, cynical as Lord Northcliffe seems to be. Remember, of all the things that happen in a day, a news program or newspaper can only fit a tiny fraction into their paper/broadcast. So, the "news" is a filter, and good journalists realize this and try to do their job in the public interest. Some of course are more successful at this than others.

I might, as a newsperson, decide that a budget debate is more important news than pictures of the baby polar bear at the zoo. Guess which one gets the ratings.

It was always a difficult balance, the amusing and the ponderous.

Anyway, Salent and Sesno are being honest and are standing up to the responsibility of their profession with their comments.

Pangloss
 
Curiosity
-1
#12
Pangloss - you write:

Quote:

Anyway, Salent and Sesno are being honest and are standing up to the responsibility of their profession with their comments.

You realize of course you refer to the two most biased alphabets in the U.S. media spectrum of news broadcasting and selective journalism? How does that fit into responsibility of profession?
 
Pangloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

You realize of course you refer to the two most biased alphabets in the U.S. media spectrum of news broadcasting and selective journalism? How does that fit into responsibility of profession?

Oh, indeed, they might be great or they might be horrible - my exegesis was of those quotes, not their careers.

BTW, I had bias in all of my reporting: the fact of choosing one story over another was a bias. Editorializing is a different matter: I kept that to opinion pieces.

One way to get a more "balanced" view of the world or of an individual story is to seek several different sources with different editorial policies: as painful as it is to say, watching American news along with Canadian will usually leave you better informed than someone who watches only one or the other.

Actually, studies I've read suggest that television news usually leaves a person less informed than someone who abstains from the tube.

But that's another thread.

Pangloss
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Pangloss View Post

Oh, indeed, they might be great or they might be horrible - my exegesis was of those quotes, not their careers.

BTW, I had bias in all of my reporting: the fact of choosing one story over another was a bias. Editorializing is a different matter: I kept that to opinion pieces.

One way to get a more "balanced" view of the world or of an individual story is to seek several different sources with different editorial policies: as painful as it is to say, watching American news along with Canadian will usually leave you better informed than someone who watches only one or the other.

Actually, studies I've read suggest that television news usually leaves a person less informed than someone who abstains from the tube.

But that's another thread.

Pangloss

HEY!!!

I like you, I'm pickin' up, what you're throwin' down!!!

It's like how I get the T dot Sun and Star, roll them together and not only get a better picture of what's going on, but a really good roll of toilet paper too.
 
Stretch
#15
>>>You see I view those quotes as bad. Do you think they're good Stretch?<<<

No, I too think they are bad. they are a good indication of the mind control that goes on via the media
 
Pangloss
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

>>>You see I view those quotes as bad. Do you think they're good Stretch?<<<

No, I too think they are bad. they are a good indication of the mind control that goes on via the media

It ain't mind control - it's mind surrender. So many of us unquestioningly parrot the opinions of whatever mass media we consume that broadcasters are only too happy to tell us what to do. Rush Limbaugh refers to his audience as "dittoheads" - because they repeat his views so closely they might as well just use ditto marks.

Limbaugh isn't the only one - most of us have a magazine, radio program, or newspaper that we basically agree with, and we tend to be less skeptical of things we are historically in agreement with. So, to a greater or lesser degree, we are all a form of "dittoheads".

If we surrender our critical judgement, we can reclaim it. It just takes a little work.

Pangloss
 
Curiosity
+2
#17
Pangloss

I find it interesting - and something I learned by visiting forums on the internet - that most people have a topic of choice in which they seek affirmation rather than news.

Thus we have the one-sided devotion to a particular philosophy whether right or wrong which fits comfortably into one's social and moral thought patterns.

This habit is continued through all information seeking and even argument with oppositional thought.
Often without question.

I have had to push myself to examine all sides of hot button issues and even then cannot come to a decision, until one day when the hot "cools down" the dregs of reality take form and I can see past the dust storm created by the town criers in whichever medium they fit best.

Most people do not like to see the other side not will they alter their habits once the initial decision is made or until some life-altering pattern emerges to change their original thoughts.
 
Pangloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Pangloss

I find it interesting - and something I learned by visiting forums on the internet - that most people have a topic of choice in which they seek affirmation rather than news.

Thus we have the one-sided devotion to a particular philosophy whether right or wrong which fits comfortably into one's social and moral thought patterns.

This habit is continued through all information seeking and even argument with oppositional thought.
Often without question.

I have had to push myself to examine all sides of hot button issues and even then cannot come to a decision, until one day when the hot "cools down" the dregs of reality take form and I can see past the dust storm created by the town criers in whichever medium they fit best.

Most people do not like to see the other side not will they alter their habits once the initial decision is made or until some life-altering pattern emerges to change their original thoughts.

To that I am, quite humourously, a dittohead.

Pangloss
 
Curiosity
#19
Pangloss

LOL - my writing as degraded into that of a 90 year old grumpy soul..... I must get some chuckles going....

Thanks for yours!

Do you believe journalism in whatever form it takes can influence a nation of people into how that nation operates?

Or is it still in the hands of the people?

No I do not jest.
 
Pangloss
#20
Curiosity: What you say changes me; what somebody else says in a public forum changes many people. As long as we are listening, we are changed by most of the messages we recieve. Does that mean I can control people with my message? Open question.

Tyrants and warmongers can whip their populations into a bloodthirsty frenzy: but the audience had to be willing to go there in the first place. History has too many examples of this for this claim to be untrue.

Smart reporters know they might have a great deal of influence but very little power.

Pangloss.
 
Curiosity
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Pangloss View Post

Curiosity: What you say changes me; what somebody else says in a public forum changes many people. As long as we are listening, we are changed by most of the messages we recieve. Does that mean I can control people with my message? Open question.

Tyrants and warmongers can whip their populations into a bloodthirsty frenzy: but the audience had to be willing to go there in the first place. History has too many examples of this for this claim to be untrue.

Smart reporters know they might have a great deal of influence but very little power.

Pangloss.

Pangloss

Interesting answer thank you.

I believe the press can whip populations into a bloodthirsty frenzy as well.

For some strange reason we believe the voice or print delivering the message and never question the source of the message, to what degree of accuracy it is reported and how much "grab" the piece was given.

Frighteningly I think the press has a great deal of power because it is easily accessed and people are basically lazy in the area of doing their own homework.

Question: If you prefer to reserve an answer I will understand but I often ask it of press people.
"Would you knowingly print or read an untruth for whatever rationale you excused yourself in so doing?"
 
Pangloss
#22
My answer is brutally short: no I would not print a lie. If I cannot tell the truth, then I would say nothing.

But now, would I lie to stop a greater evil? I have no idea.

Pangloss
 
Curiosity
#23
Pangloss

Wonderful answer..... It contained some excellent thought. I would have to agree on the last part without reservation.

I'll leave you alone now as I have monopolized your time here.... thanks for being patient!
 
CDNBear
#24
Pangloss,

What is your take on the serious lack of objectivity, which in my view borders on a serious lack of integredy, among todays journalists?

No offence inteneded to you or your profession, just my opinion.

Example, the CBC and its material handlers and gatherers.
 
Pangloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Pangloss,

What is your take on the serious lack of objectivity, which in my view borders on a serious lack of integredy, among todays journalists?

No offence inteneded to you or your profession, just my opinion.

Example, the CBC and its material handlers and gatherers.

I wonder if it is objectivity that is being lost, or if narcissism is creeping out of editorials and into regular journalism.

I think it was Robert Fulford who said that a reporter should publish a sentence that starts with "I" or "me" only once every two years. Unfortunately, Rebecca Eckler and her ilk are the hot new properties in Canadian Print journalism, and their only topic is themselves. Every column is about their wedding, their in-laws, their travels, their thoughts. Yawn inducing navel-gazing.

Television follows (as it usually does, wherever thinking is involved) because liking the presenter is more important to viewer loyalty than thinking the show is smart or worthwhile. When I hosted shows or documentaries, I tried to work with the idea that I was mostly in the way of the information I wanted to get out, and so the best thing I could do was minimize "me" statements and simply present the story as well as I could.

Journalists, an introspective lot, have written a lot about this exact topic. I would suggest "Queen's Quarterly", an awesome Canadian magazine - about every third issue usually has a piece about how Canadian journalism is going to hell.

Now, what about political spin sneaking its way into reportage? Let me ask you this: if you were to explain the Canadian political system to a newcomer, could you do it without opinion or bias or personal perspective or whatever you wish to call it? Laziness and human nature is at the root of most of that kind of backhand editorializing.

Fox news does not apply to any of the above. I have no idea how to begin listing their crimes.

Pangloss

Pangloss
 
CDNBear
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Pangloss View Post

I wonder if it is objectivity that is being lost, or if narcissism is creeping out of editorials and into regular journalism.

I think it was Robert Fulford who said that a reporter should publish a sentence that starts with "I" or "me" only once every two years. Unfortunately, Rebecca Eckler and her ilk are the hot new properties in Canadian Print journalism, and their only topic is themselves. Every column is about their wedding, their in-laws, their travels, their thoughts. Yawn inducing navel-gazing.

Television follows (as it usually does, wherever thinking is involved) because liking the presenter is more important to viewer loyalty than thinking the show is smart or worthwhile. When I hosted shows or documentaries, I tried to work with the idea that I was mostly in the way of the information I wanted to get out, and so the best thing I could do was minimize "me" statements and simply present the story as well as I could.

Journalists, an introspective lot, have written a lot about this exact topic. I would suggest "Queen's Quarterly", an awesome Canadian magazine - about every third issue usually has a piece about how Canadian journalism is going to hell.

Now, what about political spin sneaking its way into reportage? Let me ask you this: if you were to explain the Canadian political system to a newcomer, could you do it without opinion or bias or personal perspective or whatever you wish to call it? Laziness and human nature is at the root of most of that kind of backhand editorializing.

Fox news does not apply to any of the above. I have no idea how to begin listing their crimes.

Pangloss

Pangloss

Excellent response,

To answer your question...

My exact answer to a newcomer would be, "Picture a day care, full of 5 yearolds, hi on sugar and food dies. Now remove all reason and logic. Got the mental image? Yep, good, that's the House of Commons!"

Is that biased?
 
BFGRW16-10-32
#27
It pays to read the news from several sources these days. Seems that the news is slated or being manipulated by some one with a special purpose in mind. One thing is for sure that when there is sensationalism involved in news from government or industry there is something in the background some one is trying to accomplish. Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts? That seems the farthest thing from the intent these days.
 
CDNBear
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BFGRW16-10-32 View Post

It pays to read the news from several sources these days. Seems that the news is slated or being manipulated by some one with a special purpose in mind. One thing is for sure that when there is sensationalism involved in news from government or industry there is something in the background some one is trying to accomplish. Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts? That seems the farthest thing from the intent these days.

Your train of thought is good, you made one lil slip up. Though I hate people who point out spelling or grammar errors, in this case, I'm going to point out one in your post, that is actually such a profound statement, I'm not sure if it was an error...

Quote:

Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts?

I think it should have said...

Quote:

Can the news be trusted to actually present facts?

But...

Quote:

Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts?

They do just that. They are producing the facts they want to sell to you. They follow the demographics and grope for their market share, by doing just that. That, IMHO, is where the MSM news outlets loses touch with reality. They change from reporters, to producers, conning the people in the process.

Sorry for disecting your post BFG, I ment no offence, I just though you hit the nail on the head, accidently or otherwise.
 
eh1eh
#29
Gotta agree Bear and BFG, This is the problem.
 
Toro
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Pangloss View Post

My answer is brutally short: no I would not print a lie.

My neither.

I have a billion dollars and look like a male supermodel.
 

Similar Threads

4
VNRs and fake news....
by mabudon | Nov 20th, 2019
9
The Fight Against Fake News Continues
by jjw1965 | Oct 8th, 2018
13
0
Good news; bad news
by Walter | Jun 10th, 2007
0
In the news....
by Shmad | May 31st, 2003