|
Banned
|
Thank you, Shauk.
Ustwo, Lindy, loquitur, MuadDib, our elected leaders, our military leaders, present and former, and out dominant corporate broadcasting news outlets have all achieved a new low....why have you come here to obscure what they have done, or to demonstrate that it is not as bad as I'm presenting it to be. If anything, it is worse. What motivates you, just an urge to shoot the messenger?
Quote:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...#_Toc197843505
Broadcast Journalism LAW AND POLICY ON SPECIFIC KINDS OF PROGRAMMING
Introduction. As noted above, in light of the fundamental importance of the free flow of information to our democracy, the First Amendment and the Communications Act bar the FCC from telling station licensees how to select material for news programs, or prohibiting the broadcast of an opinion on any subject. We also do not review anyone’s qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on the news; these decisions are the station licensee’s responsibility. Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion.....
.....News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: <h1>the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”</h1> The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html.
|
Quote:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=854690
May 09, 2008 16:08 ET
SPJ Leaders Express Concern Over Pentagon's Military Domestic Propaganda Operation
INDIANAPOLIS, IN--(Marketwire - May 9, 2008) - Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists today urged the nation's media to hold their military analysts to the same ethical standards journalists are required to meet concerning potential conflicts of interest, financial ties and relationships with government agencies.
SPJ leaders also expressed outrage at what an April 20 New York Times story revealed to be the federal government's willingness to use these analysts as a "media Trojan horse" to spread the administration's perspective on the Iraq war.
According to the Times story, the Pentagon, by controlling access and disseminating selective information about the war effort has co-opted some military analysts to generate favorable news coverage during the Iraq war.
In addition, the Times story showed that few national television networks understood their own analysts' financial ties to defense industry contractors doing business with the U.S. military. The story further illustrated that the media also does not understand the analysts' working relationship with the military that helps shape their views.
"The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration's war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized," wrote Times reporter David Barstow. "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." ....
|
Quote:
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...NION/805050310
May 5, 2008
You won't see it on TV
Military analysts tied to Pentagon contracts
It's hard to say who looks worse in the flap over tainted military analysts working for network television news operations: the Pentagon or the networks.
<h3>We vote for the networks.
That doesn't excuse the Pentagon, which engaged in a blatant propaganda effort it should have known was not just wrong, but eventually would be exposed.
But it was the responsibility of the networks to know whether the retired military officers they were presenting to their viewers as "objective" had, in fact, conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity.
At the very least they owed it to their viewers to reveal the conflicts so they could evaluate the analysts' commentary with the requisite grain of salt.
If you haven't heard much about this story from the networks, it is because they are doing their best to ignore it.</h3>
It was exposed by The New York Times, which found that dozens of retired high-ranking officers, supposedly providing independent on-air analysis of the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, were in fact closely tied to military contractors profiting from the conflicts, and to the Pentagon, which provided those contracts and, in many cases, the "talking points" these analysts would deliver on the air.
According to the Times, these "analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants."
What it means is the Pentagon was able to seed the networks with "analysts" the viewing public assumed to be honest brokers of commentary, when in fact they might have had a powerful vested interest in not just saying nothing the Pentagon or the administration might object to, but to support the war and/or how it was being conducted.
Certainly, no one can say that none of these officers ever offered viewers their own unvarnished views. But how likely is it that a retired officer, trying to win a contract for a defense firm, will go on the air and say the Pentagon or the administration had done anything wrong?
<h2>As for the Pentagon, once upon a time in America we believed that things like torture and covert propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens were wrong, and that only the bad guys did them.</h2>
Live and learn.
|
We, the people own the broadcast airwaves. The broadcast license revewals are under our control, of the broadcast radio and TV stations owned by the corporate media that did this, and who are now failing to report AT ALL....what has happened, and what they knew, when they knew it, and whether or not they followed their own policieis with regard to vetting the possible confliccts of interests of news consultants who they employ, quote, and put in front their network microphones to speak, should have been reported about, as soon as the NY Times article appeared in print, especially since the networks have failed to do it for the past seven years. Their braodcast licenses, all of them, should be pulled and auctioned to new bidders non-related to the current license holders. That is what would happen in a country where the people seriously valued the first amendment we are protected by, and who own and regulate that broadcast bandwidth spectrum that we own, control, and regulate.
Last edited by host; 05-10-2008 at 07:12 PM..
|