Government Manipulation of a Free Press
 

I inadvertently created a threadjack in dksuddeth's topic when I brought up my belief that our main stream press has shirked it's responsibilities in providing a check to government excesses.

Shakran and then Host gently disabused me of some of my romantic notions regarding the Fourth Estate, but I believe there is much yet to discuss. I will repeat the relevant posts here with the hope of continuing that dialogue.

I began the discussion with this whine:

To my knowledge, the New York Times remains mum on why they held the information of NSA spying on Americans for a year. It irritates me that our msp also gave this story a pass before the war began in Iraq. How do the "people" hold their free press accountable?

(The link is not necessary for this discussion)

Shakran responded with this post:

Simple. You stop subscribing to that newspaper, or quit watching that news cast, and send a letter to the media outlet explaining what they did and why that means you won't be watching them anymore.

Now understand that we get all SORTS of crackpot letters like that - We just got a letter this week saying they won't watch our station anymore because the meteorologist dresses too sloppy (didn't button his jacket one day) - so don't expect immediate change. However, if enough people write similar letters (I'm not buying your newspaper anymore because you're covering up the news rather than reporting it) and they see subscriptions (and therefore also advertising revenues) go down, then maybe management will get the message and remember that we are journalists, not political stooges.

I responded:

Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?

Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."

I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News.

We (the people) endured five years of msm obsequiousness to this administration. The only reason the press has returned to the role of government watchdog, in my opinion, is that they perceive the administration as weakened. This "watchdog" sells news for profit, just like any whore.

Shakran, this rant isn't directed at you or your obvious integrity. The Miller's, Woodward's and others that sold their journalistic integrity for personal or monitary gain have earned the wrath of everyone still believing in an independent press, including yourself.

Perhaps that is the key to accountability? Censure by your peers might be far more effective than getting cranky with my local paper that depends on national feeds.

Shakran responds:

Yes I do, and here's why. You're entirely correct that news stations (and most journalism outfits, not just TV, btw) are owned by large corporations.

So attacking it from a "journalists should tell the story no matter what because it's the right thing to do" perspective won't work. Oh, you'll convince us alright, but then we're already convinced so that's not necessary.

What you need to do is attack it from a "holy shit, you're gonna lose a CRAPload of money" perspective. Right now the large corporations think the American public wants more reality shows and less news. And they think what news you do want must be chock full of entertainment value. And you don't want much international news because "those funny names are hard to pronounce" and "other countries are so far away from us."

So, a mass movement of the public needs to prove them wrong. Whether its TV, radio, or newspaper, profit is the bottom line. And the only way to make more money is to get more eyeballs on your news product. If masses of people write in and say "I'm not gonna look at your product unless you start acting like real journalists again" then the bosses will either respond by turning their journos loose to do their jobs, or face the consequences when they lose viewer/readership.

Now the problem with this little scheme of mine is manyfold. But the big problem is (i'm switching to only TV here since that's my area) viewers are MUCH more likely to write in to complain about what clothes the anchor wore or the way the meteorologist talks than they are to write in and complain about the integrity and thoroughness of the journalism. So getting that mass movement together is going to be very tough.




you're largely correct, but that is overly simplified. First off, this didn't start with Bush. It would be more accurate to say it started with Reagan, who abolished the fairness doctrine. Second, journalists haven't abdicated anything. The press didn't abdicate anything. Unfortunately, the press and TV stations are two different things. The news department is only one part of a TV station. The higher ups at TV stations are the ones making the decision to sell out to large corporations. Ask just about any TV journalist and our dream is to start our own TV station that's staffed entirely by journalists and that delivers the news the RIGHT way. Unfortunately since the average TV journalist makes between 20 and 40 thousand a year, getting the funds together to actually do this is very unlikely.






Well first off if you really pay attention the msp can still help you out. Look at the justification to the Iraq war for instance. Look at Colin Powell's speech to the UN that supposedly proved Iraq had WMD. Now I saw the same speech you did, many outlets carried it live, and CP had butkus for evidence. That was obvious to me, and to many others. The information IS out there if you make the effort to find it. Unfortunately most people don't want to make that effort.




And that's a HUGE problem with the American press. Media execs have decided you guys don't WANT international news. They've decided you can't understand international news even if you do want it.

I personally think that's bullshit. One of the most-watched series EVER was a multipart look into conditions in Africa. The ratings were through the roof. If we as journalists make world news available to you, you will consume it.

Now, we're starting to get into an interesting age. With satellite radio, and the internet, it's not very hard at all for you to fire up a BBC broadcast. You CAN get the international news you want. You just have to want it. And if you can't find it from an American news outlet, go find it from the BBC.






One of the problems there is with this concept of media bias. Higher ups at the outlets are so scared that the public will label them as biased, that they bias themselves toward bad coverage. We're so scared you'll think we're liberally biased if we tell you Bush screwed up, that we won't tell you bush screwed up unless someone else SAYS Bush screwed up.

The press used to go out and dig up the facts. Now they largely sit around waiting for some group to dig up the facts, then report it as "these guys say .. . " to avoid bias. Unfortunately, we're also avoiding our jobs when we do that.

Who's at fault for that? Well, partly the guys who scream "media bias" every time the media reports something they don't like. The rest belongs squarely with the media bosses who kowtow to that kind of manipulative bullshit.





As I said, profit is the name of the game. And it will be until media outlets are busted away from their parent megacorporations.






I appreciate that. I do want to emphasize, however, that journalists with integrity are out there, and in great numbers. Our problem is that our hands are tied by our corporate bosses. The business is largely one of compromise nowadays. "Well if I give them this bullshit story about how good this woman feels now that she's using energy efficient light bulbs (made by GE) then maybe they'll let me expose the corruption on this other story"




Sadly, it won't, for the reasons I mentioned above. Actually there's plenty of censure by our peers. Newsblues.com is only one place that routinely bashes poor journalism. But our corporate owners don't care about that - they only care about the almighty dollar. And since you the viewer are in control of that dollar, it's you the viewer that must convince the corporations of what you want.

By the way, you might find "Bad News" by Tom Fenton a very interesting read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00...glance&n=283155

Host then provides an example of what I might expect by peer censure:



On the above theme:

Comment: In the December 18 New York Times' Review of Books, Brian Ladd reviewed (registration required) Richard J. Evans' new book, The Third Reich in Power. Ladd wrote in the review, titled "A State of Evil," that Evans explains that, "Behind a facade of legality, the Nazis dismantled the established protections of law. Not satisfied merely to crush a lively if troubled democracy, they used their police state and the mass media to dissolve traditional allegiances." Ladd said the result "was a nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds..." Looks like Fox News is taking the lead in directing us down that road in a 21st Century, US version of "A State of Evil."


It is plain to see the desparation peeking out from behind the curtain as all the stops are pulled in the latest Rove "Op" intended on deflecting the crisis from where it sits squarely in the lap of the Bush junta, by attacking and labeling the whistle blowers as "traitors", with the "farce", described above, masking itself as "fair and balanced" news commentary.

Will the shameless efforts of wealthy international corporatist Rupert Murdoch's "trophy" propaganda "news" network, along with a blast from
his New York Post's rag of an "editorial" page, be enough to keep the American sheeple grazing obliviously in the meadow?

Please do not post objection to the comparison with Richard J. Evans' new book, "The Third Reich in Power", describing the "nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds...", without also telling us what you think that the
Bush administration and Rupert Murdoch's network and newspaper are actually teaming up to "tell" us, that is legitimate or "balanced".

My notion of a free press, as indicated by Shakran and Host, was wrong in many ways.

First, the Fourth Estate truly is a myth of my own making because there is no obligation of the press to provide a check to government.

The so called "Free Press" has no responsibility to the public, but to it's corporate owners and shareholders.

Given that, some notion of a peer review is as naive as believing in Santa Clause.

Only one of my beliefs remains true and open to discussion, and that is the First Amendment right of a press free from government intrusion. I would welcome a discussion on the current administration's manipulation of the press (the examples are plentiful). I would also like to discuss any possible means we might have in holding our press accountable for what they print or withhold.

Thoughts?

The free press does what sells. The people seem to be more interested in who Jennifer Aniston is fucking than what is going on in the government because people have lost the feeling they can change anything or that their voice matters.

And the press feeds those feelings.

Plus, you have the left saying not to believe the press, you have the right telling you how evil the press is.... and the press no longer being in the business to report news but to make profits.

Plus, how do we know the NYT didn't have to wait and make sure the story was accurate before they ran it. If they had ran it and it turned out to be a "fake" story it would kill thier reputation.

Judith Miller didn't do that already? :)

I've have just been reading about propaganda and
"group Mind" in the media
Mass Mind Control
Through Network Television

I think it makes many valid points
the corporate press is not the free press
Sure I could unsubcribe to the Asheville Citizen-Times
To send a clear message, But then
I pick up USA today.......
Guess what.....I will be reading the same news
Not only are most stories off the AP wire
both are owned by Gannett
We would all have to ignore all corperate media
paper, broadcast, cable, satilite, to make an impact
At the same time support local indepandant media
and internet news sources that will report the truth.

Actually, I find that Gannett and his outlets are about as middle and unbiased as a media can get. But that is just my opinion...... Plus Mr. Gannett himself is a Unitarian Universalist like myself sooooooo he can't be all bad.

Knight Ridder also has received acknowledgement for refusing to be influenced by "access." They were usually the media source to first report that being said in the international press.

And I agree with you and alphi phi, Pan. I don't think we can fix our msp.

Not to single out gannett as the worst evil
I used it as an example of corperate media
because they own about a third of my local media.
and all of my local print except the local coupon/forclosure paper

The media can be fixed the government needs to regulate it again and prevent all the media being owned by a few small select groups.

When you allow someone like Clear Channel to own all of one media in a town how can you expect anything but biased and controlled news?

Then when you follow the paper trails and find that much like the oil companies the same people own ALL the large media groups, how can you expect fair and unbiased news?

That was why our government regulated it, to prevent this from happening and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W have all worked to make sure the rules were such that mass ownership would be allowed.

It's pathetic really. By allowing this to happen we have closed any form of competition down because these companies are able to control the market.

Regulating is the only way to fair and true competition back into the media.

Everyone of our media companies is heavily leveraged and indebted because of their rushes to pay unGodly amounts of money to buy the companies they needed to get that big.

The questions are how long can they last being indebt, and who truly holds the debt on each of these?

I know you weren't, I was just saying I liked Gannett and to be honest I trust them more than any other big corporate owned media.... except local news. That I am still sold on WJW (the Fox affiliate) and WEWS the Scripps Howard station. As for radio.... I don't even pay attention to national news anymore as it is all pretty much Clear Channel.

I need to ammend post #14. there is a small chance that the telephone companies can get into the media business (SBC/Yahoo.... ATT.... VErizon... etc.) However, I look for them to be swallowed up or merge with the media companies if they do become serious competition.

I think what worries me most about coroperate media
is the Video news releases
How much of this "propaganda" do we
consume each day without even realizing it?

Good point, alpha phi. The government is also paying journalists and talking heads to speak favorably about government programs. There was also the planted stooge at press briefings to lob approved questions to Bush or his press secretary.

Very interesting read thanks Alpha. :thumbsup:

In my opinion, the most overt manipulation of the press is that of Judith Miller. Second would be the Wilson retaliation outing Plame. Bob Woodward is merely a pathetic case of self-promotion that the government recognized and used to their own advantage. Miller is fired, but Woodward hangs on for now.

First off, the planted stooge wasn't a member of the press. That's entirely the administration's fault. The media is blameless there. In fact, the media exposed him for what he was.

Any journalist who accepts ANYthing to cover a story other than his company-provided paycheck should be run out of town on a rail. And I'm not just talking about the big payoffs. I won't even eat a donut if someone I'm covering offers it to me because I won't allow even the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

As for VNR's I use them all the time. If I need video of, say, Bethesda doctors for a story I'm doing, I might grab a VNR, get that video, and use it in my story. I personally would not air a VNR unedited. At worst I would do my story around the VNR but I would go out and find the other side to whatever the issue is and include that in my piece.

But you are correct in that many stations run them unedited, and unverified. The reason is simple - they gotta fill that time slot and upper management is so chintzy with budgets that they simply don't have the staff to go out and get their own stories. It's wrong and it's disgusting, but it's a reality of the business.

Ethical stations will not do this - and if they do air a VNR they will make it patently clear who produced it.

I've actually been known to air VNR's as an example of something someone's complaing about - turns the objective of the VNR on its head ;)

By no means was the media at fault for the stooge, but simply an example of the administration manipulating what they wanted us to hear. I'm sure we agree on that?

Shakran, you bring up a far more important point of those in the media that take the handful of silver in payment for their integrity. How do we run those whores out of town?

That disgusts me but what disgusts me more is that you didn't hear enough outcry in the press about it. The press pretty much bent over and took it. Sure they reported on it, but that should have sparked a HUGE series of investigative reports along the lines of "what other lies did this guy tell us?"


Expose them. We do run those whores out of town. If I accepted payment for any of my stories and my news director found out, I'd be fired at once.

And because the journalism community is VERY tight knit (I know journos from all over the country, and we all talk to each other about who's good and who's a fuck up) it'd be highly unlikely that I'd get another job. And I'm just a photographer - behind the scenes (usually) letting the reporter get all the glory (usually), which means the viewers at a different station wouldn't even know I was there (i.e. the station wouldn't hire me out of their own ethics, not out of worrying about what the viewers would think)

The trouble is catching the little shits. Unless they and/or their buyer are REAL stupid, it's pretty tough to figure out they're getting paid off. It's not like the guy buying coverage is gonna send the reporter a check c/o the news director ;)

I think the press has shown prompt and responsible action WHEN they catch these guys. And I honestly don't know how, without hiring a fact checker for EVERY reporter and then having that fact checker along for all the interviews, we can 100% prevent this. As disturbing as it is, journalists have their bad apples just like any other profession, and just like any other profession it's VERY hard to catch them.

I suspect this is where some of the more
informed internet blogs are coming from.
Journalists who want a huge public outcry
But are not willing to risk their job (or life)
to get the reports to go public.
Notice how the anthrax attacks
after 911 hit the media?
NBC and New York Post
The "big guys" who would be doing the investigative reports
Won't touch them out of fear of retailition

It is amazing, isn't it? The very nature of their profession is quite public, but the intention of their public opinion remains hidden.

I wonder if journalists should be held to the same public disclosure laws that our politicians are required to provide regarding sources of money? Heh...not that we have seen much exposure come from that.

It's not so much a matter of risking our job. I fight at least once a week to get a story on the air that I think needs to be told, but that's rejected. Sure I could go shoot, write, voice, and edit the story anyway and no one would fire me. But unless I hijack the control room, I can't get it on the air anyway ;)



Elphaba asked me in PM to explain my earlier comments on Reagan and the Fairness Doctrine, so here goes a simplified explanation:

In the "good old days" the media was required by a law called the fairness doctrine to cover all sides of a story. Under this doctrine, if I show a democrat saying "I think the republicans suck because of X" then I MUST go find a republican counterpart and let him refute it. Regan and his deregulation sweeps (the same sweeps that deregulated the meat industry and are directly responsible for the fact that the hamburger you ate last night has a good chance of having been in contact with animal feces - or worse) abolished the fairness doctrine.

Interestingly, this same deregulation also abolished a requirement that came about at the same time as the fairness doctrine. That requirement said that the press, being a public trust, MUST actively seek out issues of importance to their community, and to air programming that addressed those issues. This means Clinton would never have gotten away with not effectively retaliating against bin Laden when he bombed the WTC the first time because the press would have been required to jump on the issue. Unfortunately, we are no longer required by law to do that, and since our corporate owners want us to 1) produce stories they think the "ignorant public" wants to see and 2) do it as freakin' cheaply as possible, we don't enterprise nearly as many stories as we ought to.

Alpha phi, I believe I posted elsewhere about the mysterious disappearance of the anthrax attacks by the msp. If I didn't, it would be due to VOMIT (Violent Outrage; Meaning in Turmoil).

To allow a home grown version of anthrax delivered as it was, to silently disappear from the press, is what conspiracies are made of. How do we bring that threat to the forefront again?

Shakran, I love you. :D

Is there any hope in returning to the Fairness Doctrine? My romantic fantasy of the obligations of the press was based on something, afterall?

I honestly don't think it will ever be exposed
It was a two fold plan:
1. To silence media and politicians who would speak out
2. to increase the "security" at the postal service
so that our mail could be opened, scanned, ect.
(such as the wire taps)

It was a very effective plan......

I remember hearing somewhere that all
good reporters want to start their own stations
so that they could do the stories that are important.
I can't wait till one of them finds a way to make
it possible to make a living on the internet
doing exactly that.

Alpha phi, my mail has been routinely opened since 2002. Sometimes in the most outrageous and obvious manner. I've not said or done anything about it, because they simply wasted their time with me. I am guilty of allowing that intrusion, but no more.

Mine has been opened too...
Christmas presents that were packed in
a box that was opened and unwraped.
letters with the end of the envelopes torn off.
the christmas box had a sticker on it that read:
OPPS!! this parcel get stuck in a sorting machine
the USPS is not responsible for missing or damaged items.
Yea right...the machine opened the tape with a clean cut
and unwraped the wrapping paper.

Yep, they assume we will continue to take this bs, because we have been sold via fear propaganda that we should give up our privacy rights. Wait a minute! I'm threadjacking my own topic. :D

Sure there's hope. I don't want to paint a complete, irreversible gloom and doom portrait of the media here. We're going through a bad spell right now, but it's not like that hasn't happened before. Back in the 1800's, newspapers were pretty much never objective. They reported the news the way their editor wanted to see it. If that meant squelching coverage on something that the editor didn't like, that's just what they did. If you'd been alive back then you'd be saying similar things to what you're saying now - - is there any hope for the press?

Well we got through that, and had some pretty good decades (exposing McCarthy, Watergate, Vietnam, etc etc). We'll get through this as well - hopefully before our lack of coverage brings about a national decline from which we cannot recover.

What we need is a citizen uprising that *demands* the government return control of the media to the media rather than megacorporations. And *demands* the government reinstate the fairness doctrine. And if the congress won't do it, then the citizens need to vote it out, and vote in congresspeople who will.

Republicans got rid of it because they didn't want the things Reagan was up to exposed. But it ended up biting them (and the country) in the ass when it also led to lack of coverage of Clinton's foreign policy failings. Fact is, just about every president makes collossal blunders, no matter what party they're from. Without the media to serve as a watchdog, presidents, republican AND democrat, get away with it.

There is also, as has been alluded to above, hope from the internet, but that hope comes with some nasty pitfalls. The internet, with it's anonymity, means anyone can hop on here claiming to be a journalist and report bullshit. If you wanna know how easilly that could spread and be accepted by the public, check your email. I bet there's something in there about Bill Gates giving you a dollar for everyone who gets the email after you forward it ;)
And I'm not sure how that problem can be solved. I'm open to ideas ;)

I'm personally interested where this idea of an independant, noble press came from. At best, media outlets are platforms for personal agendas by the reporters, journalists, or editors. At worst, they are merely a medium for getting people to BUY MORE STUFF!!11!1!11! I don't see really a time when this was extraordinarily different. And I also see no problem with the gov't using said media for their purposes. If the media seeks to impose themselves as some check on gov't power, the gov't needs to check media power, or work to keep it in line.

shakran, I have to offer a contradictory opinion that respectfully but firmly calls into question your comments quoted above. Not only was the elite white house press corps "mum" about Gannon, before he was exposed, but Froomkin reported (below), that Gannon's exposure was largely due to the efforts of mediamatters.org founder, David Brock. The in-depth, followup reporting that revealed the unusual access to the white house that Guckert AKA Gannon enjoyed, was dominated by rawstory.com.

Here is a highlight of Froomkin's assessment of how the WH press corps allowed the Bush administration to further erode the remnants of integrity that it still enjoyed after the press corps silently excepted the disgraceful treatment that ranking correspondent Helen Thomas received by the white house. Even after it was obvious that Gannon was a planted shill, the press corps did not lead or even do a thorough job of reporting important details.

We seem to be in the midst of an curious era where the most prominent reporters and their employers choose "not to report",,,,,,Miller...Woodward....Cooper....and now the NY Times delaying an important story for a year, and still not explaining why!

Did you bother reading this thread? For the most part, personal agendas of the journalists don't factor in. In fact, we go to extreme lengths to NOT let our personal opinions get into the story - you all know how I feel about Bush and the republicans in general, but that doesn't stop me from holding the democrats' feet to the fire if they screw something up as well.

The problem lies not with the majority of the journalists, but with the media owners.

Ahh. Then you also see no problem with the crumbling of democracy and the rise of a police state. Because that's what happens if the government gets power over what the media covers.

I object to the term "impose." We're not imposing anything. In case you've forgotten, ours is supposed to be a government which represents the people. How can the people know if the government is properly representing them if there is no group that tells the people what the government is up to.

This is all well and good for you to say now, when your candidate is in power. Will you be of the same opinion when a democrat is back in office and the media is reporting on what he does wrong? I'll be interested to see if you think the democratic president should "check media power" and "keep it in line."

The history of American Journalism goes hand in hand
with the founding of this country
The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment
The press was instrumental in denouncing
the abusive rule of King George,
And encouraging the colonists to revolt
As early as 1795 Reporters were allowed in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
Because our founding fathers knew how
important an informed electorate is.
The goverment can and does publish
whatever they want.
The goverment Has No Right or Authority
to "check" or limit the press

I somehow missed this.

Most of us are held to disclosure regulations. We're required to disclose to our company any gifts, etc, we received (and kept) over the past year that are related to our jobs. Basically, if your disclosure sheet isn't blank, and you don't have a VERY good reason for it not being blank, you're in a LOT of hot water.

Some stations go even further and require you to disclose gifts you received but did not keep. My current station does that and it's honestly a pain in the ass because someone's always sending journo's gifts. Most of the time those gifts aren't meant to influence coverage - it'll be something like a box of donuts because they thought you did a really good job on the story. They're not trying to compromise our ethics, and quite frankly there aren't many journalists who would change a negative story to a positive one because someone sent him a few krispy kremes, but even still, we don't keep 'em. There's a food kitchen down the street from my station and any food gifts go there. Other types of gifts are returned or thrown away.


Of course, this whole disclosure thing gets right back to the initial problem. A journalist on the take isn't gonna admit it in a disclosure form, unless he's a true idiot. So we're back to the having to trust the journo until he proves untrustworthy. And trust me, that's scary as HELL when that new reporter shows up in the newsroom, because if a reporter breaks that trust, he's not only hurt his relationship with the rest of the staff, but he's hurt the station's reputation with the community.

Since at least 1735, when a New York court ruled for the acquittal of a publisher who was jailed by the royal governor for publishing the works of other authors that were deemed by the governor to be "libelous", due to their criticism of the government, thus overturning the British libel law that had kept the press in check, citizens of the colonies moved towards the principle that <b>"truth is an absolute defense. This decision proved to not only redefine the law of libel and slander but also to lay the foundation for the freedom of the press that we enjoy today".</b>.
Alexander Hamilton, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, and the author of the Federalist Papers, wrote that a bill of rights held the potential of endangering the preservation of the very rights that it described. <b>Hamilton noted that, unlike the British subjects of the monarch, it is the people who reserve all rights not expressly ceded to the government, and not the other way around.</b>

alansmithee, I find your opinion that <b>"If the media seeks to impose themselves as some check on gov't power, the gov't needs to check media power, or work to keep it in line."</b>...to be seriously misinformed, if it is not intended as satirical. Elected officials who devote their efforts as you describe, use power extended to them by the people, to impede the peoples' "right to know". How can such efforts conform to an oath to "protect and defend the constitution"?
[quote]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_0713_ZO.html
403 U.S. 713
New York Times Co. v. United States
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 1873 Argued: June 26, 1971 --- Decided: June 30, 1971[*]

[p*714] PER CURIAM

We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.
When the executive branch of government attempted to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, on the grounds of "national security", Justice Black's concurring opinion for the majority, excerpted above, describes all that is needed to obtain an "American" point of view concerning the role of the press as guardians of the people, and not of the government.

Read Justice Black's bold print comments in the short paragraph above, and then consider the stereo messages of Rupert Murdoch's foxnews and NYpost that I earlier supplied here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=310 .

Why do our V.P. and many American conservatives prefer to have their "news" delivered via an Australian media mogul's News Corp. assets, foxnews and the NYpost, when they align themselves with the government, and clearly against the right of the governed to have access to the truth about the questionable actions of their government?

I was reading somewhere online that the only reason the public was not made aware of Genetically Modified Organisms (or foods) until they were in place and legislated in favour of was that both political parties were paid off by the industry to support the policy. Thus, if one side is not crying about and opposing what the current administration is doing, then will the media cover the story at all?

Without turning this into a Paranoia Thread, I wonder here what stories have been ignored by ALL SIDES due to special interest groups putting the spin on, well... everybody?

People cried when CNN got very large: Less competition in the media reduced the checks and balances that maintained objectivity. Look at what CNN has done, however. They are substantially large enough to be able to fund foreign offices around the globe, and they have enough clout that foreign governments are pressured into allowing them access that small news stations simply would not recieve.

Yin and Yang, tradeoffs, okay. I am in favour of giving gounalists every freedom they can to practice their trade, and I believe that the Internet can have a positive effect in this regard. Can a reporter make, edit, and broadcast the story of their choice online? I would like to see it.

Maybe we could get a website dedicated to just this kind of thing; journalists from around the globe are offered a refuge, a place where their work can be published without edition. Very little would be paid, other than the joy of having the masses exposed to your craft.

It could be hosted in a country with the least amount of censure laws to prevent people screaming liabel and slander.

/Ben runs off to make his fortune...

I had to follow the same kind of process when I worked in public radio. Oddly, now that I'm at a national print publication, they haven't made me do this.

Elphaba, I think I can safely say, looking at the history of journalism, things may not be as good as they were at one time, but they are certainly far better than they have been on the average. Media owners have always used their papers to do their bidding. The US entered a war because of a fabricated story in the New York Journal. Hearst wanted war, he got it by publishing an account of the bombing of the Maine, which most experts now agree was likely a boiler explosion.

I think through the mid 90’s, many journalists became lazy and thought of themselves as stars. Likewise, editors stopped editing and started “managing” coverage, and massaging the egos of their “stars”. The NYT was the worst of these (Jayson Blair anyone?) The Wash Post had their Ruth Shalit debacle.

As much as I dislike those insipid blogger segments on CNN, blogs have snapped many journalists back into line. I think things are better. The wiretapping story isn’t really getting big play because it hasn’t reached that part of the news cycle yet.

Perhaps not in print, but on the radio, all I hear the left talk about is the wire tapping story trying to make it into something it isn't. Its kinda cute as they dig thier own political graves for 2006 mid term elections :thumbsup:

Well if all you hear is the left talking about wiretapping
you are either listening to socialist radio
or every political pundit on the airwaves is now left

That would be a great project!
something like a xanga or livejournal
with membership open only to
journalists with the proper credentials.
Reporter pay could be tied to readership

Ustwo...not only are your comments (quoted above) unsubstantiated, but the following documentation backs an argument that they are untrue. Please raise the level of your efforts here. Your above effort reflects negatively on your credibility........
So....what we have is the spectacle of our thuggish V.P. Cheney....so concerned about the potential for further damage to his administration, openly threatening republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel, with political retribution if they call the wire taps what they are....illegal.

Read the comments above, Ustwo, they are nearly exclusively from conservatives, starting with a board member of the Federalist Society, Bob Levy, columinist George Will, former Reagan Asst. Atty General Bruce Fein, and two influential republican senators, Judiciary Committee Chaiman Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel, the target of Cheney's threat.

The matter is so serious that one of ten FISA court judges commented about "disbanding the court", in reaction to the warrentless wiretaps.

If all of this leaves you unconvinced, Ustwo, I detailed <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1965230&postcount=222">here</a> the evidence that Bush lied to the American people in an April 20, 2004 speech on this subject in Buffalo, NY, and then nominee for the Attorney General office, Al Gonzales, lied under oath in a Jan. 6, 2005 Senate Judiciary Committee ConfirmationHearing.

Oooops.

I tried to be funny in a Politics thread.

My bad.

I'm also intreagued by the idea of the site for press to go as a haven. Maybe we can call it Truth Haven or Press Utopia or Fairness Doctrine Reanimators. The thing is, it would need a staff to check on the backgrounds of the press members who wanted to submit stories. Would we make the press anonymous, so as to protect their careers outside of the site? If so, we could lose a great deal of respect and attention. Or would we give them credit for what could be superb journalism? We'd also have to have a great team of fact checkers. It'd be nice to get news that's true, and can be substantiated. We might even have sources outside of the CIA! And of course Fox News would tie us to the al Qaeda, and suggest that we worship Satan and have high carb diets. I remember a long time ago when Einstein relesaed his theory of relitiviyy, a mass of german scientists came forward calling it crap and saying that it was all wrong and evil jewish propoganda. Einstein responded something to the effect: "I don't know why all these scientists want to try and discredit me by publishing papers and books and articles. All they need to discredit me is one fact." Even if Fox News or any news outlet for that matter wanted to go after this haven, they'd never have any real amunition. If all we said was truth, we are invicable.

:lol: I get the humor :lol:

This is kinda funny, but don't forget that Host is one of the best sources of links and information on TFP (in the world?). When he shut down Ustwo, I cheered on the inside. Host might be teased every once in a while, but his posts are in a league of their own when it comes to relevant information, not just volume.

Just something to keep in mind. Also, politics can get really, realkly serious from time to time. Even though it wasn't addressed to me, I appreciate the offer to take down the post if it was offensive.

Ohh... I like Fairness Doctorine press!
The journalist should have the option of anonymity
But be verified by staff.
This way a journalist can escape their "on air" persona
The fact checkers could work for everyone
in a community atmosphere.
The truth is a weapon and a shield.

Ben, I read all of Host's entries because I find them quite valuable. If you see no value in Host's detailed posts, don't read them. It is really that simple.

Please don't lobby against something that you can so easily ignore.

"Me, too" posts reflect poor forum etiquette, so I *never* do that. :D

I love the idea. Now here are the snags:

1) journalists generally aren't allowed to do reports outside of their job without permission from their news director / editor. You certainly are almost never allowed to use your company's gear for non-company business. So at the very least, you gotta go buy your own newsgathering stuff.

2) Gathering news is EXPENSIVE. I go through around $20 a day in gas alone. My camera costs a little over 50 thousand dollars - not counting the lens - that's $25,000 by itself. My tripod is a grand. My shotgun mic is $2,000 and my wireless lapel mic is $2,500. Various necessary accessories to all that gear totals around 3 grand. My scanners, at $500 a pop, cost $3500. Fortunately my station paid for most of that, because very few individuals could afford all that crap. Especially if they were buying it for a website that paid little to nothing. And I didn't even tally up the cost of long distance phone calls, video licensing, wire services, etc. Of course we'd need to add to that around a $5,000 computer to edit everything, and that's if I did it on the cheap. Oh, and then there's recording media, which is also much more expensive than the digital-8 or miniDV the amateurs shoot on.

The print guys could get away with a lower price tag, but a professional grade digital camera is gonna be around 5 grand, not counting the capture cards, batteries, flashes, and lenses (and professional quality lenses are INSANELY expensive), plus the gas, the wire services, etc etc etc.

The cheapest believe it or not would be audio-only. Grab a minidisc recorder and a decent mic and you'd be out the door for around 800-1000, again not counting gas, wire services, etc.



In short, reporting the news is not a cheap proposition. I think the website is a great idea but I'm not sure how people could afford to post to it unless they were insanely rich.

I googled the Fairness Doctrine and found numerous recent listings. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and many others, are actively working to bring it back. From what I have been reading, the FD was far from perfect, but I believe reinstating it would go a long way to causing corporate owners to balance their product for the public good.

Here are some interesting links that I found:

Wikipedia

A snippet from this link:

Slaughter's Bill

Snippet:

I can't tell you how enthused I am that a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is further along than I knew. Thanks, Shakran! :thumbsup:

Edit: The FD.com link is a popup nightmare. I will look for a direct link. :hmm:

Here is a better link to Louise Slaughter's website pertaining to the FD.

Louise Slaughter

Excelent point. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of media such as television or radio. What about the annonymous idea? If one were properly protected (heh, now YOU get to be the source that WE get to go to jail over), then maybe more reporters and investigators would be willing to come forward.
Jeez. Well, I suppose we could charge (adn thus become a corporation). The thing is that Freee Speech TV seems to be staying afloat simply through donations. PBS has been on for years (since 1969 I believe). I would suggest working as a non profit (sorry, journalists) organization.

The PBS analogy sounds good
Any many of their associates do get paid.
Ad revenue from reputeable vendors like amazon,
donations, and print/CD/DVD sales
would help offset costs

I imagine the cost would not be that much
First of all it's not a tv station
Images and video are optimized for the web
So super high tech gear is not necessary
The studio gear could be shared as well
With all our digital technological advances
PC's can do the same work.
I have a $5,000 music recording studio(at least)
In my PC.....the software cost $300

I continue to think that returning to an even playing field is the best bet for responsible reporting, via the Fairness Doctrine.

The wonderful suggestions that Alpha Phi suggested can already be found on the internet. Joining forces seems to me to be a practical idea. These sites need to be supported financially to keep them going. I was sponsoring TruthOut until the recent medical bills.

Much work is needed to restore our Republic, and most of us here are of limited financial resources. For that reason, I encourage that we all expend our energy and resources on the most fruitful targets that will result in the changes we hope for.

My focus is on the 2006 elections. Very little is possible without a shift in congress and the senate. What few bucks I have are going to making a change in that venue.

He can't shut me down, when I don't read them anymore. After a few dives into the twisted and often totally irrelevant links which makes up a host posting I gave up as have most of us on the right, though kudos to lebell for trying most recently. You can cheer on the inside all you like but there is no fight to cheer on. I will not debate someone who through either hubris or delusion thinks we have government agents posting on this forum or that Bush is involved in human sacrifice. If host is your champion you have already lost.

Seeking ad revenue to support a worthwhile site is why I directed people AWAY from this site:

www.fairnessdoctrine.com

If that doesn't piss you off, long before you get to the content, you have more patience than I.

Why respond to his posts if you don't even read them?

All I get is a search page, place holder......
I haven't seen any content

Popups and flashing banners are not reputable revenue
A column down the side is unobtrusive
Context advertising to amazon ..you get a cut of book sales
And mix in home site ads for DVD documentaries

Alpha, I need to focus my resources on immediate, potential solutions toward what I hope to achieve in the near (2006) future.

It wasn't my intent to be critical in any way about how others might choose to expend their resources.

My apologies, if I offended you or anyone else. :(

re: the high tech gear. yeah, you kinda do, unless you want your videocast to look like all the other home videos you see on the net ;) And it's not just the imaging, it's the weight and balance of a pro cam - one reason home movies always look like they're shot in an earthquake is because those tiny cameras are hard as hell to shoot steady with.

And I'm not saying buy the 75k cam - you could probably get away with a $12k one. But the point is that news gathering is very expensive and you have to take that into consideration. Look at it this way. Something happens in, say, madagascar that needs to be covered. How is this website gonna pay to send a journalist out there unless it generates money.

PBS is a good example of a media outlet that gets a lot of its funding from the government. Now, that's not a bad thing at all, but the likelihood that this website could follow the PBS funding model is rather slim.

I completely (obviously) agree that we should return to the fairness doctrine. But I don't think it's gonna happen. The corporations that own media outlets don't want it because then they'd have to go out and get differing opinions, and that costs money. And since the corporations have a huge influence on what the FCC does, the FCC doesn't want it either.

Just as an example of something simple, but effective:
fairnessdoctrine.bravehost.com

Ustwo....speaking of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1970113&postcount=318">"Foil of Ren-yolds"</a>, here is some of what is lauded in your "world" as "professional" political "commentary"...... Not only do I, and others with a lick of sense, have to put up with you posting the 'line" of shrill propagandists like John Hinderaker, we are overwhelmed by <b>the press who you label as "liberal", legitimizing Hinderaker's</b> venomous bull shit (His is one of three names displayed on Power Line's web page) as in this example; Time awarded this right wing POS that passes itself as a "main stream" conservative "blog", as Time's 2004 'Blog of the year"!
And.....Ustwo.....I'm the one who you connect with "Foil"? How dare you?
Here is some "truth" for you and John Hinderaker:
Ustwo, <b>please provide us with the date that the Washington Post stopped it's hawkish backing of Bush's campaign of lies, and resumed it's actual role of "reporting", as it immersed itself in the anti-Bush "Op", described in Hinderaker's paranoid rant?</b>
Observe, at this link, John Hinderaker's open invitation to appear on CNN to spew his disinformation:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=MAs&...om&btnG=Search

Ustwo, the truly <b>paranoid</b> are not the citizens who question and confront the Bush administrations usurping and consolidation of power at the expense of our liberties and our right to know.

The paranoids are in control of the apparatus of the state, they label us as subversive. and they monitor us illegally. They manipulate the media and hacks like John Hinderaker to spread their propaganda, and you are a link in their foodchain. You lap up their misinformation and repeat it here. Please stop!

Late post deleted.

I came across a site with much info
http://www.corporations.org/media/

It goes on to give links to
dozens of media reform advocacy sites

Will that's a great example site
It does go to show the possibilities

The consolidation and control of the media is even more distressing below the surface, alpha phi. Two Time-Warner media outlets, "Time" and CNN, sponsor, promote, and provide "air time" to John Hinderaker and his "Powerline Blog", as I documented in my last post here.

In addition to lending credibility to Hinderaker and his "message", the support from Time/CNN expands an audience for Hinderaker and Powerline that conveys a message that the newspaper of record in this nation's capitol is involved in an intentional "plot" to de-throne Bush. The Washington Post is discredited as a "news" source, and Bush is further empowered to pursue his extra-constitutional agenda and aggressive foreign policy because he is portrayed as a "victim" of a hostile and unreliable press.

Those who read Hideraker seriously because he's often on CNN and because he author's Time's "Blog of 2004", are thus pre-empted from seriously considering WaPo reporting that had the potential to check missteps of the Executive and Legislative branches. We end up observing comments from our political opposites that portray "Time" and CNN as "too liberal", as they are reduced to obtaining their "information" and POV from foxnews and the likes of Hinderaker and powerline, through no small influence of Time and CNN.

These poor, propagandized, bastards do not even realize who steered them away from the major sources of news that the rest of us sift through in our effort to hold our government officials accountable. We end up not even similarly defining the "issues" with those who watch foxnews and read Powerline.......

It is surreal to me and not what I could ever have anticipated.....
And I'm the one labeled as being paranoid ?????

I forgot to add the media owners, they are also a big factor. But I thought "media owners" sounded clumsy. I assumed that editors pretty much represented the views of the owners, so I ommited mentioning them specifically.

But also, I think that you are giving journalists too much credit. I think that you would pursue a story about Republican wrongdoing over one about Democratic wrongdoing. I don't even know if it's intentional, but it's hard not to try harder on something you care more about.



I don't see the media as the independant check on gov't power that you do. I see it as more a separate intrest, with their own adgenda. Now, I don't think they should be totally a voice for gov't, but I think that the gov't should feel free to make just as much use out of the media as possible, without necessarily directly controlling them.

That's the problem-the media often puts their own spin on what the gov't is doing. That's why wrongdoing gets covered so much more than when something good happens. Again, I see the media as an independant interest, not the voice of the people. They have their own agendas.


Actually, I will. I favor strong government. So if a democratic administration also works to increase gov't power, I would support them. I try to not get to caught up in (D) or (R).

You proved my point. The media worked to undermine the gov't. They had an agenda, and worked to see it through. And as for the "abuses of King George", I have always thought it was a bit overblown. To be honest, I've always seen the revolution as fundamentally little more than a bunch of rich white landowners mad because they had to pay some taxes. All the liberty stuff was added mainly to fool the masses and gain popular support, not because they really believed or desired it (as evidenced by the treatment of women, blacks, indians, non-landowners, etc.). I take anything the founding fathers said with a grain of salt. If I remember correctly, soon after the constitution was ratified, I think John Adams tried to have a political cartoonist arrested for some cartoon (I could have the name wrong).

Funny you should say that. We just finished our obligatory "2005 in review" special. In reviewing my work for submission, I exposed 3 examples of Republican (local guys, not national) wrongdoing, and 5 examples of Democratic (also local guys) wrongdoing. Sorry but your post is a gross mischaracterization.





I'm curious - do you feel there is a NEED for an independent check on government power?



Our JOB is to expose government wrongdoing, no matter who's doing the wrong. Our job is also to cover government. We do report on what the government does. We don't only report on the illegal stuff they do. Do you actually watch or read the news, or do you get your ideas from pundits and then assume that people with a vested interest in one point of view are always correct?





Great. You're quite different from most of the people howling media bias right now. But I think you need to realize that you can have any kind of government you want - strong or weak - and still have checks on what they do. A strong government is one thing, a government that deceives its public in order to ramrod whatever they want into policy is quite another.

Whats unbelievable is that journalists essentially tell us that they and they alone are the sole possessors of objectivity and fairness. The cops: bias. Judicial system: bias Corporate America: bias. The govt: bias. And on and on

But somehow, the media is far more superior than the rest us? Please

NCB, I read a number of journalists on a daily basis and I agree that some believe themselves to be as you described. I find them rare, however, or maybe it is a factor of self-selection of who I read.

Do you have specific journalists in mind?

About the only group of journalists I can think of who are biased while claiming to be unbiased are working for Fox News (fair and balanced? c'mon.)

I've never claimed to not have a bias. I claim to work very hard not to allow that bias to show through in my stories, and I feel I'm pretty successful at that.

I think anyone, from any profession, who claims they don't have an opinion or a bias is full of it.

Shakran, most of the journalists that I am familiar with are the inky-fingers kind. (I still love my daily paper :) ).

I don't think it would be much of a threadjack to discuss individual journalists and their perceived leanings and/or balance, whether it be print or broadcast media. Shall we take a go at that idea?

Really, the only biased group would be Fox?

:lol:

Do you watch other news besides fox?

I'm confused...probably since I stopped following this thread when it just started on the second page of responses. Host comes back at Ustwo with a rant aimed against the Washington Post for "it's hawkish backing of Bush's campaign of lies", and then calls for him to provide a date when the Post actual returned to its job of "reporting".

The Post article host referred to was an E-D-I-T-O-R-I-A-L piece. I have never, ever, considered anything that I read in an editorial section to be "news", and I certainly hope that no one here does too! I actually have a longstanding desire to see US newspapers drop their editorials altogether.

Seriously, why do I care what the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, the Washington Post, or even my local paper has to say on politics, life, the economy? What qualifies them to give me their opinion, and who asked them for it? I find it incredibly arrogant. Just give me the news, and let me think for myself.

Take a read through this article "Editorials make newspapers into citizens" (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n8821620)

The last bolded quote, where Wycliff states that their editorials are designed to move people to act in WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE PUBLIC GOOD just kills me. Who gave this guy, this paper, this segment of our society, this awesome responsibility as the arbitrators of what is and is not in the public good?

Let's face it - the editorial is a means by which any media outlet can demostrate it's own bias (albeit the bias held by either the editorial staff, the owners, or both) safely.

But, since it is after 6AM, and I haven't slept but 3 hours since Dec. 31st started, I'll borrow a line from Dennis Miller: "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong".

The problem are not the editorials, those are obviously biased but you KNOW they are before you start reading.

The problem is bias in the hard news. When you prevent and warp the information the public gets to form is basic opinion on the issues, the bias undermines the democratic process. This can be anything from the tone of the article, to what stories get reported. It is also the most difficult to prove, and requires things like the UCLA study to show you just how far its gone.

The Public Editor of NYT has written an editorial concerning the year long delay of the NSA story. Nothing is really answered, but Calame offers possibilies that seem reasonable. Sadly, I think the possibility of getting out-scooped by one of their own had a great deal to do with it.

Link

This thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=99474

is a great example of what's wrong with society and their demands of the media. Instead of demanding that we cover news, they're demanding that we be psychic. The only way to get info about the miners was to talk to the mining company. Reporters could not physically get to the miners. They had to go on what they were being told. And the company, by the way, was only repeating what they heard on the radio from the guys down trying to get to the miners.

Unfortunate? Yes, absolutely. The media's fault? I fail to see how they could have done any better.

But TFP users like Crow Daw couldn't wait to jump on the media.

Now here's where it gets fun. If the miners HAD been found alive and the media had sat on it (unnecessarilly) there'd have been hoardes of people jumping down our collective throats for not reporting it. So basically this was a no-win scenario.

Now don't get me wrong. People always have stupid complaints about the media. 99% of the complaints we get at my station involve the weatherman's tie or how much of a bastard the sports director is for not covering Little Johnny's peewee football game. People almost never criticise us on what we need to be criticised on (why the hell aren't you exposing the ethanol industry for the scam it is? Why do you always wait for some official or group to bring up a problem before you tell us about it?) - instead they'd rather criticise us on stupid crap like that. So I'm used to the ill-informed criticism of the type in that mining thread.

But what irritates me is that people are such friggin' sheep about it. Everyone picks on lawyers because it's cool to pick on lawyers - everyone else is doing it so I'll be more accepted if I do it. So I'll poke fun at the lawyers to fit in - until, that is, I need one.

It's the same thing with journalists. We as a group deserve a LOT of criticism, but instead of criticising us right, the public criticises us for being "media jackals, media scum, pain-in-the-ass reporters" etc. It'd be too HARD to criticise us on what we need to be criticised on because that would take some thinking, so instead we'll parrot what our friends and the people we think are cool say.

So, instead of effecting real change, people are just shouting to hear themselves shout. That's not a real good way of securing a good journalism system.

shakran:
I was thinking about this earlier today
While watching C-SPAN people were
calling in, mad at the media!
Not at the mine management
for not correcting the mistake for three hours
many of the callers were trying to use this
as an excuse to further gag the media.
The mediator tried to set the record straight
saying someone called the waiting family members
and told them the miners were alive.
and the mine management did not respond to requests for info.
This stinks of useing another tragedy
to further political goals.

For years Limbaugh and the talking heads on the right have continuously attacked the 2 most important assets to the long term future of this country.

The press and Eductaion.

They attacked the press enough continually calling it biased to the point where ANYTHING the press does is wrong. To the point where the press covers stories up, waits and sits on important information, and has become fluff and more worried about pop culture than pure news.

This works to the Right's advantage and government in that these people have effectively destroyed the media and any news brought out is questioned and fought about and the facts become obscured to the point government gets away with anything it wants to.


The attack on education is even better. Call the schools liberal, make them pariahs and then force them to teach your agenda without question or be attacked, lose funding and get just enough students riled so that again facts are lost and obscured and perception dictated by the talking heads and propagandists become reality.

But I still maintain my optmism and believe that people will have enough and the penduulum will swing back toward center, however, I am pessimistic in that I truly believe the Right will do all they can, take away all they can and to hold the penduulum as long as they can. And only time will tell what the permanent effects will be.

One thing good about this day in age even if one of the parties gain control of the media and bias it there will be the ability to get unbiased news from online. I suspect 20 years from now it will be much harder to prevent people from knowing the truth as there will be few people who don't read news online.

If we are a nation where the people can afford to be online and the government hasn't taken control of the internet and its contents.

most people do have access to the internet and the access will continue to grown. in addition i'd say "controlling" the internet is an impossibility. The only way to control it is to destroy it.

Can you post anything that you want on TFP? No, because it belongs to someone else. It's a matter of two things: internet law, and hosting capabilities. If there is an international law that say you cannot make a website that explains how to make a bomb, then you can't do it lest you be punished. If you can't find a host for your website, you can't get your info out there. The same corporations that run TV now are trying to do the same to the internet (who do you think invented spam? AOL, actually). The comapnies that own the phone/cable/t1 lines along with corpriate sponsors could have a real stranglehold on information on the internet if they wanted.

tell me which international body controls every country in the world? which country is able to stop information from being put on websites within it's own borders (punishing people and shutting down websites does not stop the information from first getting on there). The fact is that once information is on the net it gets coppied and duplicated many times, even moreso if it is information that is likely to be removed. Why is it the movie industry is unable to stop every film they release from ending up on the net, dispite it being illegal in almost every nation in the world?

They are working on it as we speak
the US goverment retains control of the DNS system
And
The FBI requires a "black box" at the ISP to record all activity,
and possibly filter upload/download
Filtering is already happening in
China
Tunisia
Iran
and more countries around the world.
The DCMA,RIAA,MPAA are tools to make total control a reality

With the ways previously mentioned there would be ways to control it, plus, the very effective tool of just raising the price to where only the people they want to use the net can pay for it.

Granted they won't be able to control everything that comes on, but they can and may eventually be able to control who has access.

plus again you have to consider the costs. Let's say all the journalists are suddenly 100% republican stooges - something that could happen in the future as more of the good ones quit to make more money (managers at mc donalds generally make more than your average TV news photographer - - think I'll be in this business forever? I think not) or quit because they're sick of not being able to practice REAL journalism (another reason I probably won't be doing this forever). So now we've got a bunch of internet "citizen journalists" reporting on the internet to balance out what the republicanjournos are doing in the rest of the media. Only trouble is, like I've said before, it costs a LOT of money to gather the news. I sure don't have that kind of cash. Do you?

I don't believe there will ever be a body that will be able to control the internet, they can make it hard to access certian things but nothing will ever prevent it. There are far to many hackers that break every form of protection invented. Filters can be fooled easily. Blocking information from the internet is like trying to stop a flood with your hands.

Which is both good and bad. We've all seen how those stupid internet rumors spread. And hell most of those aren't even believable (forward this and Bill Gates will give you $100, etc). What if, in this future "news on the web" world, some idiot starts spreading lies, but makes them believable? You'd end up with an information anarchy in which you could never really know what news was true and what was false. That, if possible, would be even more of a disaster than the news situation today is.

A free press means a press free of government control. This is the only way that all of the truth has the possiblity of being brought forward. If a website has say 70% disinfo and lies, but 30% of the material was spot on and not being covered by anyone else, then it would be a diservice to the people to have the government restrict it because of it's track record. It's the job of the consumer to discern the information not the government. People know when they smell BS that's why they are going to the internet now instead of mainstream news.

The real disaster would be the truth not getting out due to governmental censors, not someone spreading rumors on the internets!!!ELVEN!!11

Take for instance www.rense.com. I don't agree with every article they post, but I find their view of how news should be handled to be spot on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not, nor would I EVER advocate government censorship of anything. What I'm saying is that under the current journalism system, you can at least have an idea who the reliable sources are. Yes, every source makes mistakes, but the networks, and (reputable) newspapers TRY to get it right. And if they don't it's pretty freakin' embarassing to them.

The net will turn all that on its head. I could go start a website tomorrow and write all sorts of lies about Bush. I can't be held accountable for it if I hide my real identity. If you didn't have alternate sources, you wouldn't be able to determine whether my stuff was false or not because you couldn't determine who I am or my track record for accuracy. Now, if ALL of journalism turns that way, we end up with total information anarchy. Again, it's not something the government needs to or should step in and stop, but it is a potential problem



You're speaking as though there could be only one disaster ;) Sure, that would be a disaster, but not being able to tell fact from fiction would also be a disaster, since the real news would then hold no more value than fake news.


Why? It has horriffic inaccuracies (Sharon is not "at least clinically dead" according to reputable sources, and the chemtrails bit is an old whacko conspiracy theory that has NEVER held water), and it's absurdly sensationalist.

US troops seize award-winning Iraqi journalist
Beyond manulipition and into direct intimidation.

Host: Re your challenge on the Gannon matter. Sorry, I completely missed your post.

I'll agree with you that it was the blog that figured it out (journos sorta fell down there - more on that in a minute) but it was the mainstream media that reported it after the blog discovered it.

Now, the reason I only say journos sort of failed there. You gotta understand. There are a LOT of dipshits in this business, just as there are in any other. Just because someone is incompetent or asks idiotic questions does not mean they're a planted stooge. They could just be a moron.

I honestly don't know enough about the individual comments reporters made to "Gannon" before he was exposed - I know they said he didn't belong there, but exactly what did they mean by that? I haven't been able to find out. "You don't belong here" could be taken two ways: 1) "You're not a real journalist, get the hell out" or 2) "You're a complete moron. Stop wasting our time. If it's 2, then there's no reason to raise a fuss.

Furthermore, once again we beat our heads against the trap the media has bought itself into. If a real journalist were to discover who gannon was and expose him, that real journalist would instantly be labeled part of the "liberal media" and every effort would be made to marginalize him and his report.

Especially interesting since there's no such thing as the liberal media. Media outlets are pretty much universally owned by corporations, which understandably lean conservative since the conservatives are the more business-friendly. Why would they hire a bunch of loudmouthed liberals and tell them to go out and spread liberalism if they want to encourage conservatism?