Once upon a time when children dreamed of becoming a reporter or a journalist when they grew up it was owed to a thirst. That thirst was to seek out
the story, be on the spot, reporting live, seeking truth and searching out the edge. To scoop a story that was on "the edge" was considered to be a
badge of glory.
Fast forward to todays journalism. Todays reporter and todays news......or should we say the total destruction of todays news. Once it paid to be on
the spot for breaking news. Now it still pays but it doesn't really matter if you miss the story because you can just take it off the syndication
feeds and report on it anyway. Once if you missed the scoop, the next edition of your employer's news broadcast would be sadly lacking in comparison
to your opposition who had scooped the story. Nowadays owing to syndication all rival networks can report on the same stories at the same time.
This is where we have major problems marching insidiously into todays news. Where once we would sit down in front of the six o clock news and flick
through the channels to get more details and a different slant on stories, today all rival channels are sprouting the same piece. All fed to them by a
news organization such as Reuters.
Journalist integrity is a thing of the past. Reporters now write up stories with no clue except from the syndication feed in their hands. No followups
are made, no separate witnesses are interviewed, it is all the same, no unique perspective, no unique broadcast.
While syndication may have helped media outlets to produce stories at a low cost to themselves and their budget, at what cost does that come to the
people, the ultimate consumer? Instead of paying a journalist to sit in a war zone, it is much easier and a hell of a lot cheaper to pay reuters to
get a live feed sent to you 24/7.
The media is monpolized by these syndications. No unique reporting is done and media outlets rarely sent their own correspondants to a news site to
get the low down on news.
The issues with this are many. One story, one source, one side. We only get one perspective of news and unfortunatley many take this as gospel. As
And its not just the syndications that are an issue. Media is tightly controlled by Governments. It was only this year that certain Internet bloggers
were allowed to attend offical government media interviews. Freelance journalists nowadays do not get a look in. At official government press
conferences and increasngly so in private and public conferences questions must be submitted by the reporters in advance. Only those pertinent to the
point of view or stance taken are allowed to be asked. Soft journalism...... no putting interviewees on the spot no embarrassing questions taken.
It was recently experiences by an Irish journalist who interviewed George Bush in disasterous circumstances. This served to highlight the state of the
integrity of journalism today or lack of. This reporter was told how to do everything and disiplined heavily by the government of the USA just for
doing her job. Just for asking the hard questions and not allowing her interviewee to lead the interview. But this reporter has shown us that true
journalism does still exist in isolated pockets. Even though the government of America and other so called super powers are trying their hardest to
control the media totally. This womans story has become public, told by a true professional and the ultimate statement given by this woman to us of
the state of the powers was that she should be grateful that "The Leader Of The Free World" was allowing her to interview him.
Media sent to war zones are tightly controlled of just what pictures and stories are released to the public. If a dissident reporter reports a tad
more of the truth than is allowed, as in the above case, pressure is exerted by the government and journalists find themselves jobless or worse.
Journalists have been known to go missing.
There lies the condundrum for any reporter. It was great to grow up and forfill that dream, to become that reporter. But now we have a choice, we have
a great job, travel, benefits, fame, money and power, do we sacrifice that for the truth? Most and I mean most will toe the party line. It takes one
with much courage and heart and probably little common sense to go out and get the "Real McCoy". Its far easier to sit in the offices, take the news
off the feed, reword it and publish it and then go down to the local club for a long liquid lunch.
If real stories do come up reporters are discouraged from reporting the whole truth and in some instances outwardly stopped. There are many instances
of stories being killed because "they are not in the national interest". The problem is those are the stories that are in the publics interest but
the public never gets to hear about it.
Reuters has done for more for the New World Order than can be seen on the surface. Reuters is the largest propaganda machine created in the world
today. If it has reuters on it, it is deemed to be a respectable piece.
Press releases are another way to stop journalistic integrity. Press releases do not allow for questioning. They do not allow for the reporter to put
there own questions to the persons concerned.
Then there is the legal action and liability court cases. Journalists are less likely to search out sources unless they are ironclad in evidence for
fear of being sued. Your editor is less likely to approve a good story if it exposes a high profile person with suing ability.
One instance of journalism gone wrong in the press lately was the Kate Moss fiasco.
Who was right and who was wrong - Games People Play.
Kate moss last year successfully sued Britains Mirror newspaper after it claimed she was involved with drugs. She was award compensation for this
matter and an apology off the news agentswho had reported she took drugs. "I am sorry kate Moss, our mistake your not a drug taker
Now anyone in their right mind knows Katies does drugs. In the 90's she was the centre of the "heroin chic models" scene. In the last few years
nothing has appeared to change and rumours have cropped up in gossip columns often. So Kate lied. She lied to protect her image I presume but she
lied. The media who reported on this got slugged with that lie. They got fined and slapped hard for doing their job and reporting the truth. But
revenge is sweet. The paper had surveillence on the lovely Kate and held their ears to the ground and in one flick, one headline, one very revealing
photo, Katies world was ruined. Payback Journalism
. Integrity? No but sweet revenge. Katie does do drugs and she was caught on the front page
worldwide with her pants down.
In the relentless pursuit of the new World Order, the buddy system, you scratch my back, I will scratch yours, many a life has been ruined by payback
journalism. No integrity.
Recently the opposition leader of the News South Wales Australian state government was overheard at a party making a remark about the wife of the
former premier of New South Wales calling her a "mail order bride". At parties comments like these are flicked between people like water off a ducks
back. At private gatherings people tend to talk to friends more easily not thinking that someone in the group has wicked thoughts about destroying
them. The person is then setup and the newspapers have a field day pasting the comment all over front pages and headline news. A comment that was a
private speaking between friends is now the very public downfall of a leading politician who had obviously stepped onto someones toes. Payback
The question is often asked in these instances Is the media owned
by the government or is the government 0wned
by the media. The
government holds the licences and control in their hands, yet the media has the ability to destroy that government with the flick of a headline.
Watergate comes to mind. Would watergate have happened if Nixon and co were on "the right team".
The government cannot afford in this day and age not to have control over the media. The further up the hierarchy the more the lines blur into
indestinction and indescretion. The media presents the powerful face of ability, yet refuses to expose all, choosing instead to play a game of chess
with themselves as the pawns just as much as the ultimate consumer is, the reader and watcher.
All stories out of any situation should be regarded with suspicion. At times a clever journalist will hint without coming to the point and leave clues
of thought behind in a readers head, but many times they don't they don't report the facts as they see it, they rewrite the scrap of paper in front
of them and consider it gospel, because reuters told them so.
The news today is not news. We have no clue on the real news. We have no contrasting opinion and no other side of the coin. The syndications are sent
worldwide and one only has to type a headlining article into google to find the same fed article, same wording staring back at them from most if not
all the standard news outlets in every country, in every land.
Even closed countries like China and other "not so friendly to the super powers" countries report from reuters and AP feeds. One can no longer go
and search an opposing countries news feeds for a different slant on the story.
ATSNN has a "Deny Bias" tag. How can ATSNN and any other news outlet deny bias when the story they have is pure bias. Its one side, Its a
syndication feed, Its propaganda media, its censored. A reporter cannot swear by a no bias tag on their story when all they have as a source is that
feed. No corroboration and no witness accounts.
Buzzwords abound like "A source close to the event" " A key witness" "A spokesman" "a doctor" "reports say" "witnesses report" 'an
unnamed source" "mohammed azzi" "Zargewi" and the best buzzword of 2005 ...and actually this word gets my prize for the world wide media buzzword
for 2005 is "insurgents
For a word I had never really heard of or used 18 months ago, I come across it at least ten times a day, every day. Its all by rote, its all
formulated, no imagination, no drift towards the truth. Where has all the honesty and brutal truth and cold hard facts gone?
The challenge I set to all journalists and reporters in the world today including armchair web journos is to start seeking the truth again. To purge
the reporting of bias. To retake the media and give news back it's heart. To encourage originality, To encourage the hard questions, to encourage
getting out there and finding the other side of the story. Its a bit harder to find the other side of the coin, its been lying in the dirt so long its
rather hard to see, Its surface is hidden under the bright side, its dull and not shiny and atractive. Its gritty, its dirty and its real in all its
hidden points and curves.
Do not take what you are told as gospel, find out more, study, research, seek, deny the bias that has so attractively been placed in your lap. Be a
reporter, be a journalist, be a snoop.
Just who does own Reuters because Reuters certainly owns you.
Truth Justice ...and the new world order
[edit on 14-10-2005 by Mayet]