It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the Media Creating News?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:43 PM
A while back when I first entered a University, I studied Journalism hoping to be the next Diane Sawyer. That later changed, and I went on to study other pursuits.
However, I do remember some of the basics of reporting, and nowhere do I recall studying the art of inventing a crisis, then plugging away at it, until it becomes a reality.

Lately I've had some concerns that this is often what is happening. Surely not all the time, but so much so it has become something I'm noticing with increasing frequency.

During one of the Journalism courses I took early on, I remember the instructor giving a definition/ example of propaganda that I have always remembered.
It was this:

"Suppose you want to prove that all dogs bite. You will not lie, you will simply only report about biting dogs". That is to the complete omission of the dogs who are gentle, and do not bite, of course.

Solodad O'Brien, for example, a few months back did a mini-series on CNN entitled "Race in America" or "Being Black in America" or something to that effect.
Naturally the scenarios she presented were disturbing, leaving me wondering if perhaps things are much worse than I suspected, as I don't tend to experience these situations with race. Maybe I just didn't fully realize how dreadful things really are.

In this way, we quietly receive propaganda, moreless through the back door. Was O'Brien's report propagandized? Maybe. I didn't find much about it that was pertinent to my reality. (At least during the parts of it I could actively attend to.) I admit I didn't watch with great focus, but I think I got the gist of it.

Lou Dobbs is another case in point. Remember when he hammered and hammered away about the "illegal aliens" and our "unprotected border" many months? I listened to it until I can literally no longer stand the sight of his cherub face. I race to find the remote anytime I hear his voice.

Sure, there may be problems on the border. But he tried his best to promote it into a full blown national crisis/emergency, as in we need to take action now, or the entire country is going down the toilet! It was disgraceful, and he stopped at nothing to try to work everyone up into a frenzy. LOU DOBBS against the world of the Texas border. I expected any day to see him in a superhero costume, leaping around El Paso to single handedly protect our borders.

Not to say there was no truth in any of it. I don't live on a border state. But notice there was never a mention of the dogs that don't bite.

Glenn Beck. Enough said. Bill O'Reilly. They all do it. Egregiously. And the tacit indications. The head shaking and frowning. The tightly pressed lips. It's as though their little hearts are breaking.

News is supposed to be unbiased. We don't have that anymore. We have histrionic pretty-boys catering to their own personal agendas, which is more likely than not a successful TV show. Apparently emotions sell. Self-righteousness sells. Indignation sells. The Blame Game. Yelling, Screaming, Anger, Tears, Calumny.

Where's Walter Cronkite when you need him?

The newscasters want a successful show. They want to be celebrities. That's the motivation, not the factual delivery of the news.

They present their own perspectives in whatever way they feel might boost ratings, and this typicaly includes showing "passion" for what they are reporting. This "Demonstration of Passion", as I shall call it, seems to be very trendy right now. Do we really need that? Do we really want it? Frankly, I find it embarrassing at times. I mean, grown people are supposed to be able to control their emotions, right?

Cronkite became tearful when JFK was killed, and that was appropriate. It was genuine. He wept and the country was weeping with him. But these other displays?

It seems rehearsed and orchestrated because it is. It is the means unto an end.

I was listening earlier today to a news show with Ed Henry. He commented that while he was being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer he made the remark that it looked like Obama might be up in the ratings just a tad insofar as Health Care reform.
Later he realized as he was making this comment the "crawl" at the bottom of the screen read (as attributed to his comments): "Obama desperate for ratings to improve". Now, maybe he is desperate. But that's not what Henry was saying.

They take a lot of liberties, don't they. They simply gave it a sensationalized spin to get the remote flippers to tune in. (The President is desperate, Yeah, that should do it.) No matter whether it gives a good representation of what was being said.

It's unprofessional and contradicts basic fundamentals of reporting.

I know we have professional journalists on board here at ATS. Do they still teach responsibility/accountability, integrity and ethics in reporting? Or, seriously, is it all about showmanship and ratings now? Writing a column that many will follow which trades facts for entertaiment? Does it matter?

I've wondered if they offer drama classes now so you can become so "passionate" about your rant or cause, that your audience fears you are having a break down, or a heart attack? Please. Keep the theatrics. Report the news. Factually, if you please.

Dan Rather stepped down when he realized he had made a mistake. Maybe even too prematurely. That's integrity.

These other guys? Those dogs won't hunt.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

The MSM has had an agenda since reporting of the vietnam war. Probably even prior to that. (I'm just going on personal history here)
We don't see it when they report on things that agree with what we agree with.
But when we don't see eye to eye, then it becomes more obvious.

Case in point? Obama. As most are aware, he ain't on my christmas card list. So I would see more bias, more false reporting in the media than someone who is for Obama.

Now, is it MY bias that causes the illusion of media held bias? Or are they really slobbering lap-dogs for the administration?

You might need a more impartial observer to make a true decision.

Nice thread though.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Ahh, this is true. One might have a tendency to notice "offenses" rather than something which one agrees with. Touche.

But nonetheless, since I'm so big on Dog analogies today, might as well wallow in it and say I have noticed it also, even when I don't have a dog in the race.

[edit on 9/27/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

But nonetheless, since I'm so big on Dogs today, might as well wallow in it and say I have noticed it also, even when I don't have a dog in the race.

Then your assertion has merit. I would have to trust someone more impartial, than say, a rabid conservative like myself.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:19 PM
To be fair, Beck and O'Reilly aren't news reporters, they're news commentators. As are pretty much all of the people who have their own shows. They are naturally going to voice their opinions which makes their reports more biased than those that come from actual news reporters. The difference between reporters and commentators is frequently overlooked but it shouldn't be.

I do agree that the news in general though is biased according to the reporters opinions and beliefs on the subject. It's rather unfortunate that this is the case. Any one who wants an unbiased take on pretty much anything that's made headlines has to go out of their way to find multiple sources that cover the topic from multiple angles and then cobble together the truth.

Mikerusselus brings up an excellent point as well. It's hard to know how much of the perceived bias is real and how much of it is just our impression based on our own biased opinions.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

you might find this interesting

(click to open player in new window)

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Jenna

But you know Jenna, there is a thin line there, and they do have the ability to create a crisis, and I do find this disturbing.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by warrenb

WarrenB, for some reason I haven't been able to access vids today.

Perhaps I can view this when I figure out what's wrong.......
Thank you very much for posting.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

That's very true. Some of them make it clear that their shows are opinion shows and some don't. Personally I think they should all make it abundantly clear that most of what they say is opinion and their take on the news instead of allowing people to believe that their opinions are 100% fact. It certainly wouldn't completely fix the problem of bias in the media, but I think it would at least help people differentiate between opinion and fact.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:25 PM
I think this is a very interesting thread, and probably very true.

I, as TheDailyPlanet, have created two threads very related - one alleges that the Daily Mail and its group created knife crime by making up headlines that incorporated allegorical (pretend) knives. The other thread alleges that the BBC's graphics on BBC News 24, effectively incite bloodshed, although so far I have had no agreement on this matter.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by TheDailyPlanet

Thank you for posting DailyPlanet. I need to go read your threads, as I am finding this subject simultaneously interesting and distressing.

It troubles me every time I watch one of these clowns performing, and as I begin more and more to realize what they are doing. Unless there are hidden political agendas --- such as wanting to be elected to a political position. It's actually occurred to me that Lou Dobbs would like this, and maybe some of the others as well.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:07 PM
The fed has owned the media since 1917. The media is a propaganda machine

1. I know for a fact at least two cases of false reporting. Nation wide TV showed footage of riots at Purdue University in 1970. There were NO riots.

2. The anti-polystyrene Campaign in the late eighties by a New Hampshire Grade School Teacher. It went Nationwide within a few days - Major coverage. WHat no one knows is it happened a month before McDonalds, SweetHeart Plastic and Polysar were going to announce on TV a brand new plant to totally recycle McDonald's non food trash. The plant was designed to employ the handicapped.

3. Plane Hijacking. I can remember the first Plane Hijacking and my Mom saying, "That should never be reported, what are those idiots reporting this for" Boy was she ever correct.

4. Tainted Food and TWO Congressional investigations Read what did not make it into the Mass Media because the Ag Cartel wants the US farmland. John Munsell: Meat packing Maverick John told me a reporter from a New York Magazine spent several days interviewing him, the article was written the editor was happy and the OWNER of the magazinekilled the article.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:51 AM
In reference to my comment earlier concerning political aspirations, I remember once Lou Dobbs receiving an email in which someone suggested he should run for the presidency. (Naturally, the ones they put on the screen are hand-picked, as was this one).

As he was reading it, he was unmistakably and shamelessly cooing with delight. He all but rolled over and showed us his tender underbelly. It was a sad sight to behold.

I've seen some of the others do the same thing.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:36 AM
Back before the dawn of time, my husband and I were journalism majors at a respected US university. We were taught that the ethics of journalism was objectivity. Most of our professors believed that your readers or watchers should never have an inkling of what you really thought about the politics behind the story. You were there to report the facts, all the facts, etc. etc. Commentary was different, but back in the day, commentary was strictly for the editorial page or a fairly rare little piece in the evening news. Chronkite's getting choked up about JFKs death was seen as understandable but still a breach. How far we have come! My husband is still in the field and just shakes his head. He can't stand to watch CNN and I don't believe Fox News has even been broadcast in our house. It isn't so much that we are liberal (though we are) it's that we were rigorously trained to have respect and awe for objectivity and ethical behavior. We were taught that journalists played a key role in the democracy of the nation by their fierce devotion to the truth and their refusal to be self serving. I KNOW that's an impossible standard to always achieve, but how sad that now we don't have the objective at all.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by casaloma

It is worse. Journalist who do hold a high ethical standard get fired for being honest. Derry Brownfield reported on Monsanto's unethical treatment of Us farmers and got kicked off the air. Two journalists in Florida got fired for criticizing Monsanto. I have gone a round or two with the head of Monsanto's publicity department. Corporations have interlocking directors with the media see ATS - Media Control? - 118 people...

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:08 AM
I think that the media has always been 75% fact, 25% sensationalism. But, I don't blame them in the least.

News shows, like everything else, have to turn a profit and in order to do so must have a niche in order to attract the most viewers.

If they all reported on the exact same stories, using exactly the same facts, it would make them all interchangeable. In order to make it their own, they have to add "flavor". It's their uniques spin that makes a person choose one over the other.

Now, I personally think that it has gotten way out of hand in recent months -- the line between opinion and fact is getting more and more muddled.

As for the reason -- i think it's because the current administration has made TV the new White House platform. No other president has appeared on TV more than Obama. Between various interviews, late night shows, and addresses, the media is now faced with trying to embrace a "celebrity-type" Presidency. Further, Obama has proven that if a particular network is not willing to embrace the White Hosue, he will turn the public against them (think: Fox news when they refused to air his national address).

Therefore, they must be able to balance keeping the White House happy while offering its viewers a "fresh, new look" at what's going on in the world. Plus, politics has become "cool" again.

And let's face it, reporting that North Korea fired another missile is the same no matter where you read it, the reason "why" it was fired -- which is completely an opinion since only NK really knows why -- and that's what people tune in to hear.

Listening to the news is the same as reading real estate ads -- if you want the real story you have to remove all of the adjectives.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the original post. Cronkite/Rather are both very skewed in their perspective, very liberal, I agree they did not get whipped up into a hysterical frenzy, but this is what makes things so more insidious, they weren't hysterical and presenting things in a calm manner, but the fact is that their messages were not much different that the BS that is being spewed nowadays, it was just wrapped up in a prettier package so a lot of people did not notice.

I also can not believe that there is no distinction made between a reporter (Rather) and a pundit (Olberman/hannity/etc).

Beck, O reily, Olberman, hannity, etc are not reporters, and I do not think any of them claim to be.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:18 AM
lol! I can't stop envisioning Lou Dobbs in a superhero suit leaping around the border! Hilarious.

I agree though. We have a media manufacturing machine.


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:19 AM
I appreciate the dog analogy...and your choice not to leap into a partisan mindset with this question...


Sometimes...sometimes they report it.

I attribute this to the evolution from the "Nightly News" as a loss leader/public service.....

Into the 24/7 hour news channels for profit.

Once reporting the news is ALL ABOUT MONEY...everything else crumbles.

You have advertisers trying to reach a specific segment of the population...

those advertisers want to know the demographic is watching and loyal to the program...

Those advertisers will pay the network more money depending on how many viewers are watching.

How do you get viewers? SENSATIONALISM


American president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group.

Ailes .. media advisor for the Nixon campaign in 1968.
campaigning as a consultant to Ronald Reagan in 1984
In 1988 Ailes was credited (along with Lee Atwater) with guiding George H. W. Bush to a come-from-behind victory over Michael Dukakis.

Ailes also came up with the "orchestra pit theory" regarding sensationalist political coverage in the news media, with the question:

If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?

NEWS FOR PROFIT IS NOT NEWS....profit means telling viewers what they want to hear/reinforcing their opinions regardless of truth or accuracy...FOX polarizes the right...MSNBC...the left etc..the truth takes a backseat to ratings and advertisers income...all the ad money cares about is...did we reach our demographic? How many?

Ef objectivity!! This is a business!!!

I listen to NPR... "public radio" ...they are NOT FOR PROFIT news.

They are not perfect, but they at least have an old school view of actually trying for objective analysis, researching facts, being independant, giving airtime and respect to minority opposing views etc.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:33 AM
Lets play out a scenario here: A reporter or whatever you choose to call these people who carry down the agenda from the pyramid's capstone so to say. This tool gets up early in the morning, gets ready just like everyone of us, do the exact same things we do, brush its teeth, comb its hair, etc. This tool then gets into it's lavish car that has been bought and paid for by his handlers and controllers, because this tool has proven its worth through carrying out the agenda and dis-informing its fellow human brothers and sisters. The tool walks into the gigantic corporate office, a facility that manufactures false perceptions and perspectives, some place like ABC, NBC, etc. These facilities are no different than the conditioning factories called "schools" we are sent to when we are very little. Another place that conditions and indoctrinates us into not only a group-think mentality, "herd" mentality, but also, teach you useless information for you to retain and to spew onto others whom you interact with on a daily basis or onto a paper as an "exam" to confirm that you have accepted the programming. This "reporter" tool sits in it's office or cubical and is going over in it's mind how well it's "ratings" were and how its becoming "famous". One of the tool's handlers hands it the news for the day. On the paper there is what the tool's objectives are. Creation of hysteria, getting itself and other fired up on mundane or completely untrue information. Plainly put, on this paper is exactly what the tool will and will not cover. There are do's and don'ts and if the tool does not follow its marching orders, another tool who is equally as gullible and desirous of worldly wealth and trinkets can step into its place. These tools or "reporters" are at the core, frightened individuals, they need to feel special. They will sell out their brothers and sisters who all equally have a share in where we are going as the human race and also where the planet is going.

All for what? Pieces of green paper that mean absolutely nothing, these green pieces of paper have hypnotized people into believing that they are more valuable than a life or lives of our 6 billion brothers and sisters. That these pieces of paper can magically erase all the perceived problems of your life. They can't, all mental/emotionally/physical/spiritual imbalance is nothing that lies without, but is something that is within. If you are imbalanced in any of these areas they will manifest themselves PHYSICALLY. Your exterior world is a mirror of your interior world. Change YOURSELF and the WHOLE WORLD changes. My friends, brothers and sisters, these tools "reporters" are our own brothers and sisters who have freely of their own free will sold their souls, their minds, their bodies 100% to the deceivers. Let us not hate them for their choice, but look at them with compassion since they are terrified, they are merely reacting to an action or choice that happened to them long ago. People are waking up more and more now, soon, even the tools will begin turning on the matrices of control and slavery that keep the human race in bondage. These structures are just like a pyramid, and WE, US, THE PEOPLE, are the FOUNDATION of this structure, it CANNOT EXIST without US! Let us instead of FIGHTING it, let us REMOVE ourselves from it. What would happen if a pyramid had no base? It would collapse to the ground! They NEED us to believe their lies, they NEED us absolutely, 100%, even if it means dividing us over it arguing over who is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". They are merely opinions, biases and perceptions learned and acquired throughout an incarnation. Let us all UNITE, all of us, for we all ARE ONE! Look at your neighbor, your brothers, your sisters, they ARE YOU, not exactly you, but a completely beautiful and unique portion of yourself!

I bid you all good day

May the One Infinite Creator bless us all in Love and Light,

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in