NYT asks if they should report TRUTH !?!

Here you go folks... pretty much everything that is wrong with mainstream news in a nutshell. The kicker is that it is being asked by an OP-ED writer, pretty much what most mainstream "news" has actually become... that is, paid actors and writers spewing their opinions or those of the news makers they write about regardless of actual FACTS.

SHOULD THE TIMES BE A TRUTH VIGILANTE?

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

And, to his surprise (?) the readers have been overwhelmingly calling for the publication to actually print FACTS and the TRUTH... which is what I thought NEWS was supposed to be, but I guess that was before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.

He goes on to ask...

Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair?

Yeah, I mean, which TRUTHS should we favor over the other? SERIOUSLY?!? That's the thing about TRUTH isn't it... there's only one.

Here's a link to a beautiful diatribe by the Young Turk over this... (If anyone knows how to embed the video, it would be greatly appreciated.

So, I guess these are depths we have to climb out of... pick up a shovel everyone! (And I'm not talking about dirt!)

the Billmeister

I'm surprised they ask the question since I've always heard that journalism was about watching what was going on to insure everything was made properly, by reporting what they learned...

I guess the money made them forget...

On one hand, I'm happy that the NYT has realized they need to be more vigilant in their field. However, on the other hand, I can't believe they even have to pose this question. I took a few journalism classes in college before changing my major, and the ethical code of journalists requires them to report the truth and stay vigilant

Now my conspiracy angle on this...

I recently finished reading "The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World" By Fletcher Prouty (description) where he details how certain powers behind the intelligence apparatus have managed a subtle but constant take-over of both government and mainstream media outlets.

Most ATS members are well aware of Project Mockingbird where the CIA infiltrated news agencies in order to have influence over public opinion, well, Mr. Prouty claims it has never gone away.

Even more disturbing is his demonstration as to how "agents" have been placed in strategic positions of practically every agency and cabinet necessary to sway policy decisions in the direction they choose. (But that is for another thread!)

So, the question is:
"Is the 'distortion' of facts by the mainstream media outlets due to journalistic laziness (see: incompetence) or are they following orders from their true bosses?"

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


I don't think you can claim every person in the industry is complicit. I'm sure it is a mixture of both issues you just addressed. Some are too lazy, ignorant to care and would rather just pick up their checks and call it a day. While others know the true chain of command and understand the money stops coming in when they stop following orders.

reply to post by Billmeister

"Is the 'distortion' of facts by the mainstream media outlets due to journalistic laziness (see: incompetence) or are they following orders from their true bosses?"

I would call it fear of CERTAIN retribution...loss of career, potential loss of family and life, if you attempt to report the real truth. Of course, you can talk about the weather.
We have our collective heads in the sand. We don't want to face the fact that organized crime has taken over and no one in public life is immune. Let's see what happens to Ron Paul for a clue.

Originally posted by TrueSuperman
reply to post by Billmeister

 

I don't think you can claim every person in the industry is complicit.

That is the position spelled out in Prouty's book.

A well placed editor-in-chief can have enormous influence over what makes it to the printing press (or tele-prompter).

Obviously, the book does a much better and more detailed job in explaining just how a few, well placed, agents can have tremendous influence over both government policy, and in this case, what "news" is reported.

Of course, the internet has thrown quite the monkey wrench into that mechanism... perhaps that explains SOPA?

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


I always thought, too, that editors were the "weakest link" of this business as they have control over what is put in an article. It would be one of the best spot to put agents, indeed!

reply to post by TrueSuperman


I have taken some media courses as well with the issues of job security and military repercussions from the media quite predominate. Truth and integrity has been an important part of the media in the past as the fourth estate did provide the checks and balances that the other aspects of society missed. Post 9/11 there has been a big cultural shift from facts towards opinion as the war machine had a job to do.

So lets say the media started reporting the facts again, how devastating would a real investigation into 9/11 be? What would happen to the global economy as the real depths of the problems are exposed? Just how many prominent people would be out of a job and is society stable and organised enough to pick up the slack if they are removed? Basically there would be a big shift in the balance of power with a lot more pressure to reduce corruption.

In the short term it would be very painful for the media to reinstate truth as the main guiding principle. In the long term society will be a lot more stable and cohesive as all these time wasting diversions come to an end.

reply to post by kwakakev


If we consider that a free press is an essential part of any democracy (not that we have ever seen a true democracy, but that is probably for another thread as well!) I believe that any potential repercussions of reinstating true journalism would be more than worth it.

After all, almost every political change stems from a situation brought to light by an investigative journalist does it not?

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


Politics is a very dynamic industry and constantly changing with an independent media promoting positive change. With the media today having certain agendas and taboo topics it does place a bias on the debates and change that does take place. By not publicly acknowledging certain topics, there is little political will and capability to address these topics. As such the status quo remains, which suits some fine.

The internet is changing this by expanding the channels of communication and access to information. While some of the quality of this information is questionable, it does allow a chance for some important issues to enter the public debate. Yet without mainstream access to many of these important issues there is little public and political will to confront these challenges.

When looking at the bottom of the rabbit hole there are things like mind control, genocide and eugenics, energy and technology suppression, false flags, black markets and abuses the average person cannot even begin to imagine. If the NYT and other MSM outlets are to man up then they do need to be prepared for war and chaos as the current power structures are brought to account.

When the truth is the first causality of war it does provide some gauge to the challenges that restoring integrity faces. I wish all well in the search for truth.

reply to post by kwakakev


Kwakakev, as I often do, I find myself agreeing with your assessment... except for the insured pandemonium part.

I honestly believe that a vast percentage of the population is aware of at least the massive corruption which exists within the so-called "upper" strata of society. Perhaps not every nefarious detail revealed when studying the rabbit hole, as you point out, but the disgust is there nonetheless.

For this vast majority, TRUTH is what they crave, and yes, I believe that we can "handle the truth". Add to that the fact that only the so-called "elite" seem to crave violence and war and you have a population ready for the massive clean-up needed in the world's power structure, MINUS the violence.

(This last part about the "elite" craving violence touches on, what I believe, is the "root of all evil" as it were, the fact that people with psychopathic traits are statistically over represented in positions of power. But once again, that is for another thread... and in fact, there are a number of them on this topic already on ATS.)

All that said, perhaps it is my optimistic side talking (well typing obviously!) and, as you say, those in current positions of wealth and power are very likely to go to any means to retain their current positions.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister

Kwakakev, as I often do, I find myself agreeing with your assessment... except for the insured pandemonium part.

I wish you were right. Lets say the ICC does get the support needed to launch a prosecution against the main suspects of 9/11, probably focus on the top 20 for the main trail. What would happen to Washington and the Pentagon? Probably look like rats leaving a sinking ship when word firsts get out, how big will the power vacuum be that is remaining, how disruptive to the organisation of the US government will it be? Enough to start a civil war or just some localised hiccups?

This will work its way through wall street, politics and a lot of jobs.

Last time I asked a similar questions, things went rather quite on the thread.

So lets its a complete mess. A state of emergency will be called. With the main threat to national integrity recognised there will be a lot of international pressure to reduce wide spread use of the FEMA camps. A basic level of shelter and food may be needed on a wide scale as a resemblance of order starts to take place.

Congress will be shut down as emergency policy for continuation of government kicks in. It does take a lot of work to keep society running so as much connection to normal everyday life that can be kept is good. The military needs a good house cleaning session and this is where it all lies for how it plays out. Valour verses Resources, right or might. Either the world releases the devil himself to rain down and scorch the globe or life goes on with a few more checks and balances in place.

I would prefer Ron Paul steering the ship rather than Obama through this storm, but probably make very little difference either way.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Last time I asked a similar questions, things went rather quite on the thread.

... crickets...

Let's take Belgium as an example, it went two years without a government, and many Belgians seem to agree that it was a great two years! I think that people have a way of making "real" life just goes on.

That's why I'm not convinced that eliminating the corrosive elements in current positions of power would equate to chaos. In fact, I don't think there would be much of an impact on people's everyday lives at all... food would still grow, people would still build houses for others to live in... etc.

The members of the "Secret Team" described by Prouty (the book I referenced above) are few in number, and have created a sort of parallel world where they are the puppet masters. Yes, removing these self appointed pseudo-kings would probably have a huge impact on people in the different regions of the world where the "master plan" involves killing and/or repression, but not so much on the everyday lives of the citizens here.

Again, I believe that people actually crave TRUTH. They know that something isn't quite right, and would adjust just fine if a light was shone onto all the activities being carried out in the shadows.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


Belgium is a great example to show just how little effect their can be in closing down a government. It sounds like a lot of the civil servants are still working with the bills getting paid, mainly just parliament has come to a grid lock as there is little to no communication between the opposing parties.

Egypt is a more common example of what happens when a government gets removed, the military step in. The OWS movement has created a lot of publicity, but not enough to kick start a revolution. With wikileaks and cablegate getting some of the blame for Egypt it does go to show what honest reporting can do.

When I do look at two different worlds, one with honest reporting and one with endless spin it is clear on which one I would prefer. The problem is how to get there as economic and political motives are interfering, not just in the media but with the courts, universities and other social sectors. A big part of the issue is with the culture, fear, patriotism, capitalism, worried about having a job.

Culture is more of a long term affect taking many years to develop and constantly changing with the environment. It is good the NYT is confronting the issue of integrity. With corporations making decisions based on the bottom line, their reputation is a valuable asset as there is a lot of competition between news services. There is also professionalism and ethics which are a little more intangible of direct economic accounting but are important attributes for all fields of work.

If the NYT did make a commitment to truth and reinstated it as core operating policy, it will take a while to flow through the system. Better procedures for journalist and whistle blower protection, more peer review before stories do get dropped. More resources and research for some of these bigger problems. I hope they do make the move but I would not expect much to change overnight.