Fake News Stories Probed

An anonymous reader writes "From the article: "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has begun an investigation of the use of video news releases, sometimes called "fake news," at U.S. television stations. Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups. They use actors to portray reporters and use the same format as television news stories.""

Comments

Agitprop

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

From FTA:

"You can't tell anymore the difference between what's propaganda and what's news," Adelstein said.

“Soviet Russia” jokes aside (who, by the way, had an entire Department for Agitation and Propaganda), we are at that uncanny nexus where Capitalism and Bolshevism meet: where greed, unchecked, vies to overawe and enslave a receptive populace.

Prescription? Strap in; when the government fears the governed, voting won't get you anywhere.

Re:Agitprop

[cirby]

...except that almost everyone reading this story on Slashdot heard it from a non-network source, with added commentary and direct feedback, and you know there's going to be a lot of fact-checking in the comments below.

Ditto for most of the predigested/fake news we get. Used to, it just went unchallenged, but now it's a lot harder to get newsoids out without someone putting up a site about the Emperor's New Press Release.

Re:Agitprop

[CrazyDuke]

This is a bit off the mark. But, personally, I thought one of the major points of 1984 was that it didn't really matter if the government was fascist, communist, or theocratic, the end result was essentially the same. So, the simularities between authoritarian governments aren't really a surprise me.

Re:Agitprop

[246o1]

The fact that all the things politicians try to get away with shoving down our throats are exposed so quickly has not prevented them from trying. Now, however, the people who learn about all this stuff immediately on the internet, an ever-growing but still-small (way less than half the population) group are well-informed.

There's a huge gap between people who try to find out what's true and people who just accept whatever they want to be true. The more lies there are out there, and the more people realize there are lies, the more people will just decide to believe in whatever reality they like. For instance, no matter how much I point out the relentless corruption of the government in office now, my father has settled on the idea that Republicans and Democrats are basically equally corrupt, which means he won't vote on corruption as an issue anymore. He just has no faith in the reliability of any news source that he or I might find, and he is busy with his life, so he doesn't bother finding out what is true.

When we allow a variety of false "truths" (Kerry's more of a flip-flopper than Bush, Gore claims to have invented the internet, there are WMD in Iraq, there's a connection between Iraq and 9-11, etc.) to stick around on TV long after they are show to be false, we decrease the believability of any TV news.

There is meaningful damage done to our society everytime the bar for truth and honesty in news reporting is lowered further.

Yes, the internet has been great for getting news out to some people, but for most people, it's still just as hard to tell whether to trust little green footballs or rawstory as it is to decide between Fox and (if there were a liberal network I would put it here)

Re:Agitprop

[BoberFett]

Are we to assume, then, that you've chosen to believe the Democrat version of truth?

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

> Strap in; when the government fears the governed, voting won't get you anywhere.

Unless you (we) stop voting for incumbents. Automatic term limits. No more entrenched power brokers, no more career politicians.

Re:Agitprop

[246o1]

Not always, by any means. There are certainly plenty of corrupt Dems out there, but far fewer than Republicans (especially in my state, for what that's worth) from what I can tell, and obviously the executive branch, being all Republican, means the most prominent ones now are also Republican.

I am a liberal and a skeptic (some might say cynic), if you are particularly interested.

Re:Agitprop

[Ambassador Kosh]

Here is what I have noticed. The people in power are the most likely ones to lie since they have more to lose. I don't believe the democrats and when they where in power they did a lot of lieing. However now that the republicans are in power they are doing more of the lieing simply because they have more opportunity to do so. If the democrats where in power again they would do the same thing.

Heck if you really look at it are there any actual republicans or democrats in power? Republicans are supposed to be conservative, small government, fiscal responsibility etc. When is the last time you saw that? Highest debts then ever, more spending, bigger government etc is the rule right now.

Same goes for democrats. You know actual liberals that really are. People that look at what reality is like now and see what can be changed to actually improve it. It used to be that democrats where pro change for the better but where also for fiscal responsibility. Now we have democrats that spend every dime we have and the changes they want are the changes that benefit mostly their own power and the other rich people. I have not see a real democrat or republican in office in a long time.

If you actually believe in the democrat or republican party lines I don't see how you can vote for people in either party in good concience given the state that both parties are in.

So in essence I don't believe that anything that republicans or democrats say is really the truth except where it happens to work in their favor and selective telling of the truth is often worse the lieing.

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution? Voting reform. Allow third parties to enter the race through Condorcet voting methods. These methods all but eliminate "tactical voting", meaning that under a Condorcet system, the best way of getting your ideas in the White House is to vote for your favorite candidates. Nobody likes the Democrats, they just vote for them to keep the Republicans out of office. Voting reform is the logical step towards removing corruption from the government and allowing it to represent the people.

Re:Agitprop

[arivanov]

Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.
            --Kosh Naranek

Re:Agitprop

[Jeremi]

Now we have democrats that spend every dime we have and the changes they want are the changes that benefit mostly their own power and the other rich people.

Can you name some examples of Democrats that are doing this? How is it that "democrats are spending every dime we have" when they control neither the White House nor either branch of Congress? Seems to me that one of the few advantages to being completely out of power is that you don't have to take the blame for the actions of the people who are in power...

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

The imperfect tense of "to lie" is spelt "lying". Normal practice is to drop a final e before adding "ing" but if that causes a double i, y is substituted for the first i. Another example is "to die", which becomes "dying".

English: more than just a bunch of words!

Re:Agitprop

[Curtman]

And besides, a sex scandal is a lot more fun than the vote rigging scandals, and hundreds of thousands of dead people that we get from the Republicans.

Re:Agitprop

[enharmonix]

...an ever-growing but still-small (way less than half the population) group are well-informed.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say well informed, but maybe better informed, or at least differently informed (i.e., even if half the people are wrong, at least everybody will come to a bunch of different conclusions that cancel each other out, rather than having a collective knee-jerk reaction and doing something stupid, which admittedly still happens).

Unfortunately, ease of communication allows for faster disemination of both truth and falsehood, or, more succinctly: Just because you read it on the web doesn't make it true. The New Media at least allows more informed decision making: when you hear eight different versions of a story instead of just the one on TV, you at least stand a better chance of being able to figure out what actually happened.

Re:Agitprop

[dreamchaser]

*All* forms of government eventually lead to a dictatorship if they are not checked. The problem we have in the US now is all THREE branches are out of control, so there really are no checkxs and balances are our freedoms and the rights of the States slowly erode away over the decades.

Re:Agitprop

[rbochan]

...we decrease the believability of any TV news...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Agitprop

[Wiwi Jumbo]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Re:Agitprop

[enharmonix]

vote rigging scandals ... that we get from the Republicans

Vote rigging? I ask because every time somebody hollers disenfranchisement, it's a Democrat. Fortunately, every time I've read about dead people, convicted felons or illegal immigrants voting, voting tours across multiple precincts, underage voting (see part (B)), and pushes for voting without identification, they always seem to be voting for Democrats, so in the end it all balances out, doesn't it? ...if not, I can keep going.

You don't have to belive everything The Party tells you, comrade.

Re:Agitprop

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The concept of truth really only exists in theory. The practical world is relative and biased. I'd say that the third edge would be some other guy's side that you haven't taken into consideration.

Re:Agitprop

[slugstone]

Man you must turn a blind eye. Here in Washington we are controled by Decmocats. Oh not that Washington. It has DC on the end of the name. Our leader want to build a tunnel to replace above ground road. Humm, build a new stadiom for what? A basket ball team. Gee, if the football, baseball, basket ball teams had to have a bake sale while schools got the funding they needed. Oh off topic. They want to rase our taxes, but give themselves a rase. We have one of the highest unemployment taxes in the country, with one of the highest gas taxes too. Democats are no better then the other party.

Oh one of the Senters that go to the other Washington, claims to be an envirmentals. She drives one of the biggest cars you can buy.

Re:Agitprop

[slugstone]

Oh please look at Chicgo in 1960. We have a few more dead people voting, then in Flordia. How does the saying go? Vote Early, vote offen. I like chads compaired to to Diebolts stuff any day.

Re:Agitprop

[operagost]

I can't help but notice that you didn't mention other falsehoods commonly mentioned on Slashdot, such as "Bush went AWOL," "Bush created 9/11," "Bush put an RFID device in my brain," etc. Kinda shows YOUR bias, doesn't it?

Re:Agitprop

[Ubergrendle]

I don't really see the big deal to be honest -- this has been going on since the mid-80s at least (soon as betamax became economical to distribute).

You know those 'latest cancer breakthroughs' or 'scienfitic studies have shown today that...' -- they're ALL press releases. Guaranteed most newsrooms don't have health reporters trolling through medical journals, making informed opinions about what should and should not be broadcast.

Its a sad reality, but why is this a story all of the sudden? At least blogs are keeping journalists a bit more 'honest' now. NYTimes, CBS, Reuters have all been stung recently...and they deserved it.

Re:Agitprop

[kjshark]

So you admit what you're saying isn't the truth ?

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to rase your taxes and their salaries? As in rase (verb): "to erase", or a form of "raze" (verb): "to demolish or cut"?

Re:Agitprop

[heinousjay]

Only for selected values of reality.

Re:Agitprop

[Archangel Michael]

I am LIBERTARIAN, so I have no problems bashing Republicrats and Demicans.

But as for VOTING scandals, why is it that all of the problem votes occur in DEMOCRATICALLY controlled districts / counties ??????

Oh, and lets not compare numbers, or simply forget the latest 100K in the freezer, striking police officers, drunk driving, check kiting ....

Corruption? BOTH sides are inherently corrupt, because the system, as it currently sits requires it. I think our country would be INHERENTLY more stable if we had part time legislatures everywhere. Meet one month per quarter, four months a year. Require them to have REAL jobs, and not be PROFESSIONAL politicians.

Professional politics is a recipie for corruption. The system is rigged!

Re:Agitprop

[cowscows]

The sad reality of politics is that the label of "Republican" and "Democrat" are less about ideas or attitudes towards government, and more about groups of people that work together in order to gain and/or maintain power.

The Republicans were the first to internalize that, and that's one of the big reasons why they've been so succesful in the past few elections. They put aside their differences as far as how they'll actually govern, and instead have focused on appearing consistent and organized in order to win votes.

The Democratic party overall has been somewhat resistant to commit entirely towards that sort of politics, but they're starting to come around. Will this shift for them help them govern better if they do take control of the government? No, but it's really the only choice they have to fight the Republican media/campaign machine. If you read the bigger liberal blogs, a lot of them have basically come to the same conclusion. Even if the people the Democratic party makes its candidates aren't what you'd consider ideal or even good, just disrupting the current powers that be is important enough to support the party.

I don't identify with either party very strongly, even though I'd rate my views as centrist, leaning a little towards the left. The Democrats as a party do not particularly appeal to me, but I don't see any good way to fight the system from the outside. It really is a choice for the less of two evils, and that's a crappy position for a voter to be in, but that's how the world works. I'm not ready to give up completely on that ever changing, but I don't see that change happening in the near future, so my best bet is to engage the system and try to minimize its damage best I can while it exists.

Re:Agitprop

[zaphod_es]

The Democrats say that the the Repbulicans are liars. The Republicans say that the Democrats are liars. Maybe they are both telling the truth? So maybe they are not all liars .... wanders off looking confused...

Re:Agitprop

[zaphod_es]

Lying is the present participle> . The imperfect of to lie is "I was lying" or "I used to lie".

If you are going to be a pedant it is best to be accurate and not hide your identity.

Re:Agitprop

[hachete]

Bush budget deficit

versus

Clinton budget surplus

Re:Agitprop

[spun]

You don't get it. You are not an it-getter. Maybe someday someone will invent a prosthetic sense of humor, so you can replace the one your ideology has evidently detroyed.

Re:Agitprop

[OldeTimeGeek]

Unless you (we) stop voting for incumbents. Automatic term limits. No more entrenched power brokers, no more career politicians

You may have gotten rid of the career politicians, but you haven't gotten rid of the power. Ever notice how many politicians that are term-limited out of office go to work for political action committees or as consultants for large companies doing business with the government? Is this a surprise? Do you think that they would just go away quietly?

Institutional memory for a governing body has to lie somewhere - if it isn't in the politicians or their staffers, it will be in the people who *used* to be politicians or staffers. Moving it from the governing body by removing long-term members will just move it to people who are far less responsible to the public.

The power brokers will still be there, just as they've always been. They'll just move down the block to a better office.

Re:Agitprop

[sheph]

"if there were a liberal network I would put it here)"

Ok, I'll help you out there. How about CNN? How about the New York Times? Or The Washington Post? The predomanence of media is liberally biased in the US (IMNSHO anyway). Being on the fence back in 2000 (neither conservative or liberal) I found Fox News at least presents both sides of the story. I guess that's what really pisses liberals off. It's much easier to subscribe to the Michael Moore school of reality without having to worry about those pesky facts.

Re:Agitprop

[Curtman]

Vote rigging?

Yes, vote rigging.

Fortunately, every time I've read about dead people, convicted felons or illegal immigrants voting

Who said anything about dead people voting? They're dead, and they aren't U.S. citizens anyway.

Re:Agitprop

[enharmonix]

Yes, vote rigging. [links omitted]

Both are definitely improper, but neither is illegal, and calling it wrongdoing is purely speculatory. Most of the links I provided you resulted in actual criminal convictions, or at the very least, official investigations, indictments, etc. While I wouldn't go so far as to call the BBC story propoganda -- look up at the title of this story. You think maybe both sides propogandize? The right uses "astroturf" (a practice I in no way condone, it's wrong), and the left and Big Business use propoganda through the conventional media via press releases, public relations campaigns, and, apparantly, fake news.

Who said anything about dead people voting?

I did. It was mentioned prominently in a couple of the stories I linked to. It's apparent you gave no more than a cursory glance at them before dismissing them in favor of another opinion that you have no doubt researched just as thoroughly.

They're dead, and they aren't U.S. citizens anyway. [links omitted]

The deaths in Iraq page appears well researched, managed by a psych prof. in the UK. You'll also notice that the database includes everybody, including soldiers on both sides -- even the enemy, suicide bombers, and casualties from their attacks. While the numbers seem bad, this was perhaps one of the most successful and humane military operations in history -- and that's saying something. Remember Saddam killed millions - this guy was up there with Stalin, Hitler, and Polpot (sp?). Oh, those guys were all communists or socialists, weren't they? And one of your stories is a socialist newsletter, so I'm done with this discussion.

Cheers.

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News (include every other news network, to a lesser degree) presents two artificially, deliberately and diametrically opposed (polarized) views of every story, making it impossible for people to ever achieve ANY consensus whatsoever on any and all issues.

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

Because republicans are the ones in control, they are the ones with close ties to a majority of the voting machine manufacturers and are #1 by far in Gerrymandering. All these from the party that has claimed to love democracy so much! blah it all makes me want to puke.

Democrats are as corrupt as Republicans, but not as effective in doing it openly AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

BTW you are absolutely right in your last sentence.

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhhhh, ..."one of the most successful and humane military operations in history "... how charming!
It is so humane!!! Ahhhh! Tell that to an Iraqi that lost EVERYTHING (wife, children, parents) to
"Shock & Awe" and that has decided to do what previously thought as inconceivable... try to get back to
whoever did that to him, by whatever the means, including suicide bombing. Nice way to power a suicide-bomber making machine.

I just can't believe how this country fell into the "pre-emptive strike" (previously known as
"being the agressor") crap. The whole war was/is about controlling oil. For the administration close friends it is a win-win situation. If Iraqi oil flows through their hands, they profit from it. If it doesn't flow, they profit even more.

If you want to justify the war because "Saddam was a tyrant!", thats your very dumb choice. Same if you believe in "liberation", "fighting terror" and all the other crap. BTW Saddam was a tyrant, 1 among so many others the US doesn't care about.

Re:Agitprop

[Johnboi Waltune]

"Here is what I have noticed. The people in power are the most likely ones to lie since they have more to lose."

And the people who are not in power lie, because they have more to gain.

Face it, they are all liars.

Re:Agitprop

[Curtman]

You'll also notice that the database includes everybody, including soldiers on both sides -- even the enemy, suicide bombers, and casualties from their attacks

Yes, and the U.S. government is responsible for all of them. They have no business being there whatsoever.

Re:Agitprop

[Curtman]

It is so humane!!! Ahhhh! Tell that to an Iraqi that lost EVERYTHING (wife, children, parents)

While sitting down for dinner at their favourite restaurant no less. Blowing up restaurants because they believed some terrorists may be inside doesn't seem very humane at all now that you mention it.

'fake news' indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this wasn't supposed to be an edict to come down on the Daily Show & Colbert Report and someone misinterpreted the memo instead...

Re:'fake news' indeed

[frosty_tsm]

Considering that Fox news and Gerraldo are taking pot shots at them, I worried the same thing.

(well, when I saw the headline yesterday)

Re:'fake news' indeed

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Why do so many people get "Fox News" shows confused with "Fox opinion and commentary" shows? Is it just because it's on the same network? That's a pretty broad criteria...

Re:'fake news' indeed

[MarkGriz]

Why do so many people get "Fox News" shows confused with "Fox opinion and commentary" shows? Is it just because it's on the same network?

Because it's impossible to tell the difference.

Re:'fake news' indeed

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It always seems clear to me. I'm sure this crowd will beat me down for this, but when listening to the fox NEWS broadcasts, I don't hear any appreciable differences in what is reported & how than from CNN, MSNBC, etc.

When listening to opinion broadcasts on Fox, it's pretty clear that it's opinion -- such as the bashing of the Daily Show. You won't find that in any news broadcast, including Fox's.

Now please excuse me while I clean up -- pissing into the wind is messy business.

Re:'fake news' indeed

[AK Marc]

Why do so many people get "Fox News" shows confused with "Fox opinion and commentary" shows?

Perhaps because the commentary and opinion shows are presented in a news style and shown on Fox *News*? They made the choice to stay away from news, since CNN has much better coverage of the news, and instead, Fox went for the stuff that gets people to tune in and get riled up. That people associate them with their opinion shows is obviously a goal of the network, so why do you complain when Fox "News" is successful in that goal?

Baaaa.....

[null etc.]

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Re:Baaaa.....

[DerGeist]

Not fake newspapers yet, but definitely fake articles. Advertisers do their best to purchase a whole page and "pretend" to be a news article by matching the font, headline structure, and overall composition you'd expect to see from a newspaper article. By masquerading as an actual piece they hope to win your trust in the absurd claims made in the article, with accompanying pictures of an honest-looking doctor (in lab coat, of course).

Not only are these a cheap shot, they're also very annoying, especially when they are every-other-page, as is often the case with my local paper, the D&C. I'm always being told that "scientists are amazed by the adhesiveness of new DentureBOND(tm) Maximum Strength Dental Adhesive. So strong it can hold a cow to the ceiling by means of only a few drops! A scientifical (sic) revolution!"

These "fake articles" are always rife with phony quotes, sources, pictures and media-esque mini-headlines. It was only a matter of time before this happened too. The moral is, advertisers will do anything, anything to get you to buy their crap.

Re:Baaaa.....

[eln]

Corporations often take ads out in magazines and newspapers that are made up to look exactly like a news story. The only thing to clue you in is the word "advertisement" in small letters at the top or bottom of the page. Corporations also print out ad circulars that are made to look like regular magazines or newspapers, and in that case there is often no clue at all that it's an advertisement unless you bother to look at the publisher information written in tiny letters on one of the inside pages.

Re:Baaaa.....

[BrynM]

It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Newspapers aren't considered entertainment - television is. I know that may not make sense at first because TV "news" is not supposed to be entertainment either, but today it is (in the USA). Just look at the lead in tactics ("Emmenant danger you need to know about - more after the break"), the amount of fluff (celebrity "news") and that the management of the stations are more concerned with ratings rather than factuality. Couple this with the idea that the vast majority of americans don't read newspapers because they consider broadcast news to be equal in regards to journalism and the choice of where spin can be seeded becomes easy. Finally, in print, sponsored articles are usually tagged with the word "advertisement" or "special advertising section" because of editorial tradition and laws in some localities. Print news is more mature than TV news in all of these respects.

Re:Baaaa.....

[gEvil (beta)]

You are misunderstanding what's being probed here. These are essentially commercials that are taking place DURING the newscast. Anchor A will say "And now over to Correspondent B in City C for a report on Topic X that you'll find truly startling!" The camera will switch over to the "correspondent" who will then proceed to give their spiel, which is really just a purchased promo spot for some product or research study. The screen will still have the Channel XX logo in the corner with the correspondents name in the same news font as the rest of the newscast. This is because this is actually part of the newscast. That is what's being investigated. Not a full page ad in the newspaper (which, by the way, says "paid advertisement" in small type at the top of the page).

Re:Baaaa.....

[Traiklin]

Didn't Daily Show do a story about that to?

Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been, I remember there was a big thing all over the place (not just on Daily Show) about that exact same thing and they showed 4 different videos from different parts of the country, all 4 had the exact same "correspondent" reporting on four different things.

Suprised it took the FCC this long to decide to go after them.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're apparently unfamiliar with the Weekly World News.

Re:Baaaa.....

[michrech]

Didn't Daily Show do a story about that to?

Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been, I remember there was a big thing all over the place (not just on Daily Show) about that exact same thing and they showed 4 different videos from different parts of the country, all 4 had the exact same "correspondent" reporting on four different things.

Suprised it took the FCC this long to decide to go after them.

You aren't imaginign things. I saw the same episode.

Re:Baaaa.....

[FLEB]

I've just always been surprised at how badly they often do it. (Although I suppose if it was done too well, the magazine might refuse.) Oftentimes, the "Advertising Section" looks like a clunky, obvious fake. Wrong typefaces, oversized type, poor layout...

Re:Baaaa.....

[FLEB]

Y'know... I was born in 1981, and I get the feeling I've just missed out on the era of real television journalism. Right now, I can watch the news, and I know it's overblown, fluffy, and irrelevant, but I don't think I've ever seen good, solid news. I'd just be happy to have a point of reference.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Peyna]

I hear this more on the radio than I see it on TV. It's especially confusing when it's the same DJ/Radiohead that has been talking for the past 10 minutes about real news and then segues into a story about the great deals down at Joe Bob's RV's, but reads it like it's another news story.

This is part of the reason I've switched to NPR for the most part.

Re:Baaaa.....

[coop247]

Its really quite creepy once you realize it. I (much like the rest of you crazy people) am very skeptical and cynical of everything I see/read/hear, but these things had me fooled for a while. It wasn't until I was traveling and saw the same guy thats on my local news on in another city that I realized what was going on.

Re:Baaaa.....

[bhiestand]

Didn't Daily Show do a story about that to?

Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been,

You aren't imaginign things. I saw the same episode.

Actually, he is imagining things. The Daily Show is not, and never will be, an actual "news station". It's on Comedy Central. I'm not saying that all designated news shows are actually truthful, honest, and unbiased informers, but the Daily Show doesn't even pretend to be.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Peaceful_Patriot]

Try watching The News Hour on PBS. Interesting, unbiased, fluff-free. Follow up with 'Frontline' (also on PBS) for some of the best investigative journalism/documentaries anywhere. There is still quality stuff out there, but you may need to get away from the commercial networks to find it.

Re:Baaaa.....

[jafac]

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep.

No, more like a sex-toy. I *wish* all they did to me was shave my head and sell the hair once a year.

Re:Baaaa.....

[swalker42]

Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been

uh, Daily Show is not a news show - even Jon Stewart has said that anyone who watches his show for news is watching the wrong show.
Fun to watch, not news.

Re:Baaaa.....

[solitas]

I've never seen anything like that in the Connecticut market (Charter Cable or airwaves) - if anyone _has_ then I'd like to hear from them so I can try to catch one or more instances.

Re:Baaaa.....

[quokkapox]

The vast majority of content on television nowadays is advertisement. I'm not talking about the commercial breaks, either. Consider your average Tonight Show|Charlie Rose|Meet the Press|Today Show|Good Morning America|20/20 interview.

All of it is just ads for new books, new movies, new albums coming out. Colbert and Stewart aren't immune. They help people sell their movies and books and albums too. Most of the news is advertisement too. All you need is a good publicist. The local news station will happily air pseudoscientific press releases for the latest medical quackery. I'm not sure if money always changes hands, but they love to find cheap way to fill 2 minutes with drivel/garbage.

Re:Baaaa.....

[mincognito]

they showed 4 different videos from different parts of the country, all 4 had the exact same "correspondent" reporting on four different things.

This is what you saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZCQPtauDRU

Re:Baaaa.....

[zCyl]

uh, Daily Show is not a news show - even Jon Stewart has said that anyone who watches his show for news is watching the wrong show.
Fun to watch, not news.

Ironic then that the fake parts for comedic effect are clearly discernable on the Daily Show, yet intentionally disguised on the real news.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Fortyseven]

I first thought something was askew when I first saw these and I completely did not recognize the reporter. Weirded me out a little. :P

Re:Baaaa.....

[tomatoguy]

Or, put another way... consumers have long been happy consuming like sheep. Fake newspapers? Do the National Enquirer The Globe, Weekly Wold News or The Star count? A slothful overfed society that gobbles up American Idol, Twinkies and conspiracy theories as "reality" is ripe for the shearing by anyone with the right graphics and a coiffed-but-concerned narrator.

Re:Baaaa.....

[BiggerIsBetter]

The irony is that once the non-commercial stations get more popular, the networks buy them out and turn them commercial. I guess PBS will be different, but that's what happens with local radio stations here.

Re:Baaaa.....

[veganboyjosh]

i used to work in an office, and i got there an hour before everyone else. (so i could leave an hour before them later...) i would get there at 7, turn on the radio to npr, and listen to the news. at 8, my boss would come in, and turn it to the oldies station. one day, as she's turning the dial, she asks me "josh, do you ever watch the news?" to which i respond, "i listen to the news everyday. then you come in and change it." "no, i mean the real news." she came back with. "you mean, the news that's on tv?" "yeah." "um...that's not real news." "why not?" "nevermind."

Re:Baaaa.....

[dcam]

Yeah Frontline is fantastic. I didn't know it was live to air these day though.

Re:Baaaa.....

[jtcm]

Suprised it took the FCC this long to decide to go after them.

Perhaps it's because the White House itself hired a PR firm to create fake news reports.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Anonymous Coward]

(The following is not directed at the parent poster. It is mostly random (drunken) blabbering.)

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep.

More accurately: People who work in large corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. If we're going to bash big-business, let's at least recgnize that there *are* people behind it all. And let's also recognize that most of the people who work at large corporations are also non-millionaire consumers, and are treated like sheep both at work (by the corporate bosses) and at home (as consumers).

The whole "rage against the faceless corporate machine" idea is getting pretty retarded, if only because many vocal anti-corporation types fail to recognize that corporation are largely made up of the very people that they are claiming as victims. Let's see how happy the tens of thousands of hardworking employees who get laid off are when the corporate machine fails.....

Better to encourage the employees to "do the right thing." But, alas, that also requires having faith that people will objectively choose to do the right thing, or that they are intelligent enough to recognize the right thing. And good luck getting through to them after publicly calling them "sheep."

Interesting point about fake papers though. I think it would take a lot of buy-in by the employees writing the paper; the media is not lacking in people who will come forward in a fit of outrage. Plus the potential for PR meltdown would probably be very damaging to a media company. I can't see any organization other than maybe a government who would bother with the risk.

Re:Baaaa.....

[straybullets]

Speaking of PBS and news manipulation and although clearly off topic i feel compelled to mention Our brand is crisis

It's one of these documentary that should be mandatory to watch before voting ...

Re:Baaaa.....

[Jesus_666]

The German "BILD" (Europe's most-read tabloid) gets slapped on a wrist for something like this on a regular basis. Often their online version has whole blocks (or even pages) of advertisements unlabeled or labeled in such a way that it appears as if some of the links go to journalistic content. In our case it's not the evil government but a newspaper with a massive case of megalomania, but yes, major news outlets are becoming less and less reliable (although the "BILD" always has been the antithesis to proper journalism).

Re:Baaaa.....

[tbone1]

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Like Gannett?

This is nothing new. H.L. Mencken and Mark Twain wrote about this sort of stuff happening in their respective newspaper days, more than a century ago, and somehow I don't think that these were unusual occurrences.

Re:Baaaa.....

[dueyfinster]

I know in Ireland, we have strong libel laws. So much so that on Radio and T.V. they have to specifically state "Organisation X would not provide a person to comment on this matter" and then the presenter HAS TO PRESENT their views, in a fair way. If they do not do that they risk heavy fines. I don't believe this restriction applies to newspapers, but that is very strong incentive to present non-bias.

Re:Baaaa.....

[oyenstikker]

The D&C is the worst newspaper I have ever read. And WHEC-TV 10 (News 10 NBC) has the worst news program I have ever seen. (Honestly, the whole thing seems like paid advertisements. You can get better news from Wease's Morning Caller-Abuse Show.) What does that say about the market?

Re:Baaaa.....

[michrech]

Actually, he is imagining things. The Daily Show is not, and never will be, an actual "news station". It's on Comedy Central. I'm not saying that all designated news shows are actually truthful, honest, and unbiased informers, but the Daily Show doesn't even pretend to be.

Your powers of comprehension are underwhelming. The parent to my post never said The Daily Show was a news station. He said it must have BEEN The Daily Show he was watching as he hasn't really watched any NEWS STATIONS, so he would not have seen what he was talking about on one of them.

Shesh!

Re:Baaaa.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do this for a couple of political campaigns and corporate clients. Mostly I would book satellite time and handle signal transmission and IFB (the earpiece audio), but sometimes I would have to pitch the TV stations. The easiest stations to pitch were not in the top 20 markets, where they were somewhat wise to us, but would bite anyway if we had a talking head good enough for them. Downmarket stations were much easier -- they have air time to fill. Same goes for the cable news networks, but they would pay for their own satellite time out of ethical concerns.

Most of what we pitched was a talking head out of campaign HQ, so it was obvious what were doing. The best coup we scored was when we unilaterally declared some day "national education day" and all the TV stations booked us because they felt they had to do something topical, and we had some education "expert" talking about how candidate X would leave no child without an education... Note: there is no "national education day," but nobody at a TV station knows.

After campaign season, most of us were laid off sooner or later. The corporate gigs paid really well but we had much more trouble getting stations to bite. If anything was going on at all (like the JonBenet story) we would have to cancel the whole thing. If nothing was going on, we could score big, putting some "news" about a national retail chain into your local newscast for far les than the cost of purchasing advertising.

While I don't do this type of work any more (network/systems engineer now), I can still recognize a fake story on the news. I live in a top-5 TV market, and I'm still shocked at some of the stuff that they air. If you see one and don't like it, call the station and complain about putting advertising on a newscast. Tell them you'll file a complaint with the FCC, and then file one on the web.

As far as politics goes, those of you who don't vote because there's no "perfect" candidate will get the elected leaders you deserve.

Re:Baaaa.....

[bhiestand]

Your powers of comprehension are underwhelming. The parent to my post never said The Daily Show was a news station. He said it must have BEEN The Daily Show he was watching as he hasn't really watched any NEWS STATIONS, so he would not have seen what he was talking about on one of them.

Your powers of logic and insult are indeed underwhelming. He said, quite clearly "it must have been the daily show since I don't watch any OTHER news stations anymore". The "other" in there implies that the daily show is the only news station he watches.

I wasn't trolling, and I wasn't attacking the daily show. I just think it's worth noting that it's not actually a news station, nor should it be considered a reliable news source. I personally love the show, but if it was my only source of news I'd have no idea about what was going on in the world or in the states.

Now if you can find us a youtube link or something similar, we can both go back to maybe actually adding something to this conversation.

By the way, it's generally considered polite to turn off your karma and/or subscriber bonuses for side conversations like this that nobody else reading the thread will care to read.

Re:Baaaa.....

[smchris]

Try watching The News Hour on PBS. Interesting, unbiased, fluff-free. Follow up

That's why Bush appointed Patricia Harrison, one of his politik propagandists and former GOP Chair, to be Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. She has been directly involved in precisely the "fake news" we are discussing: "[A]s a senior department official, Patricia Harrison, told Congress last year, the Bush administration has come to regard such 'good news' segments as 'powerful strategic tools' for influencing public opinion." http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.c gi/37/9592

See also "Destroying PBS": http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm

On my local public radio I have heard gems like, "Is it possible for an atheist to have a morality?" When they ran "Socrates, the Soldiering Years" interviewing a military academy historian while Bush was beating the Iraq war drums, I said, "You've _GOT_ to be kidding!" And turned the dial. Forever. It is wishful thinking to believe there is U.S. broadcast media untouched by the rising fascism. Question _everything_ your TV and radio tell you.

Re:Baaaa.....

[ivan256]

You are misunderstanding.... practicaly every news piece that this article *isn't* talking about.

All news orginizations have agendas, and almost all of them are for sale. I don't see how this is any worse than what makes up 90% of, say, the New York Times... No matter how much foolish blind respect you hold for the journalistic profession, they are just as self serving as every other capatalistic organization, and if you trust them irrationally they will take advantage of you.

Make all the rules you want. You're still a fool if you don't engage your brain when you're listening to/watching/reading the news. If you *are* engaging your brain these 'fake' broacasts aren't a problem. If you're not, the rest of the news cast is just as much a problem.

Re:Baaaa.....

[devonbowen]

Interesting, unbiased, fluff-free.

There is no such things as unbiased reporting. Just the fact that they need to decide what to report and what not to is a huge bias. The only real way to approach having an informed opinion is to hear both sides of an issue (like read a book from a representative author from both sides), dig deeply and critically at the "facts" presented, and decide for yourself. But that takes an enormous amount of time and effort and is rarely done. So there is no shortages of opinions on world affairs based on five minute news segments.

Devon

Re:Baaaa.....

[maxume]

Even at NPR, all things are not what they seem:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_ 123104_curtain.html

Re:Baaaa.....

[swalker42]

Not sure that it is irony...
Jon Stewart et al are very good at what they do. They shoot for comedic effect, they attain it.
Most news sources are not as good, they decide to fill with fake news. I guess they are good at faking it, but that isn't their primary business.
The primary business of the Daily Show (and all of the comedy network) is entertainment, and they make lot's of money at it. Shame on news sources (all of them), kudos to the Daily Show.

Re:Baaaa.....

[NeutronCowboy]

I would like to point out though that the different PBS stations are very different. I've listened to about half a dozen PBS stations in different states, as well as PBS on satellite radio, and the quality, as well as the content, differ dramatically. Most pretentious and gratingly self-righteous: Santa Cruz. Biggest snooze fest: satellite. Least amount of content: Portland. Favorite station: San Francisco.

I haven't heard any east-coast PBS stations, but I would imagine that they'd be very different as well. While I won't deny that the quality of the different stations is very hit-and-miss, I'd attribute that rather to local tastes, rather than corporate buy-outs. A listener-supported medium pretty much requires that a station adapts to the leanings of its audience. If the audience just happens to be largely bible-thumpers, I'm sure I'll get to hear about how atheists might not be able to have a morality.

Re:Baaaa.....

[inviolet]

The vast majority of content on television nowadays is advertisement. I'm not talking about the commercial breaks, either. Consider your average Tonight Show|Charlie Rose|Meet the Press|Today Show|Good Morning America|20/20 interview.

Of course it is. That's the price of free programming.

When every show starts to cost money (say, ten cents to watch the latest CSI), then Hollywood will be able to afford to reduce the embedded advertising.

There is no free lunch. Doubly so when it comes to entertainment.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Philosinfinity]

You're being facetius right? Afterall, there is the Onion.

Re:Baaaa.....

[bigpat]

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Newspapers are old school, no they jumped right to cable.

Yeah, this will go no where.

[mcmonkey]

Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups^W^W^W^W the tax payers.

The Bush administration has been doing this since day one.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[portmapper]

> Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups^W^W^W^W the tax payers.

> The Bush administration has been doing this since day one.

Or held press conferences lying about some subject (like Iraq had WMD) and
the press just parrots that as the truth without any reflection about evidence
or credibility.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Babbster]

And the Clinton administration did it before them. Unfortunately, everybody's trying to do it, and there are TV news producers who have apparently been happy to put it on the air...

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[chiphart]

This practice predates the Bush Administration for some time.

My favorite example comes from none other than Alexander Haig and his friends at The World Business Review. For a "small fee" they will produce a 60 Minutes-style segment about your company and services under the guise of being "about the latest topics, trends and issues in a variety of industries."

Check out their topics and note how 1 or more companies are linked to each story. Checks were passed. How do I know? Because they call us every few years, asking us if we're interested. And, if you don't know better, when you hear that someone representing Al Haig is on the phone and is interested in doing a news story about your company, you listen.

Whoa, I see that Vin Cerf is on their board. Check it for the ubiquitous Homeland Security personnel.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[stinerman]

I was unaware of that. Do you have a link or other citation you could share?

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[maynard]

Yeah. What the previous poster said. Cite please. I'm unaware of any attempts by prior administration officials (Republican or Democrat) to directly create and disseminate opinion as news. It's not supposed to happen. Period.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[generic-man]

My high school had a radio station. I worked there from 1996-1999. We got many PSAs from various government agencies phrased as audio news releases. It's not just government that does this: a lot of nonprofit organizations will happily offer "News from your community" type things for broadcast.

Don't blame the government for producing VNRs. Blame lazy news/program directors for airing them without any explanation.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Babbster]

I've provided a link in two of my other posts (just search page on my name) that goes into great detail on the issue. Here's another from Accuracy In Meda, an article from The National Review (yes, I know, but they cite many sources), and here's a site that acknowledges the Clinton administration's use of VNRs but claims that they were "legal" (as opposed to the Bush versions).

My personal feeling is that they're all at least unethical in that they present themselves in a format which we're supposed to believe is unbiased, and they're too often presented without the disclaimers that are supposedly at the beginning and end of each segment. I think they're meant from jump to make people think that there is actual journalism happening when in fact they're more like press releases presented in a news format. Disgusting no matter who's doing it...

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[BrynM]

Do you have a link or other citation you could share?

Watch the movie "Spin" (made in 1995). You can download it for free at http://illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html. I used to make people sit and watch it. it makes a great companion peice to Outfoxed. This type of "news" has been going on since the Reagan administration at least.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Babbster]

Just in case you're monitoring only replies to your posts, I'll note here that I answered your request above. :)

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[slapyslapslap]

And yet it's the FTC under the Bush Administration that's investigating this. Hmmmm.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[truthsearch]

I certainly will blame the government. There is no valid reason at all for the US government to deceive its own citizens. You can debate the value of dropping propaganda into the media of your enemies. But elected officials should never be permitted to do such a thing to the people they represent.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[emailandthings]

Pay back time to the Bush Admin!! http://www.blogsmonger.net/default.aspx?blog=8-16% 25 2Fba984361-b740-46f6-9c1e-2c4289f62474 :)

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[generic-man]

How should the US government communicate information to news organizations then? News releases, whether on paper, in audio, or in video, are the preferred means of distribution for all news-disseminating bodies. When a supposed news-gathering organization merely parrots what they've heard in a news release without any further investigation or insight, it is the news-gathering organization that deserves to be chastized for deceiving people.

(Yes, the government does more than just VNRs; I don't defend the use of pundits being paid to stump for the gov't on TV shows, for example. I speak solely of VNRs in the paragraph above.)

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[truthsearch]

When the government gives a press release or other means of communication directed at the news media, then the news media is responsible for any deception to the public. But when the government gives a video faking a report directed at the public then the government and the news media are equally responsible.

Press releases or public statements in audio, visual, or written form are all valid for the government to release. A fake news segment is not. There's a BIG difference.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Abcd1234]

How should the US government communicate information to news organizations then? News releases, whether on paper, in audio, or in video, are the preferred means of distribution for all news-disseminating bodies.

Wait wait... are you actually trying to tell me that you believe a news release is exactly equivalent to manufacturing a fake news report, complete with fake reporters and fake interviewees discussing their fake opinions? Seriously???

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[generic-man]

Sure.

"This is the greatest advance that we've ever seen in the world," said Calvin Anderson, CEO of Popsicle Sticks Research Group.

Consumers are lining up in droves to buy the new e-Pacifier(TM), the world's first baby pacifier that connects to the Internet.

If you worked at a news department, and someone sent you a video news release that was basically an infomercial, and you ran it as if it were an original news report, you deserve to be fired.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[generic-man]

When the government produces a VNR made to look like a news report, the government agent has done something immoral.

When a news agency runs that VNR as news, the news agency's incompetence has exceeded that of the government's. Until you can show me that the government forces news agencies to run their PR campaigns, I find it very hard to believe arguments that fault a VNR's producer for a news gatherer's incompetence.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Abcd1234]

If you worked at a news department, and someone sent you a video news release that was basically an infomercial, and you ran it as if it were an original news report, you deserve to be fired.

Umm... yeah. Unfortunately, what you just described isn't the way press releases are handled. At least, not to my knowledge. Instead, company A puts out a release. News organization B picks up on the release and then chooses to report on it as they wish, possibly interviewing other industry insiders and consultants, or potential customers. Regardless, the new organization ends up creating their own news segment.

What you've described is precisely what this article is talking about, and is, IMHO, a completely different breast.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Abcd1234]

... and is, IMHO, a completely different breast.

Doh...

Poltical, too.

[morcheeba]

It isn't just corporate and interest groups that are doing this. What concerns me much much more is that the Bush administration is doing this, too, to advance their agenda. And it's paid for by US taxpayers.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

Re:Poltical, too.

[jthill]

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

Re:Poltical, too.

[arivanov]

They are learning from each other.

Bliar is also doing it, but with a specific british twist. At the moment the highest public figure trust ratings in the country are held by the natural history narrators like Attenborough (and politicians and reporters are around the bottom of the trust league tables). So guess what does el presidente Antonio Bliar's govt do in the run-up to the last election?

They broadcast a show which is an 1h long (yes 1h long) infomercial for the benefits of the government agricultural and environmental policy singing praise to the advances in nature preservation and conservation by the government of Antonio Bliar (with quite a few highly questionable "facts" inside). They do it in the standard natural world BBC slot on Sunday evening and it is named and advertised as a natural history program.

Now this is what I call fake news. Done properly to continue brainwashing the population into a subordinate sheep under the ever watching eye of Big Brother.

Re:Poltical, too.

[Ngwenya]

Can you provide a link for this? I've never known the Natural History Unit to bend itself to political inteference, so this seems strange to me. But I have to say the last election bored me so much that I watched next to no TV, so I could well have missed it.

UK law is really strict about election broadcasts, and the BBC isn't usually a government lapdog - though there have been times where their standards haven't been as high as they should have been.

--Ng

Re:Poltical, too.

[IamTheRealMike]

I'll call you on that too. The BBC has no incentive to transmit infomercials, especially not from the government, indeed their competitors (Sky etc) would be all over them if they were caught doing such a thing.

Have you considered that maybe this "infomercial" you saw was in fact a natural history program written by peoeple who, in fact, happened to believe that the governments policies towards agriculture were a good thing? Have you got proof that the makers of this program were paid to say what they said, or is this merely wishful thinking from somebody who hates Blair so much they can't resist dumb name-calling?

Re:Poltical, too.

[arivanov]

This was transmitted in the standard slot on Sunday evening within the 4 weeks leading to the last election. Unfortunately I do not remember the date and I have not recorded it, but this pins it down to 4 shows. So if you know a place to look up the old schedules we can get the actual show name from there.

Hey, I know where to begin this investigation!

[maynard]

Perhaps they should start at the executive branch of the good 'ol USA. The Bush administration was doing just this to push their Medicare Reform bill a couple years back. They got quite the bad press when it became public. One wonders, have they stopped? Well, certainly *someone* hasn't...

I seem to remember there's a word for this. Uhhh propagation? Proposition? Proletariat? No....

hmmm...

Ah, yes. propaganda!

Re:Hey, I know where to begin this investigation!

[bergeron76]

He already own's the Fox Propaganda Channel. Why do you think Tony Snow (Fox's former anchor) is now the Press Secretary for the Bush Administration?

Re:Hey, I know where to begin this investigation!

[maynard]

Perhaps Tony Snow was selected is because he's better than both Scott McClellan and Ari Ari Fleischer combined. Although I must admit, Ari was a *very* good press secretary. He really knew how to say *nothing* while speaking.

Re:Hey, I know where to begin this investigation!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the irony of a truthout link in the context of the main topic

Why though.. most major news is the same thing

[plasmacutter]

Most major news outlets release the exact same fud as the supposed "fake news" theyre investigating.

I think it's a double standard myself.
All the major news outlets do this, especially on tech, drug, and copyright stories.

If I had a dollar for every time they simply released an RIAA/MPAA press release as a news story i'd be able to retire right now and leave a considerable estate to my great grandchildren.

Then there were the many blatantly fabricated stories published on the net neutrality debate, and the list goes on and on.

These guys dispense with the fairness doctrine, which was not so great but was at least doing something, then complain when the media descends into the domain of propaganda.

Re:Why though.. most major news is the same thing

[AnarchoAl]

You notice tech, drug and copyright stories most because you know more about them. I'm a layman's expert in geopolitics, so I notice a different kind of crap story. Truth is, a small number of people own the media and they're from the same social class and have the same outlook as the small number of people who run everything else.

Re:Why though.. most major news is the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: While I oppose these video news releases, I do own and run a news website for the circus industry, and I support the use of real press releases.

The fact of the matter is that press releases serve a very valid purpose in the news industry. As much as 1/2 (and by some estimates 3/4) of the news stories run start life as a press release. And no, its not a few big companies that do these, its thousands of small PR firms that put out the vast majority of press releases.

A short while back I wrote a guide to writing good press releases thats really aimed at mom and pop shops without anyone to write these for them. (if your new to this area of the news, this is an excelent primmer on the who what where when why and how these are written). For those of you who won't read it, let me cut and paste a few key bits:

Rule #1: Write releases to help the press do their job.
Editors run press releases when they can run the release as a story with little to no modification, making it a cheap piece of copy for them. Reporters pick up press releases when they can easily turn the release into a story, either meeting their quota (salary) or making an easy buck (freelance). Releases that are hard to turn into a story are usually skipped over / ignored by most of the media.

Rule #2 Make sure what you are sending out is newsworthy.
If your story is not newsworthy, it is not going to be run, no matter how well written it is.

OK, so their are valid reasons for press releases. As a news editor I run press releases all of the time. So why do I oppose these? Because they really are a take-it-or-leave it prospect. If I don't like a segment of a press release, I can (and often do) edit it. You really can't do that with these video releases, tipping the long standing balance so that it no longer favors the greater good.

Re:Propoganda

[Durrok]

Riight, then why post as an AC?

/. is a lot like Wikipedia... good source of information but check your facts.

news

[ElephanTS]

Fake news == Faux news == Fox news

Nuff said.

Re:news

[noidentity]

Oh come on, if you're going to accuse Fox of this you'll have to do likewise for The Onion.

What, Fox News isn't a satire program you say? No way!

Fake news is widespread in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary

Oo! Oo! Me! Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory link

Advertorials are advertorials

[Audent]

no matter how you dress them up. Fortunately, in print at any rate, they're pretty easy to spot. Readers hate them but for some insane reason advertisers seem to love them. I've lost track of the number of times I've been contacted by some PR troll saying "Hi, we've just bought an ad and now we'd like to place some editorial". I usually end up describing just how/where/when they can place their 'editorial' in some detail.

Why do they like it? Readers actively hate it (I know I do and our in-house research agrees (nothing online I can point to I'm afraid)) and yet still advertisers try to do it.

This is much worse though, I think. Fake TV news is worse by far because it's harder to spot and it seems like the TV stations are happy to run it. Since most mainstream folk get their news through mainstream TV news (cable or free to air) it can potentially be very damaging.

Jon Stewart Testifies, says he's sorry

[bgardella]

The Daily Show has been cancelled due to an FCC investigation that mocked their truthiness. No word yet on the Colbert Report, but rumor has it that Stephen has been interviewing for Tony Snow's job.

Re:Jon Stewart Testifies, says he's sorry

[frosty_tsm]

No word yet on the Colbert Report, but rumor has it that Stephen has been interviewing for Tony Snow's job.

Unfortunately, he failed to get the job as he ran screaming from the interview while being chased by a very old woman (who was just walking).

Re:Jon Stewart Testifies, says he's sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, not very funny. The problem under investigation is "news" stories being produced by, for instance, the White House (using taxpayer money) and then aired by local and national television stations as though the station produced it, as though it were actual news, and as though the Bush administration did not ask them to run it while hiding the identity of those who produced it. This free advertising and mis-use by the government of what are supposed to be trusted sources has been very successful in its propaganda aims. For instance, look up how many Americans still harbor the delusion that Iraq had some involvement in 9/11. Bush, of course, did not invent this. Look up how many Americans believe marijuana produces harmful medical effects. (It does not.) There are actual Federal laws against the Federal government using taxpayer money to advocate for a particular political position in these propagandistic ways. However, when large amounts of money can be made by certain private industries by having the government support their positions (even surreptitiously), these laws are too often ignored. Witness the military-industrial-congressional complex and the war on some drugs as but two examples.

Re:Jon Stewart Testifies, says he's sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article you posted:
"However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered. This is manifested by large airway changes of unknown significance. Even daily smokers do not develop obstructive airway disease."

Ya, not harmful at all.. *cough*

No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Fox News is a legitimate news organization. This becomes apparent upon reading their print material or watching their actual news reports. Like all the other cable news outlets, if you're watching the interview shows like O'Rielly you're not getting hard news - it's all opinion. But watch the news and -- while it's most definitely slanted toward the administration and Republicans -- it's also factually accurate news. *shrug* Like all TV news it's watered down and of little factual value. If you really want hard news, you must read it.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[BrynM]

Fox News is a legitimate news organization. This becomes apparent upon reading their print material or watching their actual news reports.

FOX may have actual news, but that is not their primary content. The prolem with FOX is that the actual new broadcasts are few and far between. The majority of their programming is punditry (FOX and Friends being a prime example). Yes I watch FOX, but merely to observe spin not to get real facts. I don't consider them a news outlet any more than I consider Entertainment Weekly to be news.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

HAhhahaaaAHAHAhahaHA.. Best troll ever.

Why is it then, that Fox News viewers are more likely to have misconceptions about world events than people who didn't watch any news at all?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[fotbr]

You're 100% correct. The problem lies with the idiots who can't differentiate between opinion shows and news shows.

While the left is guilty of this when basing their opinion on flaks like Orilley, the right is equally guilty of it when they consider Daily Show etc to be news.

Which goes to show, not all idiots belong to one party or the other. Idiocy is rampant on both sides.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[plasmacutter]

Fox News is a legitimate news organization. This becomes apparent upon reading their print material or watching their actual news reports

i'm sorry but they manage to wedge in plenty of bias into those news reports.

But watch the news and -- while it's most definitely slanted toward the administration and Republicans -- it's also factually accurate news.

They choose to report disproportionately on one side of a story (this practice is often called lying by omission.), and even just make crap up (gore as liar, for instance).

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Jeffrey Baker]

Riiiight. That's why today, during a live "breaking news" segment about a diverted commercial airliner, a man appeared on camera at Fox News and said "She's probably not an al Qaeda affiliate, probably not a terrorist, could just be a Ned Lamont supporter, we don't know."

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

So does the San Jose Mercury News. Fox (Murdoch) has taken the trouble to hire serious journalistic talent. But, like all news organizations, the publishers exert a measure of bias (or spin) to their publication. This can be seen by viewing the editorial pages. Or, in the case of Fox News, the Cable Television Interview programs like O'Rielly. One guy responded to be understanding my point. I encourage you to read his comment.

Take a journalism course. You'll find that Fox News is about as good as any other television news organization. Compare them to CBS. They're equally as bad. But the problem is not with Fox News, which anyone can see by simply reading their content, but with television as a medium. It's both wide and shallow, while reading is narrow and deep. Anyone who is serious about news must read their material from a variety of sources. And watch C-SPAN. There is no serious alternative.

As for the Fox News opinion shows, they're worthless. I don't watch O'Rielly, Scarborough (Mr. my 28yo female aid got mysteriously killed in my congressional office and I resigned to this cushy TV job) Country, or before that the Donahue show on MSMBC. It's all crap. There's no real discussion. As John Stewart said to Tucker Carlson: "You're hu-u-u-u-u-u rting. America. Hu-u-u-u-u-u-urting America." on Crossfire before his attendance finally killed that piece of shit.

So yeah. I ran out of points to make. Thanks for the reply though. Time to get back to dinner. :) --M

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's known in the biz as a "joke." I didn't find it funny, but perhaps the Lieberman supporters in the audience did.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Well, that's a fair perspective. I happen to know that there are a bunch of really talented people working at Fox, but the publisher (Murdoch) has a position he prefers and his editors tend to follow that. It's like the difference between the LA Times and the Washington Times. Each has an editorial positions to present. But both also write factual news. IMO: though, the LA Times is the best Newspaper in the country for investigative journalism (and I live in Boston), but that's another discussion. Good comment. --M

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Not trolling. Want to see me really truly trolling?

linky

heh. It was funny. But I'll fuck my karma to shit if I keep that up.

heh... MAYBE I SHOULD!!!

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

It's also factually accurate. She is probably NOT a terrorist. Duh!

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to give an actual example, or are you content with bullshitting?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[roesti]

Fox News is a legitimate news organization... [W]atch the news and -- while it's most definitely slanted toward the administration and Republicans -- it's also factually accurate news. *shrug* Like all TV news it's watered down and of little factual value.

How can it be "factually accurate" and "of little factual value" at the same time? Maybe that's what "fair and balanced" means.

Fox News is not a legitimate news organisation by any stretch of the imagination. I've seen Outfoxed , and I recommend it, but I think the reality is even worse than Greenwald has portrayed.

It's virtually impossible to watch Fox News for more than about ten minutes without seeing some conservative bias. You can make examples of non-news-reporters like O'Reilly, Geraldo or Hannity & Other all you want, but for each of those, there's a Brit Hume or a John Gibson who looks and sounds like a newsreader but is really just another right-wing pundit. That's why Fox News is such a dangerous thing to watch: not because it's partisan hackery disguised as news, but moreover because they deliberately make it difficult to tell the difference.

The only reason it's not more obvious is that Fox News is only slightly more ridiculously biased towards the government than the other major US news outlets. It's scary that the other major media outlets have followed in Fox's footsteps towards news-tainment. At least not all of them are so insecure that they need to attack Comedy Central's "news" programming to feel good about themselves.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Just one point: The Daily Show is satire and pretends to be nothing more than that. O'Rielly, OTOH, pretends to be serious news under the umbrella of opinion/fact. Compare O'Rielly to the old MSNBC Donahue show and I'll be completely with you. Both were partisan shows which pretended to be news. Neither did anything more than present partisan opinion as fact.

  John Stewart and Stephen Colbert make me laugh. They are a million orders of magnitude cooler. Prove me wrong, I dare you! --M

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Yeah. I own two copies of Outfoxed and presented a showing of the documentary to about fifty people with my digital projector. The first time I saw it I wished I had not agreed to the showing. Producer/Director Robert Greenwald has done some really good work. Outfoxed was not one of them. It was a hit piece, almost competently done. Look to his older work to see professional journalism. One impressive point about Outfoxed was it's budget - wow, was that a cheap documentary to produce. But it shows. Like the Blair Witch Project, it was a good low budget attempt. But it wasn't comprehensive. Greenwald, in particular, mixed opinion programming on Fox with factual news. As a resullt, idiots like O'Rielly took center-stage while real news programming was ignored.

*shrug*

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[pixelguru]

I didn't hear that remark, but I did hear Fox News report that the woman:

• was "armed" with a screwdriver
• was in possession of a tub of vaseline and matches
• was carrying a note mentioning Al Qaeda (in two languages)

Obviously, little or no effort was made to check these "facts" before they blasted this info around the world, and I heard no apology when it turned out that none of this was true. If this woman was in fact claustrophobic, she should sue the network for defamation of character for broadcasting such sensationalistic drivel

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is a legitimate news organization. This becomes apparent upon reading their print material or watching their actual news reports. Like all the other cable news outlets, if you're watching the interview shows like O'Rielly you're not getting hard news - it's all opinion. But watch the news and -- while it's most definitely slanted toward the administration and Republicans -- it's also factually accurate news. *shrug* Like all TV news it's watered down and of little factual value. If you really want hard news, you must read it.

FOX Newsflash: Discovered only yesterday were dozens of countries apparently NOT part of the United States. Investigations have concluded that said 'nations' are EVIL. The Bush administration will immediately begin systematically saving said 'nations' from themselves. Plans are underway to define ax AXIS easily understandable by the American middle class.

In other news, Donald Rumsfeld has announced a new 'Killer Feeding' program for underprivaledged citizens of the United States. President Bush has been quoted as saying "Shave their heads, feed them cornbread and borrow the money from Japan. Now where's my Osama card ... SNAP!". The share price of 'Western National Cotton' soured in response to Bush's comments, CEO of WNC commented "This is the best news we've had in years. There never was enough wetbacks anyhoo.".

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Jeffrey Baker]

Yeah, well. What did you expect? A few weeks ago the Fox correspondent in Lebanon said it was "widely believed" that Hezbollah officials were hiding in the Iranian embassy. When a correspondent on Fox says "widely believed", he means widely believed amongst Fox cameramen.

Of course, it turned out that no such person was hiding in Iran's embassy. As far as I know, no reputable news outlet ran with this story. Therefore, searching on "hezbollah iranian embassy" on Google gives you a pretty complete list of right wing warmongering disinformation sites which should not be taken seriously. The first outlet to report the truth -- that "Hezbollah leader not in Iran's embassy" -- is the People's Daily News of China.

How sad is it when a major news provider in the USA is peddling disinformation while the Chinese communist party's official news organ is reporting the straight scoop?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, fella, at least try watching an episode of Perry Mason. It's not about facts, it's about innuendo.

If I stood on your lawn, pointed at your house, and yelled at every passing car "The man who lives here is NOT a child molestor! And he does NOT smoke crack!" ... it may be factually accurate, but it's not what people are going to remember.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[cryptoluddite]

Pretty much all of Fox "News" comes from AP or Reuters. Then what they often do is make "edits" to it by adding in remarks diminishing negatives against Rebulicans and conservatives and adding elaboration to attack pretty much anybody else. Of course this justifies a "by" line from one of their staffers and, if the story appears on other sites, they add a small disclaimer on the bottom that "the AP contributed to this report".

The first time I noticed this was when Johnny Cochran died (I don't actually watch Fox "News" very often since to any thinking person it is disgusting). I was reading the story and was looking for more information (specifically whether he knew he had a tumor and for how long) when I noticed the story on FOX News was virtually identical to the associated press story. In fact, 18 of 44 paragraphs in the FOX piece were copied verbatim from the AP article with no changes whatsoever. Most of the other paragraphs had extremely minor grammatical structural changes, but were essentially identical to the original AP content. The rest was political spin (innuendo) that really had no place in the article.

What really struck me most was that FOX News in the by-line claimed credit for the article. Under the title the article clearly said "Tuesday, March 29, 2005" followed by "FOX NEWS". The Associated Press was not mentioned until the very end where the article said "FOX News' Jane Roh and The Associated Press contributed to this report"; however, even this was misleading since as far as I can tell Jane Roh's function was nothing other than minor cosmetic editing (ie it should have said, Jone Roh edited the article).

This is just one of a great many actual example of journalistic hackery at FOX "News" that happen all the time. You can believe that it is "only their opinion shows" or that they have serious journalistic talent, but if so you are an idiot. Look I'm not trying to insult you with ad hominem... it would just take somebody pretty fucking dumb not to see the puppet theatre at Fox.

And no, all of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC correctly attributed the article and did not add political spin to it as FOX did. They are not just as bad as FOX. Now the article does not even exist on FOX's site... much easier to get away with this crap when you sweep it under the rug. I have copies though of the "FOX POV" and original AP, if you doubt.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[ben there...]

You can also watch the Outfoxed interviews on Google Video.

They're unedited, but they were licensed with CC-Sampling+, so I thought they were worth uploading.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[mibus]

was carrying a note mentioning Al Qaeda (in two languages)

Probably a note asking for an Asimov book (or translated copy thereof)!

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an actual example right there in the post. Maybe you should have read it.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[roesti]

Thought I'd reply to both of your posts. I'll start with this bit, which I thought was interesting:

Greenwald, in particular, mixed opinion programming on Fox with factual news. As a resullt, idiots like O'Rielly took center-stage while real news programming was ignored.

It's been a while since I've seen Outfoxed, but I'm inclined to agree. Now that I've seen more of the actual station for myself - I'm in Australia, where you only get Fox as part of a pay-TV service - I'm more concerned with how bad a job they do with their actual news broadcasts, since I still believe that their main news anchors also show a distinct right-wing bias. (Regarding O'Reilly, Hannity and such, it's hard to know what else could be said about them. While we do, in part, have Greenwald to thank for this, it's the easier of the aspects to attack.) However, as you mentioned in your other post:

I can't change Fox News. But I can say that they appear to act within the realm of accepted journalistic standards.

This is one of those things that I'm as glad that somebody mentioned as I am disgusted that I agree with it. Fox News may take the credit for setting the standard nowadays, but the major US news outlets are getting closer together by the day. What's worse is that when they disagree with each other, they label each other as "liberal" - which is only true in relative terms.

How did it come to this? I don't think it's as simple as ratings, government favouritism, or even the corporate interests of the gigantic companies that control the media; but I do think that all three, perhaps among others, play a part. (We have the same problems in Australia, although there aren't quite as many digits after the dollar signs.)

Oh, and if anyone else is still reading, thanks for moderating my original post (the grandparent of this one) as 40% Troll and 30% Overrated. Your loyalty will not go unappreciated. Now, go back to sleep.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[kevin_conaway]

Perhaps you aren't aware that the AP is a wire service?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[dr_dank]

Aside from the fast and furious interspersal of fact vs opinion, they play fast and loose with the news at every turn. After Hurricane Katrina, Fox was showing footage of the french quarter and remarking on how great things were going with the rebuilding efforts, goverment response, etc, neglecting to mention the fact that the french quarter was relatively unscathed by the hurricane due to its location.

Even worse was the choice of commentator during the NY Times leak story. Of all people, they got G. GORDON LIDDY (yes, the Watergate G. Gordon Liddy) to say how leaking was bad. Damn, they should have gone for the gusto during the Andrea Yates retrial and bailed out Susan Smith to comment on the case.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[fotbr]

The Daily Show and Colbert Report not pretending to be anything more than satire doesn't stop the right-wing idiots from screaming about it.

I don't think orilley pretends to be news -- maybe he'd like to be considered a reporter, but if you watch the show its an opinion show that discusses "news events" but its CLEARLY opinions and interviews.

Personally, I can't stand ANY of the talking heads on foxnews, and I can't stand Stewart and Colbert, but I'm not going to run around screaming any of them should be taken off the air -- I'll be mature enough to just change the channel when I see a show I'm not interested in. Its a matter of opinion -- they make you laugh, good enough. Just don't expect me to share the same opinion.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Abcd1234]

Its a matter of opinion -- they make you laugh, good enough. Just don't expect me to share the same opinion.

But... but... you're wrong!

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[ElephanTS]

I would say that he did know that. Seems pretty obvious from the content of his message. Why didn't you pick up on that?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[quisph]

The problem lies with the idiots who can't differentiate between opinion shows and news shows.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the line between opinion and news is blurry by design. Insofar as there will always be a lot more "idiots" than smart people, insofar as they have the same voting rights as anyone else, and insofar as they really can't help being "idiots," I tend to think that it should be considered the responsibility of the producers of opinion shows to make the distinction as clear and "idiot-proof" as possible. But, of course, that would defeat their purpose.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...to any thinking person it is disgusting"
"...but if so you are an idiot"
"Look I'm not trying to insult you with ad hominem... it would just take somebody pretty fucking dumb "

I'm sorry, but "You are an idiot" immediately followed by "I'm not trying to insult you ad hominem" is fairly inane.
It's quite obvious you only think that people who share your opinion are "thinking people".

And this crap gets +5: Informative? WTF guys?

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[bigpat]

it's also factually accurate news.

I've noticed that they only report on the "facts" that support their views or agenda. It goes well beyond the opinion shows which one would expect to have a slant. I have no problem with Fox News, but to call their reporting fair and balanced or whatever they call it... is a joke. And I think that it is meant to be a joke. I'm sorry if you don't get it.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[bigpat]

Fox news goes out of its way to try and piss off what they consider is a an establishment of left wing reporters that they believe for years has been reporting stories with a left wing slant, but claiming to be impartial. So now fox claims to be impartial but purposefully doesn't mean it, yet goes out of its way to bash the democrats and liberals whenever possible. They definately hold themselves to a different standard of journalism than would a serious news organization.

What is most disturbing is the dishonesty that goes well beyond parody and becomes an incitement to hate people based on ignorant stereotyping. If people would see past the bullshit that terrorists hate us because they hate freedom or are just angry because they are a miserable people through no fault of our own then we would be better off.

Christians believe that you should love your enemy. It doesn't mean that you can't kill them to defend yourself and your country, but love does mean honestly trying to understand and listen to them. That is the road to peace through justice.

Those that go on fox news and preach an ignorant hatred of those that might want to kill us are on the same path of those that they would condemn.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Jherek Carnelian]

But she did have a bottle of water so, you know, it was just as bad.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[cryptoluddite]

Yes, Yes. Your point. Whatever.

Each of those lines you single out is true. The post gives a specific concrete example of FOX News hackery, which is exactly what other posts in this thread asked for. But that shouldn't be modded informative why exactly?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you, apparently, believe that being stupid is some kind of insult or attack? Some people are just dumb, yet they may have many more redeeming qualities that some genius lacks. Take Bush for example, people liked him pretty well despite his, uh, shortcomings (compare IQ to Carter@173 (tested), Nixon@155 (estimate), or Clinton@182 (estimate) for instance).

plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush White House Used Taxpayer Dollars To Create Fake News Programs To Promote No Child Left Behind; Also Rated News Stories Based On Favorability

Ketchum Produced Fake News Reports to Promote No Child Left Behind. The Department of Education contracted with Ketchum public relations to produce and distribute "news" stories featuring a fake reporter announcing the availability of tutoring under No Child Left Behind. According to the Associated Press, the Administration paid $700,000 to Ketchum for the segment. The video includes a story featuring Education Secretary Rod Paige and ends with the "journalist" saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." [AP, 10/10/04, Washington Post, 10/15/04; People for the American Way Release, 10/11/04]

Department of Education Also Paid Ketchum to Code Media Stories Based on Favorability of Coverage. According to the Associated Press, the Department of Education used taxpayer dollars to devise a rating system to score news coverage of the federal No Child Left Behind law. The system rewards points to news outlets that air reports that, among other things, say that President Bush and Republicans are strong on education. The news rankings also rank individual reporters on how sympathetic they are to the Administration's program. [AP, 10/10/04]

Bush Administration Paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 To Promote No Child Left Behind

Armstrong Williams Paid By Bush Administration To Tout NCLB. USA Today revealed that the Department of Education paid political commentator/talk radio host Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative on his program and to other African American commentators. During these efforts, Williams failed to disclose his contract with the government. [USA Today, 1/7/05]

Taxpayer Dollars Also Used To Create Fake News Programs For Bush Medicare Plan

Bush Used Taxpayer Dollars to Stage Fake News Stories To Promote His Medicare Bill. Bush's Health and Human Services Department also contracted with Ketchum to promote the president's Medicare drug benefit. Using the same public relations consultant, Karen Ryan, Ketchum produced a series of video news releases that included scripted interviews and pictures of Bush receiving a standing ovation as he signed the legislation. During the first two months of 2004, the pieces aired 53 times on 40 stations in 33 major media markets. [New York Times, 3/15/04; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 3/15/04; LA Times, 3/16/04; Lexington Herald Leader, 5/19/04]

        * GAO Found Bush Administration Guilty. On May 19, 2004, the General Accountability Office (GAO) released its investigation findings into fake news segments produced by Medicare to promote the Bush Medicare bill. The segments, video news releases, were distributed to local television sessions to be run as part of the station's news programs. The segments contained no identifiers that they were produced by the government, which the GAO found violates the propaganda prohibitions of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003. The GAO concluded, "Because [Medicare] did not identify itself as a source of the news report, the story packages, including the lead-in script, violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition." [GAO, Decision in Matter of Center for Medicaid & Medicare Services - Video News Release, 5/19/04]

Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[draxbear]

Wow, just another day in the Land of the Fee?

I reckon we need a "scary" mod option...

Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[bergeron76]

No Child Left Behind is actually harming more children. The school systems are having to push the slow kids out of school in order to keep funding. It's having the exact opposite effect of what he expected.

Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! What's With All These Caps?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/08/16/122 5239.shtml

Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[rbochan]

...Bush Admini^H^H^H American taxpayers Paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 To Promote No Child Left Behind...

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you)

[AK Marc]

No Child Left Behind is actually harming more children. [...] It's having the exact opposite effect of what he expected.

I don't think you know his reasons or expectations. I believe he pushed NCLB with the goal of hurting public schools. I always thought it was to hurt the schools to position vouchers as an alternative. I predicted that he would push vouchers through his last 6 months in office. I think that may be a failed prediction now, because the war will weaken his power and distract him. But I think he knew quite well what the was doing, and had no qualms about screwing up the education of millions of children for a stupid political move. NCLB is universally hated by educators, parents, students, and anyone that knows what it really means to the schools system. Gifted programs are hurt the most. The Republican philosophy is that if you want good education, you should take your kids out of public schools.

What public schools really need is a promotion system that works and more money. Oh, and don't get me started on people comparing the costs of public and private schools. When private schools are not allowed to turn away students, no matter how unruly or incapable of learning, and the private schools are required to bus all the students, then we'll have closed two of the large number of reasons why the two can't be compared directly for costs.

Fake newspapers?

[andrewman327]

The Onion anyone?

Anyway, I have seen just about every one of the "fake news" infomercials. Being a nightowl helps. Anyway, should be obvious to anyone that these are fake. The begining and the end of the infomercials have disclaimers that affirm their paid commericial status. I think that they should have disclaimers on the bottom of the screen that remind channel surfers of this fact, but overall they are not well hidden.

Hey Mods, guess what? By modding this comment up and making three easy payments of $19.99, you will have expended less than $60! Mod now! Apply directly to forehead! Apply directly to forehead! Apply directly to forehead!

Re:Fake newspapers?

[maynard]

The Onion is satire and makes itself known as such. As does SNL Weekend Update, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. This is not the same as purposefully misrepresenting news in order to present slanted opinion. That broadcast news organizations have been caught actually peddling this stuff from government and private industry sources shows just how far television news ethics has declined. It's bad. I can both argue for Fox News as a legitimate news organization simply because they're just as bad as CBS as a factual source. IOW: TV news really really sucks.

Read a real newspaper if you want to be informed. Actually, read several.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[Babbster]

This isn't an issue about infomercials with the disclaimers you mention, nor is it about humorists. Those obviously wouldn't warrant an investigation. The issue is about "news reports" that are created by government and/or corporate organizations which are sent to "real" news producers, who then put them on the air without disclosing their source. It's a way for those producers to fill time in their broadcasts without spending any money and the creators of the segments get to spread their message to the public through a medium which that audience [probably foolishly] trusts. I posted this link in a message down a bit further, but it probably bears repeating.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[FLEB]

These aren't infomercials. They're pre-recorded tapes sent to newsrooms with pre-recorded "reports" that the newsroom can slip in as an actual news story. The news stations, in laziness, throw their own chrome on it and call it "time filled". Meanwhile, the sender of the tape is getting cheap, legitimized PR.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[Lord Balto]

The scary stuff is the videos put out by government agencies that often don't get credited properly by local news shows. Bet those don't show up on the FCC radar.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[rm999]

"The Onion is satire and makes itself known as such."

Apparently not entirely
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2002/06/08/MN129538.DTL

Re:Fake newspapers?

[TheRaven64]

I subscribe to The Onion's RSS feed. It's quite entertaining to see their headlines in the middle of blocks of BBC News stories. You can tell a lot about the state of the world in any given week from how easy it is to distinguish between the two.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[saskboy]

You actually have to read several, but also from different owners. Because if you read the Saskatoon Star Pheonix, and the Regina Leader Post, you'll still have the same stories and same owner even though they are in different cities. Then if you read the National Post, or Ottawa Citizen, you still won't get a different perspective, even though it's from the other side of the country.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[frankie]

Bah, that's not so impressive. Hard to say why they printed that. They're inscrutable, you know. ;-)

My personal favorite is the fundamentalists who sent a Harry Potter satanism article around as an URGENT WARNING PASS IT ON chain email.

With any luck, the major network news agencies will all be shut down for lack of viewers, and people will no longer have any excuse for believing that what they see on TV is true.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I just want to reiterate that TFA is not about infomercials, so your points don't really apply. But I wanted to address them anyway.

Anyway, should be obvious to anyone that these are fake.

Anyone? Really? Consider that there are people in the world who can't read, and some people who don't even have the capacity to learn to read. Would you care to amend your statement, or do you simply not consider them part of "anyone?"

If these infomercials are so "obviously" fake, doesn't it lead you to wonder why they would even bother trying? Why would they go to the trouble, if it wasn't proven to be effective?

They know what they're doing. They are fooling people. Not everyone, of course, but enough of us. Otherwise, there would be no point. The fact that these infomercials don't work on those of us who were fortunate enough to have been born at the higher end of the bell curve is all but meaningless. The world is a big place.

Re:Fake newspapers?

[Eric S. Smith]

Even reading papers from different owners won't save you — newspapers are quite reliant on wire-service copy, and it's entirely unsurprising to come across the same Canadian Press (or Reuters, or whatever) story in two or more papers. They'll be edited to differing lengths, of course, the main job of newspaper content being to keep the ads from bumping into each other.

You can determine this pretty quickly by looking at Google News.

Colbert Report & the Daily Show

[Pao|o]

What'll happen to the Comedy Central's Colbert Report & the Daily Show if the FCC starts cracking down on "fake news" shows? I know both shows do not features "paid for by businesses or interest groups" but put a humorous spin on the day's news.

Re:Colbert Report & the Daily Show

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly hope you're kidding. A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the FCC covers cable/satelite. It doesn't. The only reason the FCC was ever given any power to censor what is shown was because (a) the communication spectrum is limited and (b) as the government took it upon themselves to divide it up, they decided that those who broadcasted would have to meet a "code" for the public good. Because of this, CNN, FNC, and Comedy Central are all quite secure from any sort of punishment by the FCC; though I've heard some Congressmen that have been interested in trying to magically make cable under FCC control. Hell, all three could show lots of nudity any time of the day (so long as it wasn't obscene). The simply don't because it's not as profitable (people would drop their cable subscriptions before using a v-chip; and why give it away for free when you can sell it by the hour?).

Personally, I think we're at the point that we could divide up TV and radio broadcasts sufficiently, with digital broadcasts, that there's little reason for the FCC to exist except back to insuring that communications are capable of being properly transmitted without interference. But good luck pushing that position. Just remember, it's not a crime in itself to lie to people. So long as your program has a sufficiently indirect means of payment, it's also not fraud. That's probably why most news channels (broadcast or not) have yet to be shut down.

Re:Colbert Report & the Daily Show

[SydShamino]

The Colbert Report is a parody, and as such is 100% protected by the first amendment. Nothing at all will happen to it under any circumstances.

For fake news reports inserted as part of a standard new program, the punishment involved could fall under commercial fraud laws, which restrict free speech to benefit the public and consumer.

A More Indepth Look at "Fake News"

[Babbster]

Here's an article from the Center for Media and Democracy that gives a lot more information about this practice and also provides video examples for your viewing "pleasure."

bushco=toshiba? ahhh, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

if you read the article it has nothing to do with Bushco-naziburton. Funny to see the posts so far seem to revolve around Bushco. Well, get over it already.

This story is about capitalism. Pretty simple concept. No need to tie it into a web of conspiracies.

Look at the companies mentioned in the article! Toshiba and Fisher Price!?

Can we please have some intelectual disscusion here without inserting Bush's ass into every story?

So this means...

[peu]

my abdominizer and the 5min perfect fitness routine are not real?

im feeling fat already

And the penalties are:

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal regulator can levy fines of up to $32,500 US per violation.

In the article, one of the reasons cited for running this crap is that it is free. Given what a station charges for air time, they could run this stuff every hour and still make a profit. Meanwhile, they want to up the fines for obscenity to millions of dollars.

So you want to see the real priorities of the current administration? Run their political propaganda (or the propaganda of their corporage supporters) and recieve a slap on the wrist. Say something that offends the radical religious right wing and get put out of business.

I, for one, do NOT welcome the rule of our new theocratic overlords.

Re:And the penalties are:

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, they want to up the fines for obscenity to millions of dollars.

Last I knew, they threw you in jail for most forms of obscenity. I think you're think about indecency, a whole other legal matter.

As usual the top will be spared?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see them getting at it right at the source. After all, wasn't it the infamous Bush administration who started fabricating stories during the Iraqi war? And no, I'm not even targetting the missing WMD's, simply focussing on already proven lies. Like the female soldier who was alledgidly a POW and being tortured in an hospital. Turned out that her injurier were well treated but the campaign needed more goodwill so what better way than to introduce the "damsel in distress".

Or what about the treachery at the Abu Graib prison, events which weren't merely denied but also covered with newsstories than absolutely nothing was going on down there. Or what about the US' private detention centre on Cuba were we only hear news about those dangerous and evil terrorists doing all sorts of naughty things when in fact they're only getting lawyers into gear in order to demand to be treated under international civilion rights which every human should be entitled to.

So... Please go right ahead with the investigation but if you guys don't start right at the top I can't help wonder if this whole deal is in fact fake in itself.

Re:As usual the top will be spared?

[Xiroth]

Wait, you guys were told that the woman was being mistreated? Wierd. The newspapers in Australia reported that a group of US Soldiers busted into the hospital, handcuffing and locking up doctors, nurses and patients and waving their guns around until they found her and rushed her out. The Iraqi soliders had left over a day earlier. They also reported that the doctors had tried to bring her back to the American lines, but the car they were coming in was fired upon and they had to turn around. How much of that was reported?

Re:As usual the top will be spared?

[ScrappyLaptop]

...and yet I keep reading slashdot comments like, "television is wide and shallow, for real news you must READ the news". Print media is no more immune to this than television, folks! The print jounalists, although they like to see themselves as the "fourth branch of government" in America, have done nothing lately to deserve that title except, perhaps, act just like the other three branches. Reprinting press releases from both government and industry are not, I repeat, not considered "investigative journalism". Start reading newspaper articles with a more critical eye -how often do you read 3/4 of an article about a topic only to find that it is actually a carefully crafted product placement? Watch for them, they are more subtle than you think. How many of you even have local papers that don't simply reformat stories from other sources? Go through your local paper and note what percentage of the copy is actually about local news (and does not mention one name brand favorably somewhere near the end of the article)-likely that is the only part of your paper that was written locally. On a larger scale, when was the last time a reporter actually followed up on a question averted? Just once I'd like to see a modern reporter actually fight for the truth.

Re:As usual the top will be spared?

[Anonymous Coward]

For following up on dodged questions, the best reporters I've come across are the BBC's radio reporters. I've heard John Humpreys ask the same question five or six times when whichever politico he's interviewing tries to sidestep - makes the guy sound completely ridiculous.

Missing one thing

[ElectusUnum]

"Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups." Your forgot "The United States Government"

Documented in 1995 by 'Spin'

[crazy_monkey]

Check out the 1995 documentary 'Spin' to see some early examples of this type of fake news being broadcast during the run-up to the 1992 election.

Re:Documented in 1995 by 'Spin'

[BrynM]

Someone else who remembered Spin! Sad to know that nothing has really changed in 11 years isn't it? As I mentioned in my earlier post, Spin can be had at http://illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html. Everyone should watch it and join the ranks of the disillusioned... er... informed.

Re:Documented in 1995 by 'Spin'

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the other links, you can see a low quality version on google videos, saving you from having to download it.

Is this really that surprising?

[hedwards]

I do see an FCC investigationinto this as being a really good step forward.
This isn't the only time that there has been this sort of slimy "journalism."

Fox news was implicated in the same basic problem. Editorialing is going to
happen even by knowledgeable professional journalists; the trick is that it
needs to be disclosed in a manner that makes it clear to the viewer(reader,
listener etc.,) that this is a segmant of opinion, and this is one of news.

Yes, there isn'at always a clear line, but in most cases a byline or disclaimer
can make it somewhat clear. There will never be a news organization that is
perfect, but advertising as being "The most fair and balanced on TV" and then
spending substantial time on air editorialising is going to be a problem.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/ texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=foxnews03&date=2 0010703&query=fox+news+bias
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/ texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=cameron14&date=2 0041014&query=fox+news+bias

re: Fake Newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are fake newspapers. Just look at free "commuter papers": they've gone to the effort of collecting the latest press releases and printing them out for you (sometimes slightly modified).

They come in different varieties. From my perspective in Ottawa, Canada:

- Dose was created by broadsheet newspapers to squeeze out low-cost tabloid-style newspapers (i.e. the Sun) at a loss to the publisher, and Metro carries on this tradition.

- "The News EMC" is a "community paper" that once took one of my media releases (I volunteer for a non-profit community group) and tried to hack it into a letter to the editor. "EMC", by the way, stands for "Expanded Market Coverage", so it's clear who their market is--advertisers.

- The Epoch Times ("The most widely distributed newspaper in the world") carries lots of interesting news on the latest accusations against the Chinese Communist Party, but everything else in the paper (the stuff that they bury the anti-CCP stuff in) is just the latest press releases or wire stories on Microsoft's and Ford's latest product announcements, or who wore what at the latest celebrity whatsit.

The end effect is that many of these newspapers pretend to provide journalistic output, but really it's just something to reach their goal (respectively, squeeze out competitors, make money from advertisers, and push a political agenda). The latent effect is that real community papers, who actually do pay people to write their stories, lose out. Many student newspapers at campuses across Canada had tremendous challenges keeping advertisers when Dose moved onto their terrain (I was on the publishing board of one at the time).

- RG>

old "news"

[Hamilton Lovecraft]

Fox already went to court to establish their right to lie and call it news. There's precedent. What is FCC going to do about it?

Re:old "news"

[BCW2]

And the other three majors copied them before the ink was dry on the decision. Fox is still the only one of the four to have anything approaching an original idea in the last 40 years.

Re:old "news"

[wwiiol_toofless]

Original? Fox is using the same modus operandi of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, but with 35% more screen-scrolling flair and flag waving.

Can you smell it in the air? There's a storm brewin' and the corporacrats are gonna get dropped like Bush's cocaine habit.

Re:old "news"

[BCW2]

It's there for the taking and the Dems are reaching. If just one would come up with "Specific Plans" to do something different, he would be a winner. Do any of them do that? No they just say how Bush does everything wrong and offer no alternatives of any kind. Just a few "I'll do it different generalities". Can the NAZI comparisons, the way the Dems went after Liberman was more reminicent of Hitler and Stalin than anything in recent political history, you vill not contradict the party!

Re:old "news"

[Guuge]

The problem with candidates is that you have to research them. So many Democrats have come up with specific plans, and even brought bills before congress. You need to pay more attention.

the way the Dems went after Liberman was more reminicent of Hitler and Stalin than anything in recent political history, you vill not contradict the party!

That's something we call 'democracy' over here in the US. Calling every Connecticut voter "Hitler" or "Stalin" just makes you sound like an idiot.

Re:old "news"

[BCW2]

The problem with the candidates is they need to get their message out in public. If the voter don't here about specific changes then why change?

The comment about Hitler & Stalin was not directed at the CT voters but at the National Democratic party which just cost themselves a Senate seat in November. Liberman will win his own seat again and will be an independant this time. The party practised cannibalism on one of it's own.

Re:old "news"

[Guuge]

No really, there was a primary election in Connecticut. I suppose you could be suggesting that the vote was rigged by the evil Democratic masters (Hitler!) but I've seen no evidence of this and you haven't presented any.

I applaud Connecticut for sending a stern message to Lieberman; maybe he'll think twice before joining Bush's rubber stamp brigade again. If Jim Jeffords can become an independent to protest the Republican failures of leadership, Lieberman can be forced out of the Democratic party for failing to recognize said failures.

Re:old "news"

[BCW2]

You are missing reality. Lieberman will win in Nov. causing the Dems to lose a Senate seat. A backstabbing attack by the radical wing will backfire on the whole party.

max fine = $32k?

[bunions]

from tfa:

The media watchdog group is recommending the FCC fine stations who have violated the rules. The federal regulator can levy fines of up to $32,500 US per violation.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but it seems likely that 32k is far below what a station would charge for that kind of service. If it's still a net profit, this is just pointless.

Re:max fine = $32k?

[LocalH]

You're absolutely wrong, and I do have firsthand knowledge. VNRs are generally not paid for by the station. Fining stations $32,500 per VNR will likely shut down hundreds of smaller stations.

Re:max fine = $32k?

[bunions]

good to know, thanks.

In that case, excellent showdown in store

[MillionthMonkey]

"So Steven, some people say you don't really tell the truth on this show. Is that in fact correct?"

Re:In that case, excellent showdown in store

[LouisZepher]

"Yes, it is correct that some people say that I don't tell the truth on this show."

Re:In that case, excellent showdown in store

[Antony-Kyre]

(If I'm reading what you said correctly.)

I figure if Stephen Colbert wanted to make sure he is actually telling the truth on the show, he could always edit his wikipedia article to make it true.

Re:In that case, excellent showdown in store

[coolGuyZak]

"But I know I do. I can feel it in my gut."

And I quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS A QUOTE, from Center for Media and Democracy:

"The vast majority of VNRs are produced for corporate clients. Of the hundreds of VNRs that CMD reviewed for potential tracking, only a few came from government agencies or non-profit organizations"

OK????

They just now figured this out?

[Spiked_Three]

OK, I owned a pro broadcast post production studio in the early 90's. Most of our work was for 'news releases' done for corporations. You know, the ones like 'oompa oompa elementary school installs PCs in every classroom' and of course it was IBM that funded the 'news story'. Like I said, MOST of our work was this kind of production.

I can't believe anyone is making a big deal out of it now - probably %70 percent of the news you have seen in your lifetime was paid for by a corporation.

Re:They just now figured this out?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you live with yourself, having done that? Does your business card say "Professional Liar?" What an utter waste of a human life. People like you are worse than useless, contributing nothing of value to society. Please kill yourself. As Bill Hicks said,

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!
Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"

Re:They just now figured this out?

[Spiked_Three]

Actually I don't feel bad at all. Every where I look I see nothing but college trained monkeys trying to find a way to convince me to buy something.

Hell even college itself is not about learning, but about learning to put up with bull shit for 4 years and pay someone for it. What employer wouldn't want to hire someone that stupid (with a college degree)? Everything in your life (in the US and its equivalent peer countries) is a way for the top 5% to make more money.

I hate the fact that selling has become a science of thought control, but I guess it's slightly better than the thought control that religion tries to accomplish.

I'm waiting for the commission...

[baggins2001]

On fake government. An investigation into what the hell Congress has been doing the last 10 years. We used to have news outlet that reported on this kind of thing. My best news source now is the Daily Show for National News. For local state news I still read the paper which is probably why I went to dinner recently and was the only one who new that they were planning to build huge privately owned toll roads in our state and that there were plans to build 16 coal fired power plants.
I mean these weren't illiterate people, but they had decided that the local paper was liberal trype, so they quit reading it. I wish it was their land that they were going to take through eminant domain.

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[BrynM]

The Nazis perfected this before WW2 started. This is news?

No, lying and propoganda aren't new. What's news about this is the current form of those lies are being further exposed (finally!).

Oh, and mentioning Nazis just doesn't have the oomf it used to in this "post-911 world". Next time, try mentioning terrorists.

Nothing to see here

[porkmusket]

This has been happening for years. The only news here is that they are investigating it finally. I read about this same practice in my polisci textbooks 4 years ago. It's not a secret.

Good on the FCC, now go get Fox

[rufusdufus]

Remember the story of Fox producing a faked story about rBGH where whistlblowers sued them and the courts decided not that Fox hadn't lied, but that it was legal for them to do so? The FCC should have stood up then. If they are going to stand up now, they will have to apply the rules to Fox as well..right?

Re:Good on the FCC, now go get Fox

[worst]

To be fair, this incident was a LOCAL station and not Fox News Channel. However, the station is owned by Fox and not an affiliate.
They were a CBS station before some purchases had affiliations jumping around all over the dial IIRC, and part of the news cast remains. They do have a decidely biased slant on their reporting and some really asinine op ed pieces, but then again they also have a pretty damn good weather department and "Skytower HD Viper" which is nice here in Florida I suppose.
The Corporation also had a bit about this incident and along with the decidely smug segment that aired during the news broadcast about the "victory" in court. Of course, there was no mention of any sort of lying or attempt at altering the original piece, but that's pretty much to be expected.

Re:Good on the FCC, now go get Fox

[freedom_india]

The FCC should have stood up then. If they are going to stand up now, they will have to apply the rules to Fox as well..right?

Don't you understand? We are on the SAME SIDE ! They are practically the same company !!

FTC suing Fox??? Are U saying the left arm should sue the right arm?

Get yer facts right before you spout such nonsense.

Propagation? Proposition? Proletariat?

[xant]

I've got it--"prostitution".

Oh wait, that's the word for the news agencies that allow this stuff to penetrate.

So to speak.

hmm

[darjen]

So this sounds kind of like slashvertisements, except on news stations. Hmm interesting concept...

Fake news with some salt please...

[emailandthings]

We are fed fake news according to the whole world... Can we really trust Fox? Hmmmm You never know.. and I just had to create my own wishful thinking news :) http://www.blogsmonger.net/default.aspx?blog=8-16% 2Fba984361-b740-46f6-9c1e-2c4289f62474 http://www.blogsmonger.net/default.aspx?blog=8-16% 2Fba984361-b740-46f6-9c1e-2c4289f62474

As if...

[gregor-e]

As if there's such a thing as real news?

See it here

[mhermans]

Cosing; as a matter of fact here is it in full. From the page:
"Artist Brian Springer spent a year scouring the airwaves with a satellite dish grabbing back channel news feeds not intended for public consumption. The result of his research is SPIN, one of the most insightful films ever made about the mechanics of how television is used as a tool of social control to distort and limit the American public's perception of reality."

All propaganda

[Cynonamous Anoward]

I took a class on public opinion and propaganda in college. Very interesting class. First thing we learned in the propaganda section, is that EVERYTHING is propaganda. Every person who ever writes, speaks, or otherwise communicates anything, subconciously puts their own spin on it. Therefore, to call it propaganda is not enough.

To use the true terms, there is white propaganda, which is the average person stating something in their own words. They are trying to be objective, they have no ulterior motives, they simply state things in the manner which their brain happened to percieve it. There is Gray Propaganda, which knowingly leads you to one side, but at least makes an attempt to be truthful in the information they provide (i.e. they leave things out, but don't blatantly decieve). black propaganda is something which intentionally decieves.

I believe that the bush administration in particular is guilty of a larger than normal amount of black propaganda. I think corporations, especially in the U.S. typically engage in a good amount of grey propaganda, in fact, advertising itself is generally grey. But all it takes is one individual within the organization to push grey into black. In other words, doing these kinds of things isn't inherently wrong, but it is definitely treading a thin line between doing something self-promoting, and something very wrong.

So what you're saying is

[Associate]

the only portion of the news we can take at face value is based off of modeling, punctuated with a big question mark?

VNR on the Daily Show

[mincognito]

Lewis Black discusses video news releases.

Tin Foil...

[Anonymous Coward]

*Glues on tin foil hat*

Shephards

[RoyGBatty]

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Have you been sleeping under a rock? Haven't you seen this?

As long as consumers keep treating corporations like shepherds, they have no right to expect any other sort of treatment.

Ah!

[msimm]

You mean the producers!

Seriously though, am I the only one who watched Outfoxed? And don't get me wrong, I don't blame Fox, I think apathy is a social problem and businesses are in the business of widening their bottom line. Or maybe ignorance *is* bliss? I've probably got the whole thing backwards. :)

Re:Ah!

[(trb001)]

Outfoxed was a horribly biased look at FNC, which is exactly what it set out to be, so I suppose it succeeded. Take any news station (PBS, MSBNC, CNN, etc), take selected clips and you can show that it fits whatever bias you're looking for. There were some glaring issues with Outfoxed.

First, their use of anonymous sources was a little over the top. Count how many they used versus how many names sources spoke. Then count how many of the named sources worked for Fox affiliates, not FNC itself.

Second, they spent an abundance of time on two shows, Hannity and Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor, both of which are opinion shows and are pretty *clearly* opinion shows if you watch for more than a few minutes. Even when looking at H&C, they completely discount many things that Colmes says, ie the segment where they talk about Hannity counting down the days until Bush is elected? H&C alternated nights, with Colmes announcing the number of days until Kerry would be elected.

Third, the segment about the overuse of "some people say" was ridiculous. Watch *any* news program where time is limited; they all use that phrase. It's poor journalism but it's also a time saver.

Fourth, O'Reilly was really hammered on in Outfoxed. In one shot, they show 5 clips of him saying shut up to people to prove their point that he silences views he doesn't want to hear. But he was only doing that in one clip; the other 4 he was using it as an example or question, such as "If you don't like X, why don't you shut up about it and just let it be?" Whether you like him or not, Outfoxed didn't even use clips that backed up their point especially well.

The list goes on. I'm not saying Outfoxed didn't make a point, I'm saying I wouldn't put it in the "documentary" category any more than Fahrenheit 911; they both were looking to prove something, they weren't objectively exmaining the situation.

--trb

Heh. Posting to myself and of course Doonesbury..

[msimm]

Here's a Doonesbury rundown on the video for the broadband challenged (or...erm, Doonesbury fans) .

Re:Propoganda

[TheGhostOfDerrida]

(from a different AC)
Ever read the term "slashvertisement" in these comments? If there's a word for this phenomenon on this site, I would assume it does, in fact, happen frequently enough that someone observing it could make mention without intending to "troll". Of course, today's mods don't seem to agree with me, but that's why they have the points, and I don't...

Re:Propoganda

[TheGhostOfDerrida]

By the way, I intended to post that anon... so just don't read that name... uhh... yea...

With the current level of service airlines offer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your laptop always be there.... at your local pawn shop or your ebay auction, time to go back to transatlantic ship traveling boys....

Need Identifying Marker

[reporter]

The problem with the infomercials is that if you switch television channels and land in the middle of the infomercial, you do not know that it is an infomercial. Many infomercials are set up so that they appear like a news report, and you could easily be fooled into believing the unsubstantiated claims made by the actors.

The only way to know that you are watching an infomercial, without consulting the online TV gude, is to wait until the end of the infomercial. At its conclusion, the television station will announce that "The previous broadcast is paid programming."

The obvious way to help the innocent TV viewer is to simply require all infomercials to prominently display the same distinguishing marker on the lower left of the TV screen. Given the content of some of these infomercials, I propose displaying an icon resembling Bozo the Clown.

Re:Need Identifying Marker

[dthree]

Informercialls are bad enough, but these aren't even infomercials, they are short "news" segments aired DURING local news broadcasts. They are basically presented as news in the context of the stations regular news program, and resemble a location segment or a prerecorded public interest story.

Re:Need Identifying Marker

[boingo82]

Often, the TV Guide won't even help.
Early one morning, I saw a show listed on TV Guide Channel as "Automobile Stunt Driving" or some such. Enticing! I flipped to the channel.
Some guys in racing outfits were talking about stunt driving, maintaining control of your vehicle, as they walked over to a large truck, a closed car-carrier. They approached the back, as they promised to demonstrate some serious stunt driving. Awesome!

They opened the truck...and every car inside was a Pontiac. OK, let's where they're going with this...

They began to unload a Grand Prix. One of the "professional drivers" said,
"Boy...would you look at the back of that car? I have never seen such a sexy design."
At that moment, I knew I was being played. No one, NO ONE, has ever called the Grand Prix sexy without being paid to do so. Especially not the rear of it.

Um..so the point is, you can't depend on the TV guide either. They pitch lots of infomercials as actual shows.

Wait. I forgot to respond to something

[maynard]

How can it be "factually accurate" and "of little factual value" at the same time?

What a fucking good question! I wish I had responded to that first in my previous reply. But I don't have a "real" answer. No wonder people ignore questions like these. They're too fucking deep to answer, because they force us to face conflicting real-world demands with ethics.

I can't change Fox News. But I can say that they appear to act within the realm of accepted journalistic standards. Yhat Plato shit about right and wrong, and all of our shadows played against the wall like life as a play, well - The Prince knows it all comes down to an appropriate application of force. Wait... is that South Park?

heh...

Re:Heh. Posting to myself and of course Doonesbury

[msimm]

Obviously that post was simply too taxing for me to enclose text in the link. Who'd have thunk?

Next: Increased Volume of Commercials

[blantonl]

Next, I hope they tackle ads that dramatically increase the audio volume.

Like banning a Caps lock... these too should be banned.

"Sunday, SUNday... SUNDAY.... ALL FORDS ON SALE... SUNDAY ONLY... BUY BUY..."

There really is nothing worse than watching a documentary and having this happen, especially on a decent home theater system. Why these types of ads still exist, and are deemed successful, eludes my brain.

Maybe it is just like SPAM, it is working for someone.

Sigh.

Oh yea, these and the advertisement-faked-as-news-story ads are, well, terrible.

Newsiness

[Cousin Scuzzy]

What I hate are the "news" stories that promote the airing network's other programming. For example, the local Fox affiliate "reports" ad nauseam about the latest American Idol happenings while that show is running. There are usually pieces about what Jack Bauer is up to during 24's season as well. These aren't presented as if they're just providing programming information (e.g., "Coming up next on Fox...") but rather as legitimate news. I often suspect that other fluff pieces are also supporting the commercial interests of the network's parent company or subsidiaries. For example a story about a new theme park opening, or an artist who has released a new album, or a movie premiere. So much media and entertainment is owned by big business that it doesn't require much imagination to believe that such stories are crafted to be a subtler form of advertising.

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[mrbcs]

You can Godwin a thread with terrists now? I missed that memo..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law/

Don't Watch TV

[LoudMusic]

Don't watch TV.

Done. End of discussion. Can we move on now?

Re:Don't Watch TV

[deviceb]

bingo! get away from the paranoia, fear tactics, drug ads, apple computer commercials, non-reality shows & start playing video games or using a PC where you can at least educate yourself or develop hand-eye skills in the process.
art defines culture, but todays processed art is developing a very bland culture in america.

Re:Don't Watch TV

[Anonymous Coward]

There is such wisdom in your simplicity. It warms my heart.

Re:Baaaa.....ddddddd

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, always been that way, at least as long as I have been watching TV, since the early 50's. TV news has always been a collection of either governmental press releases or industry press releases, re written or rehashed, mixed in with exciting disaster stuff and hollywood/sports drivel. The only exceptions are the in depth news programs but you have to *really* watch those, half the time they are propoganda pieces as well, just better packaged for a slightly more "interested in the news" crowd.

Here, I'll give you a blatant example you'll see constantly: government spokesmoron states such and such as data, true facts. Later on it is proven to be either a blatant lie or altered so much as to throw a significant slant to the real event. Goofy stuff, say the Iraq war preview, remember the "dangerous mobile biological labs" that turned out to be weather balloon vans? Stuff like that, thousands of examples over the years. More lies than truth, BUT, ALL the broadcast news sources will report it as carved in stone data, even when it is patently ludicrous on first impression, let alone on further inspection.

  Big, medium, small, the lie doesn't matter, what matters is they still do it, repeat the blather as pure confirmed data based on chronic serial liars say-so. Over and over again, day after week after year after decade after generations. You will NEVER see a broadcast newsie go to the spokesmoron at the news conference, no matter how wild the claim, and say something like this "Prove it! That sounds damn fishy! Show us the actual proof!". Have you ever seen that? Me neither! Well, I'll give Helen Thomas at least half an "attaboy, girl!" but that's about it. The rest of them? Meh....puppets watching their paycheck first. You don't rock the boat. You can *appear* to rock the boat, but only in an approved at the top levels way.

TV news exists for two reasons, to sell you consumer crap and to sell social conditioning brainwashing. And that's it and it's equally important to "them". It's ok to watch, just remember it is a lot more BS than not, so what you are seing now isn't all that different from the way it has always been. The sound stages are more elaborate, more blinkenlights. Big deal.

  If you think of government as a for-profit corporation, which it more or less is for all practical purposes, it makes it a lot easier to see through their scam fake news. And if you realise "the news" is run by around a dozen international "elite" globalist billionaires, you'll understand why they do it this way. It's not to keep you informed, it's too keep you controlled.

Maybe someone should investigate news stories

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Not just 'fake' ones.

Every single time I have ever had direct access to the truth of a news story I have found the reporting to be shoddy - ranging from quotes in a newspaper attributed to me from a company I quit two years earlier and claims that the company I work for is Australian (it was based in the US with no Australian office) or an entire article about my employer's partnership with a competitor (with zero basis in reality), to claims that a recent weightwatcher of the month (a friend of mine) used to eat many hamburgers a day (a complete fabrication). I regularly see my own employers making fabricated press releases that are reported as news with zero attempt at verification by reporters. Whatever level, whether it's business reporting or feel good local news, reporting is a web of lies. God knows how much truth there is in reporting from places like Iraq when they can't tell the truth about their own backyard.

Re:Maybe someone should investigate news stories

[IamTheRealMike]

Yep. And look at the story a while back about IPv6 ... riddled with extremely basic factual errors that the author could have found just by CCing somebody from the IT department. Something that would have not even required moving out of his seat, yet it wasn't done.

Basically, the only news source I really trust these days is the BBC. And if I read a newspaper, the Guardian, which at least has the benefit of being owned by some kind of non-profit trust rather than Murdoch.

For Your Viewing Pleasure...

[mattmacf]

Didn't Daily Show do a story about that to?

Indeed they did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e__3STe4jwU

The Daily Show

[constantnormal]

I knew that Jon Stewart couldn't get away with it ... ... I'll bet that Stephen Colbert is behind this "investigation".

Re:Next: Increased Volume of Commercials

[wannabgeek]

Totally agree with you. I wonder why the television manufacturers don't attack this technologically - provide a button that cuts sudden changes in volume. I will set that off only when watching some thrillers (where I expect to be surprised with volumes) - but when watching any other program, I hate it when the volume is increased heavily for advertisements.

On the TV end...

[7Prime]

I'm a television producer, mostly of commercial spots, but I've always been a very strong advocate of keeping news and advertising away from eachother. Unfortunately, the industry doesn't tend to agree. Promotions and other advertising schemes have been spilling into news in greater and greater quantities. This is especially true for soft news, or morning news, which is virtually a marketting team's playground. The Today Show did this whole "Wedding Giveaway" promotion, where they chose a couple to help fund their wedding, in exchange for them using certain advertisers, and following them through their wedding preparations. So my local station decides to do the same thing, on a local level. I must say, as a whole, it turned out quite well, but it made me feel icky having to make news packages that had contracts sitting behind them. I raised a lot of complaints to the general manager, the sales manager, and the news director about this, and none of them actually wanted to do it, but had basically convinced themselves that they had to do it for the company to stay alive.

In another incident, one of our clients weasled her way into using some of our news footage for her commercial, and she pushed the general manager (who does some production) more and more, until he actually ended up using video of one of our anchors doing a tag, which goes against some of our basic principals. When the anchor found out about this, she was furious, and forced them to retract the ad. I went down to my boss and basically asked him, "What the hell were you thinking?" And the response was basically that he knew it was wrong at the time, but he couldn't figure out what to do, and added that the station was going to be pushing the envilope more and more just to keep afloat. I don't buy it for a second. I don't know what the hawks up at ClearChannel corporate have been feeding everyone, but there are other methods of advertising that work just as well. To appease the client (and at the same time, give her a big, "fuck you"), I setup one of our side rooms as a news studio, with a totally different backdrop, and one of our sales team as an anchor... and made it OBVIOUSLY fake. I did everything possible to keep it from looking anything like our news: I went as far as coming up with my own news color scheme, with lower thirds and over-the-shoulders to match... anything to keep this fucking ad away from looking like our news. Since this is a small town, and everyone knows the anchors, it would be immediately obvious that this was fake. Our client was furious. "What happened to the lower thirds? Why isn't it in the newsroom? What happened to the over-the-shoulders?". She didn't want to come out and say it, but she was wanting our news image to help sell her service.

I'm not as concerned with actors posing as reporters, what I'm more concerned with, at this point, are reporters that are forced into the position of advertising as part of their news.

Propaganda even when the facts send the message

[dbIII]

After all, wasn't it the infamous Bush administration who started fabricating stories during the Iraqi war?

Let's look back to an earlier gulf war (or the start of the current one from the Iraqi perspective since bombing didn't stop) and consider an utterly cretinous bit of fabricated propaganda that failed on every count. Back when Saddam was in Kuwait his troops were committing a variety of real atrocities but instead of reporting on them an advertising agency was contracted to produce fake reports on rapes of nurses. The interviewed the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassitor to the USA who played the part of a nurse in the fake report. This bit of stupidity called the reports on real atrocities into question and made the USA appear less credible. I have no idea why a military press contact didn't just arrange for members of the press to talk to a few refugees - it would have been simpler, cheaper, would have got the same message accross and would have been real news.

The bit of file footage of Palestinians celebrating Brazil winning the soccer world cup from years back that was used on CNN to depict Palestinians celebrating the 911 attack is not propaganda - just some guy at CNN either being an evil manipulative bastard to incite hatred or being lazy and matching some file footage to a verbal report and inciting hatred as a side effect of unprofessional behaviour.

US catching up to Australia

[dcam]

I see you are having your own cash for comments scandal.

text ads are the same scam

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the same font and color as the rest of the page to make people think they are organic links on a website, when in fact they're just ads.

Top that together with google's relevancy matching, and the ads usually have something to do with the content of the page they appear on- further making people think they aren't ads at all.

Google has turned that simple deception into the fastest growing company in america. That's where they get 99.99% of their revenue.

Roll back your clock to 1933

[GraZZ]

Bush just needs to choose a building to burn down and be declared chancellor. All the other pieces of the Nazi party are in place...

The FCC is a whore who fucks the public

[sowth]

You are suprised it took this long for the FCC to go after them? I'm not. The FCC is a whore to the highest bidder.

They sold most of the radio spectrum out from under the public. Why do you think you have to pay such outrageous prices for cellphone service? Those are public airwaves you are using--they should be free. Cellphones should cost about as much as a landline to use.

Then there is WiFi. Do you know what part of the spectrum it is on? The same one which microwave ovens interfere. We should have multigigabit wireless networking with a range of kilometers. Where you could essentialy have acess to a citywide LAN just by plugging a networking card into your computer.

I'm suprized the FCC went after them at all. Tomorrow I expect to see someone from the FCC Reading from a corporate letterhead and holding a briefcase with money falling out of it, saying: "We apologize to our corporate spons..I mean friendly companies. Our accusations were unfounded and a mistake. Have a doubleplusgood day. :-)"

Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Vandalism

[MillionthMonkey]

There is an art to Wikipedia abuse. If someone cites a Wikipedia article in some argument they're making, you can always just go to Wikipedia and edit the page so that they're wrong. But that's what a novice Wikipedia vandal does.

A pro knows to edit the article in a very subtle way, so that it looks like the person has poor reading comprehension. Let's say the person cites a Wikipedia article with a sentence like this, in order to support the argument that Colbert is a Democrat.

Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Democrat.[12][13]

A novice might change it to this (correctly preserving footnote superscripts, which thankfully do not need to be relocated here from elsewhere in the article):

Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Republican.[12][13]

It makes the person appear to be wrong- and the vandalism is obvious. That's like swapping Eurasia for Eastasia. There's no way he could have misread that.

But change it to this

Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert has even been described as a Democrat.[12][13]

and the person looks not only wrong, but plausibly wrong because it looks like he can't read. That's what makes successful Wikipedia vandalism an art.

Re:Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Vandalism

[mOdQuArK!]

Great advice! I've got to add that to the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia vandalism...

Re:Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Vandalism

[RMH101]

...now i'm off to make *you* look stupid...!

Americans are niggers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Discuss.

There's more important fake news to investigate

[mclaincausey]

I don't like fake news in any form, but I think they should focus on false news coming out of the White House first.

Reporters Seem to be Lazy

[geoffrobinson]

Isn't that the main problem? What's easier? Take what someone gives you or do a bunch of work?

That won't work

[Overzeetop]

You have to get everyone else to not watch TV.

I feel my longstanding sig is particularly appropriate today, though "stupid" could be replaced with "gullible" and fit the story that much better.

Re:That won't work

[crabpeople]

"You have to get everyone else to not watch TV."

Why would you have to get other people to not watch tv? Is your watercooler chat about survivor really that important?

I stopped buying cable years ago and just download comerical free content from the internets. Sure you have to watch everything a day or so behind regular tv, but if you download every day, then it is just like having a tv to watch for an hour or two a night. Plus no commercials.

I really have no idea why you would think that what works for me should have to work for everyone or i shouldn't even bother. Why do you think that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Use of Press Releases is a form of Bias

[sweetnjguy29]

One of the lesser known forms of journalitic bias is the use of press releases. A press release is an organisations take on an event. They spin facts to make the organization look great. Thats why PR departments always issue them...because they know they will always be printed verbatim in the newspaper. Usually with attribution though.

Editors love press releases from the newswires and from the government. It frees up reporters to report on other stories, provides coverage in areas where you don't have reporters, and they come at a very low cost. Journalists love them because it makes writing a story a cinch! You change a few words here and there, add your own interview, and tada, in 15 minutes you have a local story from a national newswire story. You can see this in action if you read the headlines in more than one paper...all the stories are similar, because they are getting their news from the same sources! Think of press releases like using modules and libraries while coding.

Corporate PR has gotten smart and started to make video press releases. Nothing wrong with this per se. But television news editors have gotten sloppy and forgot to attribute their sources. This is a huge no-no. Federal regulations require the disclosure as a condition of the license. When a broadcast covers a matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance furnished by any other entity, the broadcaster must make disclose this, and keep a list of the entity's governance on file for public inspection. Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4826 and the complaint made to the FCC at http://www.freepress.net/docs/fcc_complaint_4-06-0 6.pdf . Also check out http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/ti tle47/part73.html and scroll down to section 1212 to read the actual regulation.

Requiring a notification is not censorship and is not unconstitutional in my book. It is similar to the "This Campaign Ad was Paid for by Bill Clinton" requirements for TV ads. Broadcasting on the radio and on the TV is not a right. You need a license from the government. So, you have to follow the rules you promised to follow. If you break those rules, your going to be fined.

Depends on what we think he expected

[ianscot]

It's having the exact opposite effect of what he expected.

No Child Left Behind is a classic example of real goals at complete cross-purposes with the professed ones. It had loads to do with the far right wing's openly-stated hatred of public schools and longing to return to some imagined halcyon period -- seemingly the pre-integration era as viewed through rose-colored glasses.

On those terms, a system that punishes schools who have students in poverty is exactly what Bush wanted and expected.

(I have two 13-year-olds. The decline in our local school system as various No Child Left Behind ramifications have come down has been palpable. Their grade school I would no longer want them to attend, were they still that age; its curriculum has been lobotomized in order to teach to the testing instruments. I am quite sure based on my experience that many more children are being "left behind.")

You... mean...

[alexandre]

Fox news is getting off the air? :P

Tried to read Wired lately?

[evil_breeds]

Any of you tried to read Wired magazine lately (as in the paper version)? They changed the layout of the magazine, a bunch of the design (fonts etc) and whaddya know, the ads changed at around the same time. The latest issue is the most inisidious, where an article on fancy gizmos is interspersed every other page with a 10pg GeekSquad ad that looks exactly like the article. It got bad enough that I just said, "Fuck this".

Happens in radio already

[Sax Maniac]

This happens in radio already. The local news station (1030 WBZ in Boston) constantly runs commercials masquerading as news reports - one that comes to mind is a Toyota commerical which is a faked up "interview" explaining how hybrid drive works. Turn on the station at the right time, and it sounds like an news clip that just happens to be talking about Toyota. No announcement of "paid advertisement" or anything.

A Current Affair... en espanol

[funkify]

I am non-hispanic white, but with several close personal ties to hispanics of various nationalities, many of which you'd think were smart enough to know the difference...

It amazes me that these people believe that a show called "Primer Impacto" *IS* the news. Now this show is quite accurately the Spanish-language equivalent of "A Current Affair".

It is not racist IMHO to say that Spanish people are more given to rumors and gossip. Anyone who is hispanic or who has spent any time around hispanic culture knows this. It is interesting to me, though, to see that first, Spanish people really do think this is the news (!), and second, that most of our country is headed in the same direction.

Scary!

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm sorry - the problem here isn't either that the Nazis did this before WW2, or that the current propaganda is being finally exposed. The news is that our fucking government, which is all high and mighty about truth and justice and democracy, is employing the same fucking methods used by Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists and other wonderful forms of government to dissipate their views. If it doesn't piss you off that the US government is becoming less and less distinguishable from what we've been fighting against for the last 200 years, I don't know what will - or what you think a decent government should look like.

I know that for some odd fucking reason, it's unhip to be outraged by the transgressions of governments and corporations. But I'd rather complain now than complain when it all goes down a shit hole and your cozy little life will be interrupted by some grossly unconstitutional search, corporate ass-reaming or other unpleasantness.

Criticism of Fox includes news coverage

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Take it with the same critical thinking you'd apply to Fox, but not everything in the laundry list of complaints from the movie _Outfoxed_ is about the opinion shows:

        Quote begins

        * Fox News management, including owner Rupert Murdoch and president Roger Ailes, both conservatives, control the network's content. The film includes leaked "issues of the day" memos telling producers which stories and issues should be covered and from what perspective and argues that the memos have a clear ideological underlining. Former employees claim that they were praised for positive coverage of conservatives and negative coverage of liberals and reproached for negative coverage of conservatives and positive coverage of liberals.
        * Fox News reporters and anchors who dare to ask tough questions to a Republican or right-wing activist are given negative reprisals such as suspension (one "Outfoxed" panelist describes Fox News as "a Stalinist system")
        * Fox News gives much more airtime to speeches by Republican president George W. Bush and his administration than to those by Democrats.
        * Fox News hosts such as Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly purposely blur the line between news anchors and commentators.
        * Fox News picks up "talking points" from Republican strategists, such as the accusation that former head of counter-terrorism and Bush critic Richard Clarke is a political opportunist and that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is a "flip-flopper," and injects them into its broadcasts.
        * Fox News uses sensationalism and scare tactics to keep viewers watching and make them afraid enough to support controversial tactics of the Bush administration.
        * Fox News concentrates on the positive aspects of the 2003 war in Iraq and its aftermath and downplays the negative.
        * Fox News is having a negative effect on cable news and has led to the hiring of conservative commentators and talk show hosts on other networks (such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough).
        * Fox News purposely features only moderate or fainthearted liberal commentators.
        * Fox News hosts such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity try to intimidate and out-yell liberal guests such as Jeremy Glick.

Too damn true...

[Radical Moderate]

You said better than I could.

Next, they should investigate dupes!

[csoto]

I mean, they exist for the same reasons, right? :)

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[BrynM]

The news is that our fucking government, which is all high and mighty about truth and justice and democracy, is employing the same fucking methods used by Nazis, Stalinists... I know that for some odd fucking reason, it's unhip to be outraged by the transgressions of governments and corporations.

Sadly our government has been doing things like this for a long time (check out People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn). Remember that we founded this country on a genocidal land grab while touting the ideas of "liberty" and "freedom" (as long as you were white). We also founded the League of Nations, which later became the United Nations, but refused to join. We emancipated slaves and then promptly stood on the lower class to start the industrial revolution.

I will totally agree that the hypocrisy and is a good reason that this is news and is a major reason for my bitterness with our government. Remember that hipness and trends will come and go. I've seen it become hip to be informed at least three times during my life. I've been outraged since Reagan's first term - even at the "Democratic" administration that interupted the Republican strangle-hold. Whatever you do, don't let it discourage you! You have good intentions, good conclusions and every right to be mad. The people that laugh now will either say how right and insightful you were in five or ten years or become an unwitting plunderer. If you can be there to remind them they were being trendy and not smart, they might think twice about following the trend again.

California

[Archangel Michael]

You don't live in California, do you? Democrats control everything and get away with everything republicans get away with elsewhere. Republicrats and Demicans. I can't tell the difference sometimes.

Re:Agitprop (Back on Topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is about fake news. And there is in my experience no more inaccurate, agenda driven news than Rueters. "The story came from Rueters, I wonder it is true?"

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[waferhead]

Excellent points, at least someone else saw the irony, even if the mods saw fit
to give the parent post a "-1 offtopic".

it actually framed the situation ~perfectly.

which is it?

[QMO]

The concept of truth really only exists in theory.

So, is that practical and not true, or is it really true but doesn't work in practice?

Re:which is it?

[Descalzo]

No, his idea that the concept of truth only exists in theory is true. In theory.