Slashdot Mirror
L.A. Times National Security Reporter Cleared Stories With CIA Before Publishing
New submitter Prune (557140) writes with a link to a story at The Intercept which might influence the way you look at media coverage of the kind of government activity that deserves rigorous press scrutiny. According to the story, "Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times." Another telling excerpt: On Friday April 27, 2012, he emailed the press office a draft story that he and a colleague, David Cloud, were preparing. The subject line was “this is where we are headed,” and he asked if “you guys want to push back on any of this.” It appears the agency did push back. On May 2, 2012, he emailed the CIA a new opening to the story with a subject line that asked, “does this look better?”
The piece ran on May 16, and while it bore similarities to the earlier versions, it had been significantly softened.
A little scary when press cozies up to a law-enforcement branch of government, isn't it?
Big Media == The Ministry of Truth
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
I'd like to know where they are.
Lets also remember, that the media industry are some of the biggest backers of the government, and pay for quite a few seats in congress on their own right. There are few truely independant news sources.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many will likely go 'cluck, cluck...they are the independent press and shouldn't do that' and, of course, they are right. But the 'independent press' is rapidly disappearing because there is no longer any money to be made in being part of the 'independent press.' Newspapers (such as the LA Times) have a plummeting circulation of mostly older subscribers and a shrinking advertising base. Most of them are losing money hand over fist or, at best, barely breaking even. Television news (network and local) is seeing its viewer base plummeting and consequently, its advertising revenues are declining rapidly, leaving it fortunate to still be on the air. Internet media gets lots of hits but not much revenue. The bottom line is that there are no longer any major 'independent' news organizations that can afford to antagonize powerful organizations, be they government or corporate or whatever. The LA Times reporter was likely grateful for any scraps of information that his CIA friends would give him because he would never have any way of getting that information otherwise. He is probably lucky if the LA Times will pay him car mileage to drive over to meet with a source. You get what you pay for. Follow the money. What do you pay for news?
Tell us something we don't know.
I didn't expect my submission to be actually posted, so I didn't bother to write a summary and only sent in a naked link to the story. Thanks to the editor for doing my job. My intention was just to bring attention to this in the expectation that someone else would make a proper submission. And, in a way, it's what happened--this is really timothy's submission.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
No, it is the Los Angeles Times. There are many Times in the world, the summary should reflect that.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
So how is this different, functionally, from state owned media like the soviet union's pravda?
Pravda doesn't bother pretending to be an objective outlet for factual information.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I came from China
I ran away from China during the Cultural Revolution. During that time, the so-called "Press" in China are but mouthpiece of the CCP - every piece of "news" from them are of the excellence of Chairman Mao and the Communist Party, and how the people must defeat the ugly filthy enemy of the revolutionaries
I ran away from China because I couldn't stand such thing. I ended up in the United States of America because back then the U. S. of A. was the epitome of liberty, freedom and democracy (at least to a Chinese refugee)
Nowadays America, my adopted country, has turned into something that I ran away from, where the "Press" no longer collaborate with the authority, where the "Media" willingly becomes the mouthpiece of the power that be
Many of my fellow Chinese from China - especially the older generation - know how bad such system can be, and the sufferings of the people under that kind of depressive government
On the other hand, many of my fellow Americans do not understand the situation they are in - for them, as long as they get to kick back with their girlfriend in a cabin on Saturday night, life is good
All I can say is that I am sad, very sad
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is change we can believe in. That was the plan right?
Viva OBAMA!
To be fair, this is not change we can believe in, but rather change we can believe. Except it might not be change. How would we know? And it might even be something that was done in the interests of publishing information about the government, a trade of a milder tone for more information. Again, how would we know?
Given that the linked story is incredibly one-sided against the reporter yet their worst example is the rewording of a story to the same story with the same information, I'm guessing this is nothing more than the age-old observation that if you want people to talk to you you don't go and twist everything they say in the worst possible light.
He did go against his paper's ethics guidelines though, and while on an individual case I wouldn't have a problem with what he did, if government officials got used to talking to people who allowed them to review the story before publication, then they'd be less inclined to other reporters who don't offer them such favors. Therefore he should be punished for the greater good, and for violating his paper's ethics rules. Sometimes meaning well or having good results simply does not justify something.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Back when I arrived in America I had no passport. I was a refugee from a Communist Country, yearning for freedom, liberty and democracy, a place where I can think freely, without being told how to think or what to think
When I reached America, to me, at least, it was paradise - I felt that "freedom" that I never got to enjoy when I was in China
Of course I did not know anything about "Operation Mocking Bird", or anything similar - but even if I did know, at that time, America was still "free-ier" than the China that I ran away from
Today, however, if I were to be truthful to myself, I could no longer say the same thing
Sure, China is still a repressive country, but the America that I loved so much has slowly creeping towards the authoritarian style of government
And the worse part is, many of my fellow Americans are supporting that change --- for they want the government to make the "hate things"(like "hate speech") illegal, and they want the government to take away all the firearms (for safety), and they want to government to take away their liberty so that the government could "protect them"
That is the America of today, very different from the America when I first arrive in, some decades ago
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Lets see... Judith Miller of the NY Times... and don't forget the NY Times also delayed publishing the story of ATT illegal wiretaps until after the 2008 elections. So many more....
The days of Watergate are over. Now media is a manipulative source claiming to be guardians of freedom.
Epic Fail
With the climate nowadays 1st Amendment does not offer any real protection of free speech anymore
You can be accused of "hate speech", you can be prosecuted under whatever trumped up charge they can cook up, and they can silence you with their "national security" privileges - and the unknown number of secretive laws there are (so secret that we may not know the extent of those laws) can be used at any given time to shut anybody and everybody up, by any mean
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Glad to read your reply, very thought provoking, even when you post it under an AC
Thanks !
Isn't having fun and sharing life with others the pinnacle of being human? I hardly see anything wrong with the example you presented
Technically you are correct, Sir
There is nothing wrong with having fun and sharing a good time with someone you love
But what I am talking about is not that fun-saturday-night-in-a-cabin-with-girlfriend
The gist of my point is on the "life-is-good" part. Too many of my fellow Americans only care about that part and never pay any attention to what the government is doing
The "good life" that my fellow Americans are having is like a frog being slowly boiled - and before long, all of us will be cooked
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
...you haven't been paying attention. (Tried to put that all on the headline, but wouldn't fit.)
Simply put, as many here already know, if you compare foreign news coverage on domestic affairs to our own domestic coverage, the gaps become obvious and huge: The Guardian et al on Snowden vs the play-down or even silence from domestic sources is just one of MANY examples. Art Bell commented on this years ago (15-20 years ago when I heard it) that he was amazed the coverage of America from the BBC was better than any American news outlet, so this isn't new at all.
The entire point of the 1st Amendment's Press Freedom was to prevent this from happening; so much for that.
It all makes me wonder how much longer before the rest of the conspiracy theorists' predictions come true...
That's patently untrue. Unless you're looking hard for it, there really isn't much in the way of extreme-left-wing news out there. Unless you're counting those bearded men handing out poorly xeroxed socialist newsletters. The vast majority of the media is centrist or right wing.
Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
At least the folks in the Soviet bloc knew the media was state controlled and was lying to them.
Here's the problem (and yes, it's endemic to both parties) - you're a fucking hypocrite.
This kind of story essentially acts as a rorshach test - the typical assessment goes something like this:
1) Something BAD() has been done;
2) Check if the BAD() thing was done by the opposing party;
3) If "Yes", conjure up maximum moral outrage;
4) If "No", downplay the size, scope, or severity of the BAD() thing.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Hell, you speak disparagingly of "the most popular news network" as a mouthpiece of the GOP, but gloss over the fact that the rest of the media is just as much a mouthpiece for the Democrat party! And you don't bat an eye at that!
Fuck all of you party partisans and your silly "rah-rah" team rationalizations. The issue here isn't about parties - the issue here is about the press being in cahoots with our large, powerful, ever expanding, ever intrusive, and fucked up government, under *any* party.
Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?
I assume you're talking about this study, with further commentary here? This story was then reported by some outlets as saying that MSNBC was most "opinionated" by far (e.g., here).
If so, your use of the word "opinionated" is very misleading, and the study did not even address issues of who is "more biased."
Read the study. It's basically about the difference between type of programming. The cable news networks used to present much more of the traditional anchor looking into the camera and saying, "And now, for our next story..." -- that's "factual reporting," according to Pew.
What this study found was that cable news networks have increasingly moved to "opinion" or commentary-driven shows, with pundits talking or debating, rather than just "reading the news." MSNBC has a LOT of these shows, and much more than CNN or Fox. But that doesn't mean they are more "opinionated" or "biased" -- it just means that they have more commentary-focused shows (probably because it's cheaper to get some idiots to talk ABOUT the news than it is to put actual reporters out into the field and do research).
In any case, this says nothing about bias. It's possible for an "opinion" show to be relatively balanced, for example if guests are invited from across the ideological spectrum and treated with respect. It is also very possible for "factual reporting" to be incredibly biased -- for example, imagine a network that reported every single negative story it could find about a Democratic politician and every positive story about a Republican, but never reported the positive Dem stories or the negative Rep stories. (Or the reverse...) All of the reporting could be "factual" here, but the selection of stories could lead to a much greater overarching bias.
(I haven't really watched either one of these networks in years, so I don't have a personal stake in these arguments. But aside from a different Pew study that found a somewhat greater bias in presentation of candidates in 2012 on MSNBC than Fox, I'm not familiar with any Pew studies that have actually found greater OVERALL "bias" on liberal vs. conservative issues on MSNBC.)