In short propaganda is everywhere.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business/media/journalism-is-still-at-work-even-when-its-practitioner-has-a-slant.html?smid=pl-share"
linktext was:"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/busin ... d=pl-share"
====================================
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
EinoPosts: 630
- Joined: 12 Oct 2012
-
BitJamPosts: 1,308
- Joined: 31 Aug 2009
#2
This from the paper that wonders if they should ever take a break from their mindless
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/"
linktext was:"stenography"
====================================
to occasionally report the truth:
The NYT is not a totally lost cause. Another recent opinion piece of theirs asked:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/whos-a-journalist-a-question-with-many-facets-and-one-sure-answer/?_r=1"
linktext was:"Who's a Journalist?"
====================================
and concluded with:
The concept of an objective journalist is a deconstructionist myth perpetrated by the"fair and balanced" corporate media to try to hide the fact that the real power of the press lies in the hands of the editors, not the reporters. This is just like in film where it is the editor, not the director or writer, who has the most control over the story. Purely reporting sound-bites from people in power is not journalism. It is disgusting that the NYT publicly wonders whether they should toss in a little truth along with their sea of stenography or will even the slightest deviation from pure stenography be overly offensive to the people in power?
The only way a news media can be anything but a propaganda arm of government is to relentless report the truth as the editors and reporters see it even though they will be wrong sometimes. The dangers of non-activist stenographic reporting are palpable. The NYT was hiding behind false fair-and-balanced objectivity when they helped launch the US into the tragic war in Iraq with the breathless stenographic reporting of Judith Miller and totally bogus claims of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. The people in government who fed her those lies used her reporting as proof that their lies were true.
TL;DR: Fair and balanced reporting is neither. It just parrots the talking points of the people in power.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/"
linktext was:"stenography"
====================================
to occasionally report the truth:
Calling journalists"activists" is a code-word for saying they are fighting against the status quo. Only people who are happy with the status quo (i.e. those already deeply embedded in the current power structure) won't be fighting against it.I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
The NYT is not a totally lost cause. Another recent opinion piece of theirs asked:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/whos-a-journalist-a-question-with-many-facets-and-one-sure-answer/?_r=1"
linktext was:"Who's a Journalist?"
====================================
and concluded with:
By combining these ideas we see that the only true journalists are activists.A real journalist is one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn’t shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press – the very tension that America’s founders had in mind with the First Amendment.
The concept of an objective journalist is a deconstructionist myth perpetrated by the"fair and balanced" corporate media to try to hide the fact that the real power of the press lies in the hands of the editors, not the reporters. This is just like in film where it is the editor, not the director or writer, who has the most control over the story. Purely reporting sound-bites from people in power is not journalism. It is disgusting that the NYT publicly wonders whether they should toss in a little truth along with their sea of stenography or will even the slightest deviation from pure stenography be overly offensive to the people in power?
The only way a news media can be anything but a propaganda arm of government is to relentless report the truth as the editors and reporters see it even though they will be wrong sometimes. The dangers of non-activist stenographic reporting are palpable. The NYT was hiding behind false fair-and-balanced objectivity when they helped launch the US into the tragic war in Iraq with the breathless stenographic reporting of Judith Miller and totally bogus claims of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. The people in government who fed her those lies used her reporting as proof that their lies were true.
TL;DR: Fair and balanced reporting is neither. It just parrots the talking points of the people in power.
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#3
I'll add what has been happening in Greece the last 2 weeks re the state media.
The government pulled the plugs on the state broadcasting company about 2 weeks ago, making all 2700 employees unemployed.
The employees responded by occupying the buildings and continuing the broadcasts that they themselves have chosen to air, despite the governments yhreats to send in the riot police and the courts. Now we have a proper 'peoples' broadcasting company that takes up all the important issues. For example, here in Thessaloniki, the privatisation of water, the campaign against the gold mine in Halkidiki, as well as showing the plight of immigrants etc.
The change is amazing.
We now have real journalism.
The government pulled the plugs on the state broadcasting company about 2 weeks ago, making all 2700 employees unemployed.
The employees responded by occupying the buildings and continuing the broadcasts that they themselves have chosen to air, despite the governments yhreats to send in the riot police and the courts. Now we have a proper 'peoples' broadcasting company that takes up all the important issues. For example, here in Thessaloniki, the privatisation of water, the campaign against the gold mine in Halkidiki, as well as showing the plight of immigrants etc.
The change is amazing.
We now have real journalism.
-
jdmeaux1952Posts: 667
- Joined: 01 Nov 2013
#4
prop·a·gan·da
(prp-gnd)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
By repeating the statements or views of the government, the journalist is participating in propoganda IF they DO NOT question the reason for the forementioned statements.
A good example in the US is Obamacare. Many people were able to read the bill BEFORE the Congress voted for it. (They published it online a copy of the bill on the Friday before they voted for it on the Monday.) Those who were able to read it saw it was a bad bill essentially giving the insurance companies AND the government total control over the healthplans of the people. Now people are starting to see what a disaster this is.
Many older policies are now being cancelled because they do not meet the mandates of the bill. How many of you guys need OB/GYN services? And prenatal care? Pregnancy testing? Free abortions? This bill requires EVERYBODY to be covered for everything. I wonder how many women will use the testicular cancer screening? How many 6 yrs olds will want to get birth-control pills?
(prp-gnd)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
By repeating the statements or views of the government, the journalist is participating in propoganda IF they DO NOT question the reason for the forementioned statements.
A good example in the US is Obamacare. Many people were able to read the bill BEFORE the Congress voted for it. (They published it online a copy of the bill on the Friday before they voted for it on the Monday.) Those who were able to read it saw it was a bad bill essentially giving the insurance companies AND the government total control over the healthplans of the people. Now people are starting to see what a disaster this is.
Many older policies are now being cancelled because they do not meet the mandates of the bill. How many of you guys need OB/GYN services? And prenatal care? Pregnancy testing? Free abortions? This bill requires EVERYBODY to be covered for everything. I wonder how many women will use the testicular cancer screening? How many 6 yrs olds will want to get birth-control pills?