Bush planted fake stories on TV

[segovius]

It seems that the Bush Administration has been orchestrating a wide-reaching and extensive programme of systematically planting fictitious stories - that is, lies - in the television media and masquearading them as genuine news items.

As well as the obvious and to be expected fictitious reports from Iraq which push a false view of the situation on the ground, it seems that large multi-national corporations are also involved and the fictitious items also serve to promote specific products.

Well, now it's under investigation.

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

Thoughts? Defence ? Justifications ?

I'm sure many are going to argue this is acceptable - let's hear how.

Independent Article (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece)

[MarcUK]

alot of odd things seem to be multiples of 11.

[Placebo]

omg if u divide the numeric part of that news url by 56471.727 u get 11!!!

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
It seems that the Bush Administration has been orchestrating a wide-reaching and extensive programme of systematically planting fictitious stories - that is, lies - in the television media and masquearading them as genuine news items.

As well as the obvious and to be expected fictitious reports from Iraq which push a false view of the situation on the ground, it seems that large multi-national corporations are also involved and the fictitious items also serve to promote specific products.

Well, now it's under investigation.



Thoughts? Defence ? Justifications ?

I'm sure many are going to argue this is acceptable - let's hear how.

Independent Article (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece)

You should try not to overdramatise, nowhere does it say that the news-items had fictitious content. It just said that the Bush-administration and multinational corporations produced these items, while the TV-broadcasters didn't tell its audience that the news-items are not produced by their own reporters.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
You should try not to overdramatise, nowhere does it say that the news-items had fictitious content. It just said that the Bush-administration and multinational corporations produced these items, while the TV-broadcasters didn't tell its audience that the news-items are not produced by their own reporters.

Nightcrawler

Yeah, you're right - go back to sleep.

All is well.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
Yeah, you're right - go back to sleep.

All is well.

Yeah, I know I'm right, but maybe you should try a good night's sleep, you sure seem to be in need for it.

No, seriously, it would help your cause considerably, if you tried to be more precise and correct in your presentation of the topics that you hold so dear.

There is something wrong with TV-broadcasters using preproduced recordings from mutinational corporations and governments without labeling clear and sound for what it is: commercial, propaganda..

And one should hold these TV-broadcasters responsible for such a misleading style of presentation, but to go around and screaming "lies, lies, lies" is just as misleading and lazy.

Nightcrawler

[talksense101]

This isn't suprising news though. They will find "some process irregularities" and brush it under the carpet.

Watch this documentary film when it comes out. This documentary covers American policies from WW2 to Iraq.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FBH3W2/104-2652657-7701503
When you go to that URL, there is a also a nice review there by Robert. W. Moore of Chicago, I recommend reading it once.

[Aurora]

More of the same from the administration of spin,lies and half truths then sprinkle on the fear. This is how the gang operates. US govt is becoming just like the ones we fought through the decades,take away freedom and liberty with any excuse then feed the people spin. Meanwhile Congress sleeps.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
but to go around and screaming "lies, lies, lies" is just as misleading and lazy.

So the reports are true then?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aurora
More of the same from the administration of spin,lies and half truths then sprinkle on the fear. This is how the gang operates. US govt is becoming just like the ones we fought through the decades,take away freedom and liberty with any excuse then feed the people spin. Meanwhile Congress sleeps.

Shouldn't you be more upset at the TV stations? I don't think government and coporation produced segments are that unprecedented. That said, they should be labeled as such. It would seem to me that the real wrongdoing here is found in the TV stations that failed to label the video. We also don't know what the content of this video was exactly. I'd like to see some of these segments and decide for myself.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
So the reports are true then?

This is classic.

segovius: X happened, here is the article about it.

reasonable person: Ummm...the article doesn't actually...you know...say that X happened. You seem to be inferring that.

segovius: Oh yeah? So you have proof that X didn't happen?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is classic.

segovius: X happened, here is the article about it.

reasonable person: Ummm...the article doesn't actually...you know...say that X happened. You seem to be inferring that.

segovius: Oh yeah? So you have proof that X didn't happen?

Meanwhile back in the 'reality-based community' we have a translation for those with impaired perception, motes or logs obscuring their vision or are merely comatose:

segovius: seems someone has been planting fake new stories - can anyone defend this?

defender #1: stop exaggerating they weren't fake.

segovius: so they were true?

defender #2: let's talk about fish.....

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
Meanwhile back in the 'reality-based community' we have a translation for those with impaired perception, motes or logs obscuring their vision or are merely comatose:

segovius: seems someone has been planting fake new stories - can anyone defend this?

defender #1: stop exaggerating they weren't fake.

segovius: so they were true?

defender #2: let's talk about fish.....

You forgot the part where segovius labels anyone discussing the issue from even a slightly different point of view "a defender." It's your way of polarizing things and labeling anyone who disagrees with you an extremist.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You forgot the part where segovius labels anyone discussing the issue from even a slightly different point of view "a defender." It's your way of polarizing things and labeling anyone who disagrees with you an extremist.

I fully realize that forms of comprehension that encompass the more subtle shades of meaning are not your metiér but I really would have thought that the request for defenders to justify this in the opening post - coupled with a monstrous regiment (ok, small dribble - even I can't spin that) of posters doing exactly that - would have caused the cogs to rotate if even slightly.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
segovius: seems someone has been planting fake new stories - can anyone defend this?

Allow me to correct this slightly...

segovius: seems someone has been planting fictitious stories - that is, lies - can anyone defend this?

reasonable person: Ummm...how do you know they are lies?

segovius: So the reports are true then?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Allow me to correct this slightly...

segovius: seems someone has been planting fictitious stories - that is, lies - can anyone defend this?

reasonable person: Ummm...how do you know they are lies?

segovius: So the reports are true then?

Ah I see now.

Fake story = Truth

Got it. Apologies for this waste of space - I have got my attitude right now. Yes sir.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Ah I see now.

Fake story = Truth

Got it. Apologies for this waste of space - I have got my attitude right now. Yes sir.

Ahh...I see the problem...

You are applying "fake" to the content as opposed to the nature of the item.

There is a subtle but important difference.

[Flounder]

I remember reading about this two years ago. I guess it is getting attention again.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Flounder
I remember reading about this two years ago. I guess it is getting attention again.

Yeah. Even the article says that this all flared up last Spring. Is this a serious issue? Yes, since it's a marked failure of the news industry to provide its viewers with full disclosure about the source of the items it's running.

But I think it says a lot that this is another example of the Bush admin making its own news (e.g. Armstrong Williams).

[Aurora]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yeah. Even the article says that this all flared up last Spring. Is this a serious issue? Yes, since it's a marked failure of the news industry to provide its viewers with full disclosure about the source of the items it's running.

But I think it says a lot that this is another example of the Bush admin making its own news (e.g. Armstrong Williams). Another great example of spin, Armstrong did a 180 on Bush and i remember another news personality pointing that out at the time and he never mentioned oh by the way Iam on the payroll now. The administration of spin and draft dodgers.

[jimmac]

What the hell is the Bush administration doing producing the news anyway??????

True or not I think it's highly questionable.

As Charlton Heston ( Taylor ) and Lucius would say : " That's the spirit! Keep em' flying. " " What? " " The flags of discontent ".;)

[Frank777]

Please, nobody tell Sego that daily newspapers regularly print press releases verbatim from corporations, governments and special interest groups.

His head might explode.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
Please, nobody tell Sego that daily newspapers regularly print press releases verbatim from corporations, governments and special interest groups.

His head might explode.
Right, but often times it is labeled just that: a press release.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
So the reports are true then?

I don't know, I haven't seen these specific reports.

You can call it easily propaganda, and that's what it is. When corporations do this, it's also called commercial.

The content doesn't have to be lies, it can be all true and still be propaganda. For example that american iraqi who thanked Bush's administration for having liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein is probably really and honestly feeling that way, but it's atill propaganda since a normal reportage would probably not have brought him onto the scene, at least not without providing also counter-views and examples of american iraqis that voice different sentiments.

So the contents can be absolutely true, but one-sided, and that's what most propaganda consists of, one-sided truths.

Nightcrawler

[BR]

Crawler, the issue here is that this gets passed along and nobody tells you up front that this was produced and created by the gov't. It is presented as real news.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by BR
Crawler, the issue here is that this gets passed along and nobody tells you up front that this was produced and created by the gov't. It is presented as real news.

I know, and my previous posting was a specific reply to segovious and can only be understood in the context of our inter-thread-argument about the topic lies, truths and propaganda.

The TV-broadcasters are clearly at fault for not labeling propaganda for what it is, and if corporations or the government somehow pressurized the TV-broadcasters not to label them clearly, then and only then the fault lies with these entities and prosecutions should be made.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
I know, and my previous posting was a specific reply to segovious and can only be understood in the context of our inter-thread-argument about the topic lies, truths and propaganda.

The TV-broadcasters are clearly at fault for not labeling propaganda for what it is, and if corporations or the government somehow pressurized the TV-broadcasters not to label them clearly, then and only then the fault lies with these entities and prosecutions should be made.

Nightcrawler

But propaganda must always be presented as truth otherwise it isn't propaganda.

There not going to tell you that for the next five minutes they are going to try to condition you are they?

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
But propaganda must always be presented as truth otherwise it isn't propaganda.

There not going to tell you that for the next five minutes they are going to try to condition you are they?

Propaganda is most of the time truth, onesided truth with a biased perspective, but truth nonetheless, and that's why you shouldn't simply call it "lies".
If propaganda would consist of lies, it would pretty quickly be effectless.

To your second point: In a democratic and liberal society the TV-broadcasters have not only the liberty but also the duty to label or even reject governmental propaganda.

To reject corporation propaganda is a bit more difficult, since some TV-broadcasters are owned by corporations or at least are dependent on the revenue of the commercials from these corporations, but theoretically even here there is certain degree of freedom to resist.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Propaganda is most of the time truth, onesided truth with a biased perspective, but truth nonetheless, and that's why you shouldn't simply call it "lies".
If propaganda would consist of lies, it would pretty quickly be effectless.

To your second point: In a democratic and liberal society the TV-broadcasters have not only the liberty but also the duty to label or even reject governmental propaganda.

To reject corporation propaganda is a bit more difficult, since some TV-broadcasters are owned by corporations or at least are dependent on the revenue of the commercials from these corporations, but theoretically even here there is certain degree of freedom to resist.

Nightcrawler

But in most cases they didn't know it was from the government. They weren't told. And nor were we.

And that is apparently ok.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
But in most cases they didn't know it was from the government. They weren't told. And nor were we.

Now that is an interesting case, and one should investigate that throughly. Who passed these video-reports to whom, why did the TV-broadcasters broadcast them without knowing from where they came, who made them etc.. Shouldn't a TV-broadcaster only broadcast those reports that their own reporter-teams have produced, and not foreign ones?

Questions upon questions, do you have more details?

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Now that is an interesting case, and one should investigate that throughly. Who passed these video-reports to whom, why did the TV-broadcasters broadcast them without knowing from where they came, who made them etc.. Shouldn't a TV-broadcaster only broadcast those reports that their own reporter-teams have produced, and not foreign ones?

Questions upon questions, do you have more details?

Nightcrawler

Try this:

White House News Forgeries Widespread (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592)

There is an interesting quote about half way down. Note: this news item was actually a blatant lie. It reported how in Afghanistan women were experiencing 'freedom' in the absence of the Taleban

In reality, the Taleban were back on the loose (and still are) and women were suffering more oppression. This is the worst form or lying imo and shows what sort of people we are dealing with.

But that is not the point - the point is that neither the public nor the reporter new the origins of the report to be the Bush administration.

Tish Clark, a reporter for WHBQ, described how Afghan women, once barred from schools and jobs, were at last emerging from their burkas, taking up jobs as seamstresses and bakers, sending daughters off to new schools, receiving decent medical care for the first time and even participating in a fledgling democracy. Her segment included an interview with an Afghan teacher who recounted how the Taliban only allowed boys to attend school. An Afghan doctor described how the Taliban refused to let male physicians treat women.

In short, Ms. Clark's report seemed to corroborate, however modestly, a central argument of the Bush foreign policy, that forceful American intervention abroad was spreading freedom, improving lives and winning friends.

What the people of Memphis were not told, though, was that the interviews used by WHBQ were actually conducted by State Department contractors. The contractors also selected the quotes used from those interviews and shot the video that went with the narration. They also wrote the narration, much of which Ms. Clark repeated with only minor changes.

As it happens, the viewers of WHBQ were not the only ones in the dark.

Ms. Clark, now Tish Clark Dunning, said in an interview that she, too, had no idea the report originated at the State Department. "If that's true, I'm very shocked that anyone would false report on anything like that," she said.

Another issue is this: the Government defense is that they are promoting 'good news' from the WOT as opposed to bad. Let's assume for a moment the reports are true (big leap - nothing is unspun with this admin).

If, say, 200 bad incidents occur and 1 good one - is it not a form of lying to give saturation coverage to the good one and no coverage to the bad?

The news - and politicians - should tell the truth exactly as it is. Say there is a 100-1 ratio or whatever, if that is in favour of the bad then CHANGE IT THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS.

Don;t just spin it so everyone thinks all is ok and no action is needed. That;s exactly what Bush and Blair do all the time and the reason why they will never be leaders.

A leader says "ok, this is bad and we can change it"

A leader says "ok, I made a mistake, let's fix it and move on"

A leader doesn't spin about spin. That's lying in my book and anyone else who hasn't bought into the spin - jeesh, they're even lying about lying.....

[segovius]

Stopfakenews.org (http://www.stopfakenews.org/) has some good factual info too.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
Try this:

White House News Forgeries Widespread (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592)


Thanks for the link, now the picture is more complete:

Apparantely the government's activities in producing reportages for TV-broadcasters started with Clinton's administrations, and was intensified and broadened by Bush's administration.

The goal is obviously to produce "Good news"-reports by ommissing any critics or controversies and focusing on the successes, which is of course propaganda.

The TV-broadcasters know mostly beforehand from where the reports are, but the viewers don't get to know it, because the TV-broadcasters don't label them or even edit the labeling out, because they want their audience to think that it is from them. The TV-broadcasters use these preproduced reports since they don't have the ressources, time and money to cover every newsworthy story.

I for one think that the TV-broadcasters are at fault and the public should hold them responsible, and force them to strictly label foreign contributions from whatever source.

But seriously, there is a pretty easy way to detect propaganda, from governments or corporations: If the reports make you feel good, they are 100% propaganda! Everyone knows that normal reporters focus on the bad feeling stories, since bad news are generating quotas.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
But seriously, there is a pretty easy way to detect propaganda, from governments or corporations: If the reports make you feel good, they are 100% propaganda!

:lol:

Brilliant!

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Propaganda is most of the time truth, onesided truth with a biased perspective, but truth nonetheless, and that's why you shouldn't simply call it "lies".
If propaganda would consist of lies, it would pretty quickly be effectless.


I recommend a book called...what was it...hmmm...Dictionary.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I recommend a book called...what was it...hmmm...Dictionary.

And I recommend to not only focus on dictionaries:


The method of propaganda is essential to the word's meaning as well. A message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda.

In fact, the message in modern propaganda is often not blatantly untrue. But even if the message conveys only "true" information, it will generally contain partisan bias and fail to present a complete and balanced consideration of the issue. Another common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). For example, a propagandist may seek to influence opinion by attempting to get a message heard in as many places as possible, and as often as possible. The intention of this approach is to a) reinforce an idea through repetition, and b) exclude or "drown out" any alternative ideas.

In English, the word "propaganda" now carries strong negative (as well as political) connotations, although it has not always done so. It was formerly common for political organizations to refer to their own material as propaganda. Other languages do not necessarily regard the term as derogatory and hence usage may lead to misunderstanding in communications with non-native English speakers. For example, in Portuguese and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word "propaganda" usually means the most common manipulation of information—"advertising".

Famed public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays in his classic studies eloquently describes propaganda as the purpose of communications. In Crystallizing Public Opinion, for example, he dismisses the semantic differentiations (“Education is valuable, commendable, enlightening, instructive. Propaganda is insidious, dishonest, underhand, misleading.�) and instead concentrates on purposes. He writes (p. 212), “Each of these nouns carries with it social and moral implications. . . . The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda.�

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Propaganda does not have to be literally untrue but it does require the intent to deceive.

That is, to alter the perception of the subject from what they believe to what the propagandist wants them to believe.

This is deception in the same way as magical illusion is deception. It is not always bad. When in the hands of unprincipled psychopaths it generally is.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
Propaganda does not have to be literally untrue but it does require the intent to deceive.

That is, to alter the perception of the subject from what they believe to what the propagandist wants them to believe.

This is deception in the same way as magical illusion is deception. It is not always bad. When in the hands of unprincipled psychopaths it generally is.

Yes, to a certain degree I agree, although the word "deception" is a bit too strong imho.

But yes, usually propaganda serves to change the point of view of the viewers/listerners to the point of view of the propagandist, but as long as the propagandist has not the monopoly on influencing opinion and doesn't use force (which happens often under dictatory regimes) to prevent any other point of views to be heard and seen, it doesn't have to be bad.

People should just be aware and critical.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Yes, to a certain degree I agree, although the word "deception" is a bit too strong imho.

But yes, usually propaganda serves to change the point of view of the viewers/listerners to the point of view of the propagandist, but as long as the propagandist has not the monopoly on influencing opinion and doesn't use force (which happens often under dictatory regimes) to prevent any other point of views to be heard and seen, it doesn't have to be bad.

People should just be aware and critical.

Nightcrawler

That's the point here: monopoly.

We are - or let's say may be - in a period where we are transitioning from freedom to totalitarianism.

If this could possibly happen (and it could) then such things as this would be the warning signs.

It's never a clear-cut, black/white transition. it is the frog in the water coming to the boil. You just don't notice till it's too late.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
That's the point here: monopoly.

We are - or let's say may be - in a period where we are transitioning from freedom to totalitarianism.

If this could possibly happen (and it could) then such things as this would be the warning signs.

It's never a clear-cut, black/white transition. it is the frog in the water coming to the boil. You just don't notice till it's too late.

I don't think that's possible in the US. For that to be possible, the US-administration would have to abolish the free press and forcibly prevent journalists from doing their work, and not only strictly controlling TV and radio but also newspapers, books and the internet, and whenever an independent opinion appears forcing the media to fire the specific reporter, author.. to call back the printed opinion, or to print or broadcast a counter-view and forcing any publicing firm that doesn't obey, to shut down...

The US is far away from such a scenario, except for the case that the US-administration would use a terror-attack on its soil, that is big enough to shock the public into compliance, like for example terrorists using nukes would do, to shut down the US and to turn into an emergency-state with a dictatory approach.

But if that's possible, no matter what we think or do today would prevent that, it would just happen in a clear-cut-way.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
I don't think that's possible in the US. For that to be possible, the US-administration would have to abolish the free press and forcibly prevent journalists from doing their work

Point 1) That is not the only way. What you say is true so they would have to find another way of doing it if they wanted to.

Point 2) What we are discussing fits the bill exactly of 'another way'.

Why do you think they hammer on endlessly about freedom and tyranny?

Not because it's true - they are trying (successfully) to implant the idea that losing freedom only looks like Hitler, that tyranny only looks like a Saddam, that freedom looks like America.

And while people buy into it all freedom after freedom goes down the tube - and you know what? There never will be a day when you wake up and say "oh my God how did this happen?" because you've been convinced that freedom is something it isn't and tyranny appears only in one form.

So the more tyranny ther eis the more freedom people will think they have. The defences in this thread are a classic example of this.

When people are brainwashed to believing a kick in the teeth is an orgasm they will just want more and more kicks in the teeth.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
Point 1) That is not the only way. What you say is true so they would have to find another way of doing it if they wanted to.

Point 2) What we are discussing fits the bill exactly of 'another way'.

Why do you think they hammer on endlessly about freedom and tyranny?

Not because it's true - they are trying (successfully) to implant the idea that losing freedom only looks like Hitler, that tyranny only looks like a Saddam, that freedom looks like America.

And while people buy into it all freedom after freedom goes down the tube - and you know what? There never will be a day when you wake up and say "oh my God how did this happen?" because you've been convinced that freedom is something it isn't and tyranny appears only in one form.

So the more tyranny ther eis the more freedom people will think they have. The defences in this thread are a classic example of this.

When people are brainwashed to believing a kick in the teeth is an orgasm they will just want more and more kicks in the teeth.

I have a much more pragmatic view regarding freedom. As long as you can move from one street to the next, from one town to the next, from one state to the next and from one country to the next, without being followed, arrested, beaten up, tortured and killed, that's freedom.

As long as you can get together with the one you love and found a family, as long as you can work and earn money in professions you are capable of, as long as you can buy and keep property... and as long as you can practice your religion, that's freedom.

As long as you can criticize your government without risking being arrested or even killed, as long as you can talk with other people, cooperating with others, able to found a newspaper or whatever, and able to elect whatever party you want or even found a party, that's freedom.

There are of course limits to the freedoms and also strict duties, like for example paying taxes, sending your children to school, keep the rules of non-violence, the rules of driving on streets, not to cross red lights, not to drive too fast... respecting law and order...
but here freedoms are limited, when the use of these freedoms can easily limit the freedoms and wellbeing of others.

Nightcrawler