U.S. government's fake-news propaganda is even more extensive than it appeared

The Bush Administration already has egg on its face from a few particular incidents of bribing journalists or columnists, or planting fake “journalists,” to propagate its views under the cover of serious journalism. We’ve had several recent GD threads on this:

“Republican non-journalist planted at White House press conferences?”

“Let’s debate the value/legitimacy of gov’t propaganda”

“Should the Bush Disclose All the Journalists on the Payroll?”

“Is it wrong for the government to control media with payments?”

But now it appears that the propaganda effort has been even more widespread and systematic than it appeared – and the Clinton Administration did it too, if not on this scale. From the New York Times, 3/13/05 – Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News - The New York Times (registration required, but free):

Issues for debate:

  1. Is this practice, strictly speaking, illegal?

  2. Is it, from the government’s point of view, unethical?

  3. Is it, from the media’s point of view, unethical?

  4. Are there any considerations that might justify the practice?

  5. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society?

  6. What share of blame do the media organizations bear for their acquiescence?

  7. Can anything be done to stop it?

  8. Should anything be done to stop it?

It seems there are six stages of guilt in the current administration:

“It didn’t happen” - translation: “You can’t prove it happened.”
“We stand by what we did.” - translation: “It turns out you can prove it happened.”
“We did nothing wrong.” - translation: “Our lawyers tell us we’re okay.”
“We did nothing technically wrong.” - translation: “Our lawyers are working overtime.”
“We need to move past this.” - translation: “Alright already, we’re guilty.”
“Clinton did it.” - translation: “We’re guilty and desperate.”

How many posts will it take for someone to come along with, “Well they have to do something to overcome the bias of the liberal media.”?

It serves to further alienate the electorate from its former allies against the government.

In the adversarial relationship between the government and the governed a free press was supposed to be a check on the mendacity of politicians. In what appears to be a systematic campaign the alliance between the press and the electorate has been eroded. Now there’s just the electorate and the government and the electorate is gettin’ whupped.

IOKIARDI - It’s OK If A Republican Does It.

The first and foremost point that I’d like to make is that this is not a new story. Left wing sources have been reporting on, and criticizing, the Bush Administration’s use of these prepackaged news reports to sell its prescription drug plan as early as fall of 2003. This is yet another case of the “mainstream” media only catching on to an important story years after independant sources have reported it.

  1. Is this practice, strictly speaking, illegal?

It does not appear to be.

  1. Is it, from the government’s point of view, unethical?

Yes. We sometimes lose track of the fact that the government and the media are supposed to have obligations. While it is impossible for human beings to completely block all traces of their own experiences from influencing how they report things, this revelation clearly shows that both for the government and the media that use the public airwaves, high-level decisions about what to cover (and what not to cover) are made to satisfy political movements, not to keep the public well-informed.

  1. Is it, from the media’s point of view, unethical?

Yes. See above.

  1. Are there any considerations that might justify the practice?

None that I can think of. Government agencies should devote effort to creating clear, succinct press releases when they want to communicate with the public, and they should also have well-organized websites, and arrange for their spokespeople to appear on radio and television when necessary. If they did all that, there wouldn’t be any reason for them to try to dupe the public in this manner.

  1. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society?

Hopefully less and less as people turn away from mainstream media and start getting their information at least partially from independant sources.

But, as Sam Stone has pointed out in other threads, the micro-segmentation of the media also has dangerous tendencies. When we all got our news from the same three TV networks and half-dozen major newspapers, we all had more or less the same picture of the basic facts, even if we disagreed sharply on what conclusions to draw from them. But if you’re getting most of your news from Fox News or the Free Republic, and I’m getting most of mine from The Nation or Democratic Underground, we’re not even living in the same reality any more. How can we have a common civil society under those conditions?

8?

Cite. (Please note: It’s not some blog or holypoopihaveanagenda.org, but an actual cite)

That’s in the report, all right, but you are grossly oversimplifying its conclusions (not least, in your unstated assumption that the media hitting one candidate harder than another in a particular election is hard evidence of systemic ideological bias). From the “Content Analysis” section of the Project for Excellence in Journalism Annual Report on American Journalism, 2005 – http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_overview_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=1:

No, I am not. I am quoting the first line of a story in a major newspaper. (By the way, that is a habit you may want to look into; there is no need to quote massive sections of articles all of the time). Nothing in the rest of my cite or your ‘cite’ refutes that first and important line.

No, it does not refute the first line of the newspaper article, but it does refute your citation of the report as evidence of “liberal media bias.”

Don’t think so. The government does lots of PR, and so far as I know, no one is being forced to run this stuff.

If non-factual, or media outlets are somehow being coerced into running these items, yes.

If not vetted for factual content, and not acknowledged as government-produced, yes. Otherwise, not per se (though it does make me personally uncomfortable).

Sure, from the standpoint of disseminating factual information. No, if this stuff is presented as propaganda and its source is unacknowledged.

No short answer. Makes us gullible fools if we believe everything we see in the media, I guess, but that goes for lots more than government-sourced agitprop.

Pretty much all the blame, especially so if they are presenting these prepackaged items as their own and not vetting them for accuracy.

Little other than to object loudly to those news organizations that follow such practices.

Legally? Other than a requirement to identify news items as prepackaged, I don’t see anything that wouldn’t cause problems free-speech-wise.

California has had a similar story going on. The government sends out material to TV stations. The material can be played as a direct news story. It even has a standard script for the anchor to read going into the story. The oposition cries foul. The government’s defense is that it is no different than a press release.

Is it no different than a press release? Some print journalists are lazy and will reprint a press release with little vetting. Is it different when a broadcast journalist does the same? Either way, the government is getting its views out by prepackaging a story for the press to distribute.

From your own cite: (To be fair, I understand how you might have missed it)

If the reason for the ‘worse coverage’ isn’t liberal bias within the media, then the reason is…?

But even that might be viewed as legislative interference in journalism.

I was a reporter once. I sometimes included verbatim copy from a press release in an article – but preferably within quote marks, and never without acknowledging the source. Also, press releases are written as press releases – the tone is noticeably different from a news report. But these TV clips are deliberately crafted to fool the audience into thinking actual journalists made them.

Granted, that the news clearly puts its own spin on the truth, but it always has whether there was 3 sources or hundreds. Doesn’t it seem like the truth would be easier to find in the middle, with more vioces providing the “facts” and details? That is certainly the concept behind a free press.
I do certainly agree there is a problem with things such as spin and journalistic integrity. The problem is, what’s the alternative now that this has happened, or how can it be corrected?

I think that is the thing. This really isn’t news at all as it really isn’t anything remotely new. Is it bad, sure, but the government has been doing this since mass media has been around. I am more shocked by the suprise that some people seem to have regarding this. This is not a secret. Past administrations have done these things, and it will most likely continue in the future.

Watch old movie new reels if you have any question in your mind about this.

People just always seem to assume that it is “someone else” that is experiencing propraganda, rather than themselves.

When something like media has power, someone will always try to control it.

Quicker than I thought and by one of the two posters I had in mind.

Of course, maybe it was so quick because it was provoked.

A note: That simply says there is an anti-George Bush bias in the media. George Bush isn’t conservative, by any means. He seems to favor new government and programs to solve social issues. That they’re pro-abstinence instead of pro-safe sex doesn’t change the lack of conservative values.

So… where does that leave us?

Depends on how you define “conservative.” There are several different currents of American “conservative” thought. Bush’s politics are inimical to the libertarian, fiscal-conservative, and isolationist-populist paleoconservative strains – but perfectly in accord with big-business-interest conservativism, social-religious conservatism, and aggressive foreign-policy neoconservatism.

Same place we were before the election. Fucked.