Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/p...&en=c0b6bad84e5bf46a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

hit up bugmenot.com for pass info

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"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. To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

What is more, these officials argued, it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. "Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution," said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. "This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."

Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper "covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."

Love my news served up straight from the government without any disclaimers or notification. Keep it up, fellas!

 

[Hitokage]

And we get closer to a officially state run media.

 

[G4life98]

I stopped caring about television news when I realized they cared more about ratings than actual news.

 

[bishoptl]

Hold on, hold on, hold on.....there's more! :lol

Not long ago, Ms. Ryan was a much sought-after "reporter" for news segments produced by the federal government. A journalist at ABC and PBS who became a public relations consultant, Ms. Ryan worked on about a dozen reports for seven federal agencies in 2003 and early 2004. Her segments for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy were a subject of the accountability office's recent inquiries.

The G.A.O. concluded that the two agencies "designed and executed" their segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations." A significant part of that execution, the office found, was Ms. Ryan's expert narration, including her typical sign-off - "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" - delivered in a tone and cadence familiar to television reporters everywhere.

The script suggested that local anchors lead into the report with this line: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare." In the segment, Mr. Bush is shown signing the legislation as Ms. Ryan describes the new benefits and reports that "all people with Medicare will be able to get coverage that will lower their prescription drug spending."

The segment made no mention of the many critics who decry the law as an expensive gift to the pharmaceutical industry. The G.A.O. found that the segment was "not strictly factual," that it contained "notable omissions" and that it amounted to "a favorable report" about a controversial program. And yet this news segment, like several others narrated by Ms. Ryan, reached an audience of millions. According to the accountability office, at least 40 stations ran some part of the Medicare report. Video news releases distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including one narrated by Ms. Ryan, were shown on 300 stations and reached 22 million households. According to Video Monitoring Services of America, a company that tracks news programs in major cities, Ms. Ryan's segments on behalf of the government were broadcast a total of at least 64 times in the 40 largest television markets.

Ms. Ryan said she was surprised by the number of stations willing to run her government segments without any editing or acknowledgement of origin. As proud as she says she is of her work, she did not hesitate, even for a second, when asked if she would have broadcast one of her government reports if she were a local news director.

"Absolutely not."

On Sept. 11, 2002, WHBQ, the Fox affiliate in Memphis, marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with an uplifting report on how assistance from the United States was helping to liberate the women of Afghanistan. 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.

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.

Man, that's awesome!

 

[CrawfishPete]

I think America died in January of 2001.

 

[Mandark]

This is kind of old news; I'd already heard about the GAO investigation and a couple of these segments. But I had no idea it was anywhere near this widespread.

"Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution," said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. "This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."

Yes it's your problem! You're not allowed to do that! Stop it!

It sucks being a Democrat in a Democratic state and district. Any complaints coming from me, my rep, or my senator will get drowned out in partisanship.

There have to be some Republicans on the board who don't like this kinda stuff, right?

 

[CrawfishPete]

no free thinking american should stand for this regardless of partisanship. I can only imagine the repercussions if this happened during the clinton administration.

the press, academia and non Republicans patriotism is under assault every day.

 

[Chipopo]

God how scary is this?

 

[Dujour]

God how scary is this?

Very. I mean, this kinda thing has probably been going on for a long while, but the fact that they're so sloppy about it and no one gives a damn is what's frightening.

 

[robertsan21]

god this is just sad, how can people that run US be so stupid?

in the future everyone is going to be controlled by the goverment, man its like a Anime movie.

 

[pestul]

god this is just sad, how can people that run US be so stupid?

in the future everyone is going to be controlled by the goverment, man its like a Anime movie.

Is it really the government behind it all.. or the special interests/secret societies that are behind the government?

Don't mind me. That JFK thread yesterday sparked my interest so I went on a conspiracy theory frenzy..

 

[Musashi Wins!]

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IRAQI ARMY TOOK THE BABIES RIGHT OUT OF THE INCUBATORS IN KUWAIT!


(just one of many, many past examples of this bullshit)

 

[Shinobi]

And people wanna say that the US doesn't show any signs of facism? Heh, okay.

And we have media that's complicit in this corruption...how utterly shocking!

I've grown so apathetic to shit like this that it's starting to worry me. When shit's this blatant and people still don't give a fuck, it isn't worth my energy to care.

 

[Triumph]

AMERICA UBER ALLES, BABEE!!!!!!

Hells yes, I can't wait for the Patriotism Rally next week. We're gonna burn Al Franken books, then go and put big yellow "T"s on liberals doors, because they are just terrorists in disguise. In a couple weeks they'll be rounded up and sent to re-education camps.

 

[ge-man]

And people wanna say that the US doesn't show any signs of facism? Heh, okay.

And we have media that's complicit in this corruption...how utterly shocking!

I've grown so apathetic to shit like this that it's starting to worry me. When shit's this blatant and people still don't give a fuck, it isn't worth my energy to care.

I know what you mean. I stopped watching mainstream media several weeks ago and now my news is mostly blogs and foreign press. It shouldn't be that way though--I want a press that's going to breath down my president's fucking neck and keep him accountable. Instead, the press is becoming an arm of the new coporate owned US. But what am I going to do after voting, protesting, and trying to educate those who simply aren't paying attention? I've pretty much given up, what's the use of talking to brick walls.

In the end, it's money that talks loudest. Maybe when the dollar finally implodes or something just as drastic comes about we'll throw all the crooks out of DC. :/

 

[Azih]

I'm so very scared.

 

[Amused_To_Death]

This is kind of old news; I'd already heard about the GAO investigation and a couple of these segments. But I had no idea it was anywhere near this widespread.


Yes it's your problem! You're not allowed to do that! Stop it!

It sucks being a Democrat in a Democratic state and district. Any complaints coming from me, my rep, or my senator will get drowned out in partisanship.

There have to be some Republicans on the board who don't like this kinda stuff, right?

Actually, the govenment might be acting sleazy and without integrity, but we already knew this. There's no excuse for a respected media outfit to run their crap. Right wing media now controls a huge chunk of TV and radio stations. Sinclair media owns 62 TV stations across the country and they ordered the airing of the Swift Boat Vets piece against Kerry. Clear Channel owns the majority of radio stations and they're as right wing as it gets. You thrown in Foxnews and NY Post and other outlets controlled by Rupert Murdoch and the Republicans keep complaining about the liberal media.

It's the responsibility of the media to keep the government in check, and when you accept propganda pieces from the government, even with a disclaimer, it shows they have an interest in advancing the government agenda.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It sucks being a Democrat in a Democratic state and district.

If it's really that bothersom to you, we could make a trade. I've got a Republican Representative, one Republican Senator, Republican State Representative, Republican State Senator, and Republican Governor I'm not using.

 

[Len Dontree]

The article does make mention of this going on since at least the first Clinton administration, but it's become MUCHO MUCHO prevalent with the Bush cabal in office.

It's OK though...They have a mandate!

 

[CrawfishPete]

show me where this happened during the clinton administration.

where were the payed off columnists? Where were the fake news outlets in the Press Room?

I am waiting....

 

[bishoptl]

show me where this happened during the clinton administration.

okey-doke

The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting. The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts. "There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.

In interviews, though, press officers for several federal agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to government-made television news segments, also known as video news releases. They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist who promoted the administration's chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, without disclosing $240,000 in payments from the Education Department.

where were the payed off columnists? Where were the fake news outlets in the Press Room?

I am waiting....

Now you're asking the correct questions. The Republicans have take the ball and run with it to new lows (or highs, depending on where you stand on FREEDOM).

 

[Dilbert]

The really disturbing thing is that, because of the nature of this issue, the media is actually disincentivized from revealing what's been going on! Think about it: In order to bring this story to the attention of the public ("Your government has been producing propaganda pieces..."), the media would have to basically indict itself at the same time ("...and we're part of the problem."), which I can't see happening. Even if they DID come forward and say, mea culpa, you can imagine the Bush Administration saying, "See? The media can't be trusted! Listen to Rush on AM radio for the straight dope, yo!"

 

[bishoptl]

Why do you hate freedom, -jinx-? I find your lack of faith in this Administration distasteful.

 

[Senior Lurker]

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IRAQI ARMY TOOK THE BABIES RIGHT OUT OF THE INCUBATORS IN KUWAIT!


(just one of many, many past examples of this bullshit)

Talking about TV. My family was just watching some documentaries about he-who-shall-be-fucked (Saddam) and some of his "partners" like chemical-shit-stench-ali on the "Iraqiyah" channel. Shit watching a few minutes of that will ruin your day. Beatings and humilations and rapings. They talked to some kurds as well and it's really sad.

Yet we have some arabs from countries neighboring Iraq who STILL consider Saddam their fucking heroic pimp and feel sorry for him. Iraqi TV before saddam was fucked was all about the "goodness that is Saddam". Iraqi satellite channels now emphacize how fucked up a mentality the regime had. Target audience is those who thought Saddam to be their hero, but are they watching? Noooooo, they still remember the old days when Saddam was killing and raping people left and right. Back before the attack on Iraq started I saw a news segment on CNN showing some Jordanians marching after leaving Friday prayer and chanting "[may] Saddam attack Kuwait!!" as well as some other chants, probably anti-american or something. I mean WTF!!!!

But yeah, TV can be a tool. I think that above mentioned quoute was made by a stupid lying girl who claimed horrible stuff like that happened in Kuwait, when in fact she hasn't set foot in Kuwait long before the incident, right? That doesn't mean things haven't happened in Kuwait, yet you have some stubborn people who still think Saddam was doing a favor to Kuwaitis by invading. Favor my ass. I remember back in 2001 there was one guy here in the forums actually making that claim as well.

As far as American news tvs goes, I thought they were so-so; but certainly not enough to go about learning news, especially world-related ones. And staying in a republican state meant I was hardly exposed to anything democratic at all (I mean the party, not actual democracy). Even with radio, it was all completely pro-administration. Natural, I know, but for busy-hardworking people like Americans it becomes a little hard to bother and search for news and other viewpoints.

And now I shall move my ass out before I derail this thread any further.

 

[Senior Lurker]

Why do you hate freedom, -jinx-? I find your lack of faith in this Administration distasteful.

What freedom, buddy? In light of this thread freedom isn't really the word to use when it comes to news and tv now, is it?

 

[Folder]

Why do you hate freedom, -jinx-? I find your lack of faith in this Administration distasteful.

"They hate us for our freedom" still makes my blood run cold, to think that such a thing could even be possible...

In the UK we are lucky enough to have a staunchly independent press, as well as the BBC which is funded by the people. Papers like the Guardian and the Independent too.

It must be terrifying not to know that you're going to be told an undoctored report of the world's most important events.

 

[Triumph]

"They hate us for our freedom" still makes my blood run cold, to think that such a thing could even be possible...

In the UK we are lucky enough to have a staunchly independent press, as well as the BBC which is funded by the people. Papers like the Guardian and the Independent too.

It must be terrifying not to know that you're going to be told an undoctored report of the world's most important events.

Pffft. You also have some of the most draconian, stupid libel laws in existence. In no way is the British press "freer" than the US, at least in theory. In practice they run lots of stories that wouldn't be run in the US, just because people in the US aren't ready for the fact that our Government commits most of the terrorism worldwide.

Oh, and if it weren't for AMERICAN reporter Greg Palast, the Guardian and Independent would be neutered.

AMERICA. FUCK YEAH.

 

[radioheadrule83]

DAMN THE PATRIOTS!

 

[WedgeX]

Whether a stricter ethics code will have much effect is unclear; it is not hard to find broadcasters who are not adhering to the existing code, and the association has no enforcement powers.

The Federal Communications Commission does, but it has never disciplined a station for showing government-made news segments without disclosing their origin, a spokesman said.

Could it? Several lawyers experienced with F.C.C. rules say yes. They point to a 2000 decision by the agency, which stated, "Listeners and viewers are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded."

Fuck the FCC. They're the ones who are supposed to stop this from happening...

They care more about vulgarity and nudity than propaganda.

This may be a reason why the FCC may not be most effective under the Executive Branch. Where it should be moved...no clue.

 

[bishoptl]

What freedom, buddy? In light of this thread freedom isn't really the word to use when it comes to news and tv now, is it?

 

[mightynine]

So that means they were probably played at some UHF station that doesn't have a news identity anyways.

I'm certainly not condoning the practice, but it's not like CNN or Fox News or any of the major networks was using one of these PR pieces as their top story.

 

[MC Safety]

And people wanna say that the US doesn't show any signs of facism? Heh, okay.

And we have media that's complicit in this corruption...how utterly shocking!

I've grown so apathetic to shit like this that it's starting to worry me. When shit's this blatant and people still don't give a fuck, it isn't worth my energy to care.

I would urge you to read this quote that the original poster excerpted:

"Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration."

You want to blame someone, blame the media for accepting these materials.

 

[AssMan]

When I saw the words "New York Times", I immediately dismissed the article.

 

[Jak140]

Buh, buh buut, the media is controlled by liberals!

I think I remember the Daily Show running a segment on this a few months ago. This isn't new news, it just hasn't been well disseminated unfortunately.

 

[Socreges]

When I saw the words "New York Times", I immediately dismissed the article.

Wow, over 30 replies until an Ad Hominem. Not bad, GAF, not bad!

 

[Dilbert]

You want to blame someone, blame the media for accepting these materials.

The media is certainly in line to take some blame...but exactly why are taxpayer dollars being spent by the government to make news segments in the first place?

 

[ChumsGum]

This has been going on since forever, it's nothing new. Many of you were too young but I still remember the cold war with Russia being played out over the media. Look what's happenning right now with all this IRAN talk, who the fuck cares about Iran, but Bush wants you to care because you know what the Bush administration is going to do next.

 

[bud]

'The Patriots' are doing this, yeah you heard it here first.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

sadly most americans wont care. Cause Iran will be labeled a terrorist haven or something. Soccer moms will get scared. You know the rest.

 

[Diablos]

We (the Americans who believe close to everything they're told) are nothing but pawns to the news networks... this is just the next step. It's Evolution, Baby. No one will care about this issue, they'll write it off as liberal propaganda.

 

[ChumsGum]

Meanwhile, Papa Bush and his old friends make billions off defense(offense really) and development contracts paid for by the US taxpayers' fears.

 

[ge-man]

This has been going on since forever, it's nothing new. Many of you were too young but I still remember the cold war with Russia being played out over the media. Look what's happenning right now with all this IRAN talk, who the fuck cares about Iran, but Bush wants you to care because you know what the Bush administration is going to do next.

Bush is taking it to another level IMO. The reason I'm through with the mainstream news outlets right now is because the whole Jeff Ganon thing just got swept under the rug. For an administration that has made a big deal about being tough on security, how does one explain a fake journalist having access to the press room for two years? Bias media is one thing, but sitting around while the administration attempts to reconstruct reality is a whole different matter. I refuse to write this stuff off any longer.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Well, I'm a Republican and its disturbing but I don't pay attention to the news anymore. Its nothing but bullshit negativity and whining. Conservatives are pissing and moaning that God's laws are being trampled on. Liberals are pissing and moaning that most people are still getting more than half of their money back instead of most of it going to taxes and in programs like subpar health care and no questions asked welfare.

The news sucks. Liberals and Conservatives will never give a straight answer because they're too concerned about pushing their own agendas instead of reporting actual news. If Kerry was President (who I voted for by the way), we'd be hearing BS stories about how dangerous America is because the tax rates aren't 80%+.

 

[Dilbert]

Well, I'm a Republican and its disturbing but I don't pay attention to the news anymore. Its nothing but bullshit negativity and whining. Conservatives are pissing and moaning that God's laws are being trampled on. Liberals are pissing and moaning that most people are still getting more than half of their money back instead of most of it going to taxes and in programs like subpar health care and no questions asked welfare.

The news sucks. Liberals and Conservatives will never give a straight answer because they're too concerned about pushing their own agendas instead of reporting actual news. If Kerry was President (who I voted for by the way), we'd be hearing BS stories about how dangerous America is because the tax rates aren't 80%+.

This sounds like a troll against the left, with just enough token "complaints" about the right to make it seem like you're being fair.

 

[automagnus]

Thank god they still can't touch the NY TIMES

right?

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

This sounds like a troll against the left, with just enough token "complaints" about the right to make it seem like you're being fair.

It pretty much is a troll. I'll be honest about it. The left sucks more than the right so many people just accept the bullshit Bush shoves through the door. They may not like doctored stories (who does?) but when the only other alternative is Socialism, they'll take doctoring any day. Myself included. I'm getting off topic but my point is, Bush sucks for doing this and he is not a Republican. He does absolutely nothing conservative. In fact, he works against it:

- Against state rights
- For massive overspending
- For cripping the Constitution as they see fit
- Is for implementing their policies worldwide

So I'm not happy with the douche, which is why I voted Kerry

 

[Triumph]

When I saw the words "New York Times", I immediately dismissed the article.

Funny, after I read your post I immediately dismissed your capacity for independent thought and worthwhile posting ability. Then I added you to my ignore list.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Funny, after I read your post I immediately dismissed your capacity for independent thought and worthwhile posting ability. Then I added you to my ignore list.

wouldnt adding him to the ignore list be contradicting the point you were trying to make in your post?

 

[Triumph]

wouldnt adding him to the ignore list be contradicting the point you were trying to make in your post?

Yes, but I'm a big fan of irony.

 

[peedi]

show me where this happened during the clinton administration.

Both administrations are indistinguishable. The ruse of democracy has claimed you. There is no substantive difference between a democratic presidency and a republican presidency. Under each, the public is deceived, exploited and marginalized.

Why is this news a shock? It's not a matter of government insinuation into the various organs of mainstream media -- the media is the government.