Virtually every major news organization allows the news to be censored by U.S. government officials.
By Joseph Farah:
This may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years.
There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.
The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.
What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”
It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!
What it means is this: When Americans read these reports – whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.
That’s how low the national press establishment has descended. And, when you read the story in its full context, you will understand that the concerns expressed about this practice by those submitting themselves to it are not ethical concerns. They are not concerns for the truth. They are concerns about their own convenience and for the loss of “color” in their stories.
Let me state what I hope is obvious to all reading this column: This sort of willing capitulation to government censorship was not the norm five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This is a new phenomenon – chilling and alarming to an old-timer like me who would never agree to submit his copy for approval to politicians.
These so-called journalists are selling their ethical and moral souls for access to politicians. And this practice raises expectations by politicians that they can routinely manipulate the press to their advantage. That makes the job of real journalists – independent reporters faithful to their craft – even more difficult, because they will be shut out from access.
It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians."
Back in the early 1980s, approximately 50 corporations essentially had nearly total control of the media in the United States.
Today, just six monolithic media corporations dominate virtually everything you watch, hear and read.
These six gigantic corporations own television networks, publishing houses, movie studios, newspapers, radio stations, music labels and video game companies. Most Americans are absolutely addicted to information and entertainment, and those six massive corporations supply the vast majority of the information and entertainment that Americans take in.
The amount of control that those six corporate giants have is absolutely incredible. For example, the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. If you can beam 153 hours of "programming" into someone's head each month, that gives you an awesome amount of influence over that person.
The six monolithic corporations mentioned above are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.
There are some areas of the media that are not completely dominated by those corporations, but even control over those areas is becoming more highly concentrated than ever.
For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. The power that Clear Channel has over the radio industry in America is absolutely staggering.
Even control over the Internet is becoming much more concentrated. Giant corporations such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly controlling what we see and hear online.
But it really is the "big six" that dominate most of what we see, hear and read on a daily basis.http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/proof-establishment-media-controlled/
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-new-york-times-admits-that-virtually-every-major-news-organization-allows-the-news-to-be-censored-by-government-officials
Latest word on the trail? I take it back.
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.
Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.
The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.
The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them. No one said the editing altered the meaning of a quote. The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary, they said.
Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ ” said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”
It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.
Reporters who have covered the Obama presidency say the quote-approval process fits a pattern by this White House of finding new ways to limit its exposure in the news media.
Modern White Houses have long had “background briefings,” gatherings of top officials who speak to reporters under the condition that they are quoted anonymously. With time, the restrictions have become broader, often bordering on the absurd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?pagewanted=all
Panetta places press under government's watchful eye.
The Obama administration’s efforts to plug the leaks in government continue as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Thursday ordered Pentagon officials to monitor the media for any hint of unauthorized disclosures of classified or other sensitive government information.
Just hours after emerging from a private meeting with the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee reportedly dealing with the recent alleged leaks of government secrets, Panetta issued the directive.
Representative Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) is the chairman of the committee and informed reporters gathered at a news conference that he did not believe Panetta’s department was responsible for the leaks and that he was confident that the White House was working hard to get a handle on the situation.
"Both the chairman and I were very convinced that Secretary Panetta and all of the folks at the Pentagon are taking it seriously, are trying to mitigate the damages and prevent it in the future," said Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking Democrat.
Regarding the closed-door meeting, Reuters reported:
Panetta, Army General Martin Dempsey, the top uniformed military officer, and chief Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson appeared before the committee to answer questions. McKeon said they agreed the recent leaks had caused damage, but did not elaborate.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little reportedly said Thursday all those who participated in the meeting were “of one mind” about the urgent need to control the dissemination of sensitive information.
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed two U.S. Attorneys to investigate the alleged “leaks” of classified information many suspect originated in the White House, James Clapper the Director of National Intelligence, piled on by announcing that all intelligence agents and officials may be subjected to polygraph testing if they are suspected of leaking information to the media.
Of all other developments, the most frightening (some might even say “chilling”) aspect of the secretary’s order is that the media be kept under close surveillance. As the memo itself explains:
Current regulations mandate that every component within the department report unauthorized disclosures to a security officer for a preliminary review. The matter is also sent to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, who in coordination with the General Counsel, may refer matters to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This “bottom up” system requires that individuals report potential violations up the chain of command.
Further on in the directive, Panetta “reiterated guidance issued by Secretary Gates that the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is the ‘sole release authority for all DoD information to news media in Washington.’ ”
Despite the draconian tone of the document, it is unlikely that the tandem of surveillance and “sole release authority” will choke off the flow of information from government to press, especially in light of compelling evidence that the White House itself is the source of the most “damaging” leaks.
"The department is continuously improving its security posture and overall capability to prevent unauthorized disclosures," the Pentagon declared in a statement accompanying the publication of the new media monitoring instructions.
In light of these efforts to keep the press in line, all Americans should be concerned that the president is consolidating within the Executive Branch the power to decide which leaks will remain open and which will be closed. This usurpation hides the president and the entire federal government behind a one-way mirror that allows the government to keep members of the media and other citizens under close surveillance while keeping its own actions shrouded in the shadows.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/12171-panetta-places-press-under-governments-watchful-eye
Vice President Joe Biden's remarks will not be tweeted.
Vice President Joe Biden will take questions from reporters on a White House press call today, and as has been the case in the past, the on-the-record conversation will be embargoed until the end of the call.
The curious caveat -- who would write an article during the middle of the call? -- is a product of the post-Twitter presidential campaign, barring reporters from the beloved habit of tweeting remarks in real-time.
But it begs the question: If it's going to be in an article 20 minutes later, why can't it be on Twitter right now?
From White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, via email: "The embargo will allow journalists to hear the entirety of the Vice President’s remarks and get the benefit of having their questions answered -- before trying to condense a 30-minute conference call about a 20-page NEC report into a 140 characters."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/the-vps-remarks-will-not-be-tweeted-129919.html#.UA7I64994UA.twitter