Government and the Media

[thatpfunk]

Is it ethical for a government administration to produce news stories promoting their agendas and then give them to news stations? The clips are packaged and produced to appear like a real news story, just manipulated in such a way to promote the agenda of the government.

Important caveat: The govt does not force the stations to air such clips, however, the clips are provided at no cost, thus saving money for the news station.

[Felix_Nietsche]

As long as the TV station informs the viewers of the source of the information, then it is no big deal. Forewarned, the listener can make their own decision.

Many administrations were quite suspicous of the Old mainstream media and with good reason. Selective editing could change the intention of their communication.

As long as the viewer is warned upfront, I see no problem.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as the TV station informs the viewers of the source of the information, then it is no big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]In other words, you see nothing wrong with a government feeding the press with its own pre-prepared version of the news. Along maybe with some guidelines as to what's newsworthy and what's not. And a guideline about how to report those news and how not to. All that's OK with you as long as the TV viewer is informed at the start that this is the "official version" of the news.

You know, it's quite amusing that you insist you are a supporter of freedom above everything else...

You are indeed something else.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Along maybe with some guidelines as to what's newsworthy and what's not. And a guideline about how to report those news and how not to."
************************************************** **
Who said this? When you find out let me know.

Based on your reaction to this figment of YOUR IMAGINATION, why should I not conclude that wild emotion rules your mind instead of reason?...

Next time read the scenario the OP more carefully...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
...this figment of YOUR IMAGINATION...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you getting hot under the collar? News reporting (and especially TV news reporting) is not only about content, it's equally about style and context. McLuhan's ideas should be common knowledge by now but I see they aren't.

Well, if you think that a government that would be allowed by its citizenry to produce its own, "official" news, would not also prepare how the news are presented, you are sunk in delusion.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as the TV station informs the viewers of the source of the information

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no citation. It is presented a news segment done by the station and their affiliates.

[Felix_Nietsche]

You have completely changed the scenario...

[jack spade23]

Since it is not being forced to be shown, there is no problem.

[James Boston]

Any "journalist" that uses these should be fired from their job and blacklisted from every media outlet in the country.

[thatpfunk]

How?

[ QUOTE ]
The clips are packaged and produced to appear like a real news story, just manipulated in such a way to promote the agenda of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Any "journalist" that uses these should be fired from their job and blacklisted from every media outlet in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I didn't specify our country, I simply said a government administration.

Second, it wouldn't be a specific journalist, it would be an entire local news station that does not have the money to do such reporting.

I do agree that those making the decisions at such a station have no place in the 4th estate.

[lehighguy]

I would say the guests they have on cable news count as prepackaged segments.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say the guests they have on cable news count as prepackaged segments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about something much more drastic, although I understand the point you are trying to make.

The news clips are presented as complete truth and honest reporting however. It is easier for the average viewer to discern the difference between fact and opinion when it is someone being interviewed.

[BadBoyBenny]

Spending our tax dollars on the production and airtime upsets me. Also, because the government controls the broadcast bandwidth, there could be serious conflict of interests.

I don't think there is anything else that stikes me as unethical about government putting out a message as long as there is free press.

[James Boston]

My point was that while it's unethical for a government to do this (which I voted in the poll), it's unthinkable, irresponsible, unethical, immoral, and unprofessional for the media to use them.

[jaxmike]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it, here is why. I doubt the "prepackaged" segments will be any LESS in line with the truth than anything the station, or network, would create on its own.

Given the propensity of the networks and "major" newspapers to fabricate stories in recent years, I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with the government creating news segments.

There are conditions on my acceptence of this practicer. The segment should announce who created them (the ones the US governemnt have distributed have identified the source, so far as I am aware). I think the segments should be factually accurate. I think the segments should refrain from projecting any opinion. So long as these conditions are met, I really don't have a problem with it.

[dr_venkman]

As I mentioned once before the mark of a truly successful Imperialist State is the widespread use of subterfuge.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical for a government administration to produce news stories promoting their agendas and then give them to news stations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know legal boundries or ethical violations, but on the surface it seems logical that news outlets ought to go out and search for news. Not have it handed to them neatly sealed in a shrink wrap package. Especially not from the Gubmint.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I don't have a problem with it, here is why. I doubt the "prepackaged" segments will be any LESS in line with the truth than anything the station, or network, would create on its own.

Given the propensity of the networks and "major" newspapers to fabricate stories in recent years, I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with the government creating news segments.

There are conditions on my acceptence of this practicer. The segment should announce who created them (the ones the US governemnt have distributed have identified the source, so far as I am aware). I think the segments should be factually accurate. I think the segments should refrain from projecting any opinion. So long as these conditions are met, I really don't have a problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I didn't say "our" government in my example, I said a government.

Secondly, I said that the clips are made to favor the govt's agenda.

The media and the government are held to different standards.

Jax, your conditions are pretty contradictory to the situation I posed...?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I didn't say "our" government in my example, I said a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. I answered the question you posed as best I could given the available information. I just stated, for effect, that our government does indeed cite the source of the reports they create.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, I said that the clips are made to favor the govt's agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, so long as they are factually accurate and not providing opinion, I have no prolem with it.

[ QUOTE ]
The media and the government are held to different standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sad to admit that I agree. I think it's a shame what passes as "journalism" on the networks and major newspapers today.

[ QUOTE ]
Jax, your conditions are pretty contradictory to the situation I posed...?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just posting the conditions that I think need to be met for me to support the actions in the situation you posed.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just posting the conditions that I think need to be met for me to support the actions in the situation you posed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha.

Although I was attempting to pose this question as ambigiuous as possible, most of you saw through it as it was pretty obvious. I am interested though in general, as I think if I said China did this, the responses would be almost solely in the Orwellian/Communist camp (obviously).

This is something I am studying in a media writing class. It is something our government is doing right now, and unforuntately, it is not being cited. More than anger me about our current administration (as most of you should know, something I do easily), it scares me for the future of our govt in general, hence the Orwellian tag.

I will attempt to get some more information/sources that I can give as examples.

From what I understand (and I have no sources on hand) the administration pays a PR type company to produce a news story on a specific subject (the war, social securty, healthcare, etc). The company will then send "reporters" for interviews and investigation. The segment is then cut and produced to create whatever "spin" the government wishes- privatization good, war going great, etc etc.

The segment is then sent to small local stations that can not afford to send reporters to different parts of the country etc. The station sees a story that is produced excellently and seems legitimate.

My problems:
1) The stations should not be excepting such material. It is a gross breach of journalistic ethics.

2) The government has no place in the media. When this line is blurred, the public is hurt.

3) Regardless of party lines, I find this to be extremely unethical. If it was found that Clinton, etc used such tactics, I would denounce much of his presidency.

I hope this is a topic that people will put considerable thought into. Party lines are not important in this case. This needs to be stopped, and we must prevent future administrations from thinking it is okay.

I would be interested to hear more thoughts from those that find this "Okay." How is the public supposed to differentiate between real and produced news stories? Where do we draw the line? If this becomes accepted practice, will we ever be able to trust news again?

Caveat: I do not believe that the 4th estate is in good shape. Journalism is not in good shape right now. Does anyone see any solutions for the future?

Also: An interesting video about the future of the media although it is pretty apocalyptic (http://www.broom.org/epic/) it is interesting. I posted this in OOT a couple days ago, so you may have seen it already.

[MMMMMM]

Do you have any specific articles to offer as examples? Now I'm quite curious to read a few.

[thatpfunk]

As I said I don't have anything on hand (I've kinda been skipping classes, damn you senioritis /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) but next week I will ask for some links, articles, etc.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was found that Clinton, etc used such tactics, I would denounce much of his presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Clinton administration was the first to use such video news releases."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=587288&page=2

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just posting the conditions that I think need to be met for me to support the actions in the situation you posed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha.

Although I was attempting to pose this question as ambigiuous as possible, most of you saw through it as it was pretty obvious. I am interested though in general, as I think if I said China did this, the responses would be almost solely in the Orwellian/Communist camp (obviously).

This is something I am studying in a media writing class. It is something our government is doing right now, and unforuntately, it is not being cited. More than anger me about our current administration (as most of you should know, something I do easily), it scares me for the future of our govt in general, hence the Orwellian tag.

I will attempt to get some more information/sources that I can give as examples.

From what I understand (and I have no sources on hand) the administration pays a PR type company to produce a news story on a specific subject (the war, social securty, healthcare, etc). The company will then send "reporters" for interviews and investigation. The segment is then cut and produced to create whatever "spin" the government wishes- privatization good, war going great, etc etc.

The segment is then sent to small local stations that can not afford to send reporters to different parts of the country etc. The station sees a story that is produced excellently and seems legitimate.

My problems:
1) The stations should not be excepting such material. It is a gross breach of journalistic ethics.

2) The government has no place in the media. When this line is blurred, the public is hurt.

3) Regardless of party lines, I find this to be extremely unethical. If it was found that Clinton, etc used such tactics, I would denounce much of his presidency.

I hope this is a topic that people will put considerable thought into. Party lines are not important in this case. This needs to be stopped, and we must prevent future administrations from thinking it is okay.

I would be interested to hear more thoughts from those that find this "Okay." How is the public supposed to differentiate between real and produced news stories? Where do we draw the line? If this becomes accepted practice, will we ever be able to trust news again?

Caveat: I do not believe that the 4th estate is in good shape. Journalism is not in good shape right now. Does anyone see any solutions for the future?

Also: An interesting video about the future of the media although it is pretty apocalyptic (http://www.broom.org/epic/) it is interesting. I posted this in OOT a couple days ago, so you may have seen it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end of these clips it does mention that it is produced by whatever agency of the government produced it. At least that is my understanding, and my experience from the ones I have seen.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Clinton administration was the first to use such video news releases."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=587288&page=2

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously need to find some more info on this, but I am extremely dissapointed right now. I hate politicians.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of these clips it does mention that it is produced by whatever agency of the government produced it. At least that is my understanding, and my experience from the ones I have seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nagative. See BC's link. As I said, more info to come, but nothing is cited as the government. If it were to be cited, it would be a PR agency with an ambigious name. The average viewer would see no connection, hence the problem.

If the govt. was citing such clips, I would have zero problems.

[thatpfunk]

Great link BC... some excerpts from the original:

[ QUOTE ]
A report, for example, about the president's controversial education bill — which was presented as news on many local stations including those in Houston and Washington — ended with the words: "This is a program that gets an 'A-plus.' In Washington, Karen Ryan reporting."

But Karen Ryan is not a reporter. She works in public relations and was hired by the Bush administration to voice the government-produced news stories.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office — the investigative arm of Congress — ruled last month at least two of the broadcast reports — ones about Medicare and illegal narcotics — were "covert propaganda" and illegal.

"It was not clear from the prepackaged news stories who the source of the information was," David Walker, comptroller general of the GAO, told ABC News. "It was pretty clear that these were intended to go directly to the viewing audience without any editing."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of thing I find frightening.

[johnc]

You seem somewhat paranoid. You never once seemed to care (implications do not count here) whether or not this packaged info was accurate. Hypothetical: It's 100% accurate with some party spin to it but no lies, what do you do then? Do you pass it over just because "it's from the Big Bad Brother"? The trend of late is to regard, out of hand, oppositional information as completely untrue. The problem with this approach is it leaves one horribly one sided, closed minded, and frankly, paranoid. Sure everyones' got their own agenda, "spin", whatever you like to call it but the nugget of truth many times does in fact exist-it just takes some thought to distill it out.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Since they are not allowed to cite the source of the story I would say I'm ambivalent because:
1. In the age of the internet and alternative media, the secret would be cracked quickly.
2. Once their secret was cracked, the media outlet that chose to deceive the viewers by not revealing the authors of the package news would have destroyed their credability for years..

If an administration that I disliked did someone like this, I'd be VERY happy. They and the stupid media company that agreed to pull this stunt would look like jack-a$$es
If it was administration that I did agree with, I'd be ticked at them for doing something SO STUPID....

[thatpfunk]

You seem incredibly naive.

[MMMMMM]

That would be helpful, as it's kind of hard to discuss this in a vacuum. Also, some specific examples would give a clearer picture of exactly what is being reported and how.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you pass it over just because "it's from the Big Bad Brother"? The trend of late is to regard, out of hand, oppositional information as completely untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't pass it over. Just give it a spot on page 11 with the car advertisements. Deprioritize it just like the government so aptly does with all of our problems. At least that's how I figure Hunter Thompson might see it.

Let the news teams and journalists go and find the real stories.

[INEVITABILI TY]

I am amazed at just how many people still don't yet see that they are under complete control. Your so called lives do not belong to you. Ofcourse the media is controlled by the government. And you are completely controlled by the media. It's always been this way and always will be. Do you think a government would just stand by idly with such a powerful means of control at their disposal? You are all just slaves. Pawns of the war machine. Living out your meaningless lives, completely oblivious to the fact that you are only needed (and allowed to breed) as fuel for the economy. Ethics?????... Right?????... Wrong?????... Please!!!!!!! Might equals right. Always has, always will.
Sorry to be the one to feed you the red pill, but the sooner this pathetic world comes crashing down, the better.

[BCPVP]

Someone's been watching too much Matrix.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone's been watching too much Matrix.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me about it. I wish I never saw that goddamn movie. I am forever changed, and not for the better. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Damn, forgot to swith identities /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Oh man, why do I even bother? /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it was found that Clinton, etc used such tactics, I would denounce much of his presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Clinton administration was the first to use such video news releases."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=587288&page=2

[/ QUOTE ]

The article doesn't make it clear whether the releases made under Clinton were presented as news pieces and aired on news programmes. Do you know if that was the case?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of these clips it does mention that it is produced by whatever agency of the government produced it. At least that is my understanding, and my experience from the ones I have seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nagative. See BC's link. As I said, more info to come, but nothing is cited as the government. If it were to be cited, it would be a PR agency with an ambigious name. The average viewer would see no connection, hence the problem.

If the govt. was citing such clips, I would have zero problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the only thing that I saw was on one of the "news" programs, I think CBS. At the end of the piece, it said "this segment was produced by the US Dept. Of the Interior" or some such [censored]. Or, I could be remembering things that never happened. I still stand by my approval conditions. I do not think we differ too much on this issue at all.

[fimbulwinter]

it's fine in a democracy if it's done by a privately funded political party.

it's not fine at all if there is any bit of taxpayer money involved.

fim

[lastchance]

That brings up a really nice point.

It annoys me that taxpayer money is used on propaganda for the taxpayers. I suppose it might be necessary, but it annoys me.

[yaomama]

[Felix_Nietsche]

....I don't think anyone will take your advice too seriously.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you see nothing wrong with a government feeding the press with its own pre-prepared version of the news.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, if the news outlets arent controlled by the goverment....why would you find this SO objectionable.

The news organizations have the choice as to whether or not to "run" the story, plus they may editorialize it as they wish.

They also are able to report any conflicting accounts which may contradict the story.

Doesnt seem like it is a much bigger deal than a govt. press release to me.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it was found that Clinton, etc used such tactics, I would denounce much of his presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Clinton administration was the first to use such video news releases."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=587288&page=2

[/ QUOTE ]

However, the current administration has far deeper plans for manipulation...

James Guckert aka Jeff Gannon (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6993032)

...It's bad enough already having trouble believing anything Bonzo or his puppets say, but you can't always trust the "reporters" they call on either...