Printable View
All the news that's fit to make and make up on your own...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky...n/11123932.htmQuote:
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.
Lexington Herald-Leader | 03/13/2005 | Bush administration films its own 'news'
I thought they already did that --- under Fox News? :D
I don't know MsMittens...according to the news reports this stuffs only 21 hours old. They could have run it on Fox earlier...I don't know.
According to the page...American news has only picked up on this in the last 14-21 hours ( eg. NY Times 14 hours ago ), and just started hitting international papers about 4 hours ago.
Eg :)
After the Dan Rather incident last fall, I don't blame them if they
set up their own partisan news service. After all, in most other parts
of the world (cough, Islamic), the news services are branches
of Government. "Official News Agency" or "Ministry of Truth".
The present administration has a right to have its own
propaganda, and not be a victim of a hostile press.
:cool:
Most of us are sophisticated enough to discriminate
between different sources anyway.
You say "Most of us", but where are you getting that from? I would seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are able to discriminate between propaganda and objective news reports - especially when the propaganda is disguised, and its source not clearly shown.Quote:
Most of us are sophisticated enough to discriminate
between different sources anyway
In the article, a quote from Bill Pierce states: "Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution". I'd accept that as a valid point had the videos not been deliberately disguised. That's just like the argument that as long as the USA technically does not torture people, but gets someone else to do it instead, it's perfectly alright.
To a lot of people, if an article is on the tv or whatever broadcasting medium, and is described as news, it is fact. Now I know that this is not always (or perhaps generally) the case, but many people do not. These are the same people that have the ability to vote political parties in at elections. If they are watching this propaganda and believing it to be fact, who dyu think they're gonna vote for?
What is the point of even having journalists if they are not going to question what people (especially governments) are doing? I would agree that the administration has a right (as all do) to give statements to the public, publish reports, advertise, etc. but I would not agree that they have the right to publish propaganda.Quote:
The present administration has a right to have its own
propaganda, and not be a victim of a hostile press.
ac
You may be right, but since there are no objective news reports (try to tell me thatQuote:
I would seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are able to discriminate between propaganda and objective news reports
Dan Rather was objective!), the morons had better learn to discriminate, because there
has never been an objective press. Our constitution protects a free press,
but cannot force objectivity. A free press is free to be biased. Each publisher has the right
to spin the news any way he wants.
If a president is lucky enough to have the major news networks friendly to him, he's home free,
but if they are hostile, and consistently biased against his ideas, why can't his administration
hire its own "journalists" to balance the picture?
:cool:
Yes...but the New York Times and other publications are not free to make news up to suit their agenda...and this is where I see the problem...
where you draw the line between what is news, in any context you want to issue it, and the manufacturing of news to suit your purposes?
To me this looks like a deliberate attempt to try to lie to and manipulate and deceive the public...which should not be condoned as a means to get your agenda across.
Back up what you say Bush, otherwise you are just another Bill Clinton.Quote:
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.
Dan Rather did.... proven.... How much else? Reams and reams.....Quote:
but the New York Times and other publications are not free to make news up to suit their agenda
I'm sure it happens...probably alot more frequently than any of us will ever know for sure...but it's not suppose to happen...is my point...journalistic ethics and integrity and all.