The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censore

By a show of hands, who here is surprised to hear this?.............I didn't think so.

So Jeremy W. Peters wrote this story in the NY Times admitting that anything you hear on the MSM gets filtered through the campaigns PR offices before it can be reported on.

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....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.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

So the print media is playing lapdog to the campaigns which has been blatant for as long as I can remember, just like the 24 hr news channels. I think the cable news has gotten especially out of control with this nonsense the last few years. I think I would give them some brownie points if they just changed their names to "republican or democrat propaganda channel", at least they would be being honest about something.

This story was published about a week ago, funny...none of the other MSM outlets thought this was worth discussing.

From one of the other sources:

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.

What are your thoughts on this? Any way we'll ever see some journalistic integrity ever again?

This story can also be found Here and Here.

I know this quote from Rockerfeller has never been substantiated

'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

but it sure does resonate with what you've just said.

reply to post by khimbar


Yeah, I would not be surprised at all to learn he actually did say that.

The collusion and corruption in this country is staggering.



For those who can't watch the video, it's about Operation Mockingbird.

reply to post by watchitburn


oh wow, the journalists who used to risk their lives to get the truth to the public would be proud of the way their modern counterparts having given up every ounce of credibility and letting the industry go into an unrecoverable decline in favor of show biz.

Nice entertainment they might say.....that's about it.

reply to post by watchitburn


This is something many of us have known for years. Many of us have been laughed at for saying it out-loud. It seems kind of spooky seeing it confirmed in the mass media. It is almost like they are saying, "we know nobody cares."

reply to post by watchitburn


Your headline is completely misleading, as well as a violation of ATS' T&C that state your headline should match the article you are using.

Let's say you are a public official and someone wants to interview you. Do you want to ensure that they are not twisting what you say, and have a condition that you approve any quotes attributed to you, or do you just let them write whatever they want and hope they don't misquote you? This has absolutely nothing to do with your sensationalized, and misleading headline.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by watchitburn

 

Your headline is completely misleading, as well as a violation of ATS' T&C that state your headline should match the article you are using.

Let's say you are a public official and someone wants to interview you. Do you want to ensure that they are not twisting what you say, and have a condition that you approve any quotes attributed to you, or do you just let them write whatever they want and hope they don't misquote you? This has absolutely nothing to do with your sensationalized, and misleading headline.

I have no idea how that last link got on there it should have been this: Source

But seeing how this was in fact posted in the OP:

Originally posted by watchitburn
This story can also be found Here

I am not in violation of anything since I posted the title exactly as it appears on the source.

Also, No. You are completely wrong. In case you failed to understand what the article is saying. If the journalists do not let the interviewees dictate what quotes they use, then they will not be granted any more interviews.

This, I think is one of the main problems with the Government, politicians are not held accountable for what they say, or much of anything for that matter. Which is why we are seeing so much corruption and cronyism going on.

Next question.

Originally posted by watchitburn

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by watchitburn

 

Your headline is completely misleading, as well as a violation of ATS' T&C that state your headline should match the article you are using.

Let's say you are a public official and someone wants to interview you. Do you want to ensure that they are not twisting what you say, and have a condition that you approve any quotes attributed to you, or do you just let them write whatever they want and hope they don't misquote you? This has absolutely nothing to do with your sensationalized, and misleading headline.

I have no idea how that last link got on there it should have been this: Source

But seeing how this was in fact posted in the OP:

Originally posted by watchitburn
This story can also be found Here

I am not in violation of anything since I posted the title exactly as it appears on the source.

Also, No. You are completely wrong. In case you failed to understand what the article is saying. If the journalists do not let the interviewees dictate what quotes they use, then they will not be granted any more interviews.

This, I think is one of the main problems with the Government, politicians are not held accountable for what they say, or much of anything for that matter. Which is why we are seeing so much corruption and cronyism going on.

Next question.

The source you listed did not contain the headline you used, which means you did not break the T&C, but does mean you cherry picked for a source that had an inflammatory name to use. Says a lot about your character.

Second, I am not wrong, you are. Did you even read my response. I wouldn't grant an interview either unless I could ok what quotes they use. This is not censoring news. If a reporter finds a source they are welcome to run with it. Politicians will not be a source for a reporter with an agenda who wishes to twist facts and quotes, which is why the politicians demand final say. I would too, you would have to be stupid not to.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I suppose you could say that I cherry picked, in that I didn't want to use Infowars as the only source. So I used the source that they got it from. And they called it for what it is. Establishment hacks forcing edits to make themselves sound better. So I guess my "character" is to wade through the BS and get to the point.

I did read what you said and I don't think you are getting it. I understand what you are saying about twisting words to fit an agenda. That's how we have ended up with these ridiculous partisan media outlets.
But no one is talking about twisting words except the politicians. The story is talking about printing what was said. And that is the way it should be. So yes you are still wrong.

It sounds to me like you think they should be allowed to hide who they really are from the public. Explain to me how printing exactly what they said is a bad thing.

There is an old saying "Know what you say, and say what you mean".

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I suppose you could say that I cherry picked, in that I didn't want to use Infowars as the only source. So I used the source that they got it from. And they called it for what it is. Establishment hacks forcing edits to make themselves sound better. So I guess my "character" is to wade through the BS and get to the point.

I did read what you said and I don't think you are getting it. I understand what you are saying about twisting words to fit an agenda. That's how we have ended up with these ridiculous partisan media outlets.
But no one is talking about twisting words except the politicians. The story is talking about printing what was said. And that is the way it should be. So yes you are still wrong.

It sounds to me like you think they should be allowed to hide who they really are from the public. Explain to me how printing exactly what they said is a bad thing.

There is an old saying "Know what you say, and say what you mean".

Here is the question which you still are unable to answer. How do you ensure that what you said is what gets printed? You do realize this only applies to private interviews, and not public appearances. You are so far beyond clueless it's almost pointless to debate you.

The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored

Also just in from the 'No # Sherlock' files

The Sky is Blue, The Grass is Green, Bankers are evil corrupt pieces of #, O.J. Simpson killed his wife, Michael Jackson was a peadophile, 911 was an inside job, The President is a puppet and has no real power, your wife is sleeping with your best friend, Heather Grahm and Anne Hathaway are smokin' Hot, there's a dead prostitute in the trunk of my car again and I don't know how she got there,and it would be nice to win the lottery.

Back to you Tom!

and they expect us to stay a democracy how......?

not like that is not cause enough for alarm for every supposed journalist to sound the alarm and stop lying to us.

I am sure a job is worth your people being lied to.

People don't get. You have to risk something.

I have had strange people come by ever since I started posting on the internet things they don't like and being open and vocal to everyone and anyone.

Does that stop me. No, it proves my point. This is out of hand and will only get worse.

I can't say that I am comfortable watching a train hit me in slow motion. I would rather die and suffer than think in a moment of impotence about where I can run and hide to get the best vantage point of how they rape kill and brutalize my fellow man.

If you think this sort of thing stops somewhere because they are satisfied with a little absolute control, then you are probably someone who would rat me out and have people like me killed in the not too far future.

I honestly think that although I will never raise my fist in anger at them, that one day my mouth will get me killed.

I accept that as the price to pay for being true to what I was taught and entrusted to keep close to my heart.

I just hope the fall is not too steep after they finally get their wish and realize how backwards and utterly destructive it is in times of peace.

I probably won't be around, as I think we have about 20 years before they start getting rid of us that resist.

I am not intimidated by their presence. Torture, seeing my little one suffer, my wife.....it is bad, but not enough to make me stop. I know they will suffer far worse if nothing is done. I know that the end result is the misery we have seen before.

Though they feel clever and smile with the snide remarks they formulate drawing from their expensive educations instead of using them to preserve a society that has brought our greatest prosperity. Though they feel strength is theirs eternally, and are entitled to all they see...

although they make me their enemy, I see their foolishness and feel sorry for them, the way I feel sorry for Germans after the rape of Berlin, the way I lament all the suffering caused by Rome's collapse at the hands of barbarians who had had enough, ect ect.

although I feel this, and know they are just confused and misguided, feeling lucky, and think they serve their people possibly. I know the end result will be wailing mothers, enraged fathers, distraught daughters, saddened siblings. A worthless world of death and destruction that no later good will truly erase.

The price will be too high I think. A job is cheap compared.

Originally posted by watchitburn
By a show of hands, who here is surprised to hear this?.............I didn't think so.

So Jeremy W. Peters wrote this story in the NY Times admitting that anything you hear on the MSM gets filtered through the campaigns PR offices before it can be reported on.

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....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.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

So the print media is playing lapdog to the campaigns which has been blatant for as long as I can remember, just like the 24 hr news channels. I think the cable news has gotten especially out of control with this nonsense the last few years. I think I would give them some brownie points if they just changed their names to "republican or democrat propaganda channel", at least they would be being honest about something.

This story was published about a week ago, funny...none of the other MSM outlets thought this was worth discussing.

From one of the other sources:

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.

What are your thoughts on this? Any way we'll ever see some journalistic integrity ever again?

This story can also be found Here and Here.

DUH

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I disagree with you, I think there is more to it than that.

First off, there are measures that already exist that a person can take for a misquote. If you can prove it harms your reputation, you can sue, and they would have to provide the tape in court, thereby vindicating you.

Second, this wouldn't solve that. Even under this plan where it has to be checked, the perdson could then run the article and change the quote if they were so nefarious. Other than suing as mentioned above, the only other backlash would be that group or person wouldn't do any more intervies for you.

And thats the third. Just cut off the papers that misquote you. No more interviews. The pratice of quote approval outlined in the OP doesn't seem to give the interviewee any more recourse than what the status quo does.

Heres is what it does allow them to do.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns routinely demand that reporters consent to quote approval when giving interviews. If the reporters agree, quotations from campaign officials, advisers and candidates’ family members have to be sent to a press aide for the final go-ahead. Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity.

Edited for style and clarity. So in other words, you ask say Romney a question like "What do you think of poor people", He responds "I think they should stop complaining and get jobs" Thats the story right? But no, you can't run the quote until his team of advisors see it. They then change it to look nice and fluffy.

And viola, your no longer reporting the quotes of people your interviewing, your reporting a cookie cutter teleprompter response. God forbid we get to see what the candidates actually think right?

And if you don't play ball, guess what? No more interviews for you. So if you want to stay in the game, you keep your mouth shut and report these falsehoods as the actual quotes.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Here is the question which you still are unable to answer. How do you ensure that what you said is what gets printed? You do realize this only applies to private interviews, and not public appearances. You are so far beyond clueless it's almost pointless to debate you.

Ah yes, because I disagree with you. I am obviously clueless, I wish I had known this earlier.

It is not too hard to get a copy of the interview. If you are misquoted or taken out of context it is pretty simple to present the actual statement.
Also the threat of cutting off the media outlet will most likely keep them in check. Getting cut off from an entire party would most likely be incentive enough to just report on what was said. They can cast anything in a negative light later on if they try hard enough.

But, it is obvious we are not going to reach an agreement on this. So how about we just respect each others difference of opinion and move on.