Media Manipulation : ABC News Edits Interview to Push an Agenda, All Other MSM Blindly Follows

This is very disturbing and something that should scare all of us... I assure you that this has little to do with a court case that many of us are exhausted of discussing, rather I share the following because it demonstrates not only a clear example of media manipulation to further a narrative, but also showcases how all other MSM outlets blindly followed the narrative being pushed by one news organization and failed to challenge poor reporting via visual media with actual context in printed media. I never completely bought into the fact that the United States media is likely/probably completely controlled in terms of messaging and narratives dictated by the US Government... until now.

Let me explain:

On Thursday 25 July 2013, ABC News announced it had conducted an interview with a juror from the Zimmerman trial. In making the announcement, ABC News provided other media outlets with a series of quotes from the interview that had been conducted a couple hours before the announcement but had not yet aired.

On paper, these quotes demonstrated this juror was trying to appease all potential viewers as her words covered the extremes of both sides of the spectrum.

In broadcasting the interview, ABC News manipulated/edited the jurors comments to showcase one extreme end of the spectrum while disregarding the other.

The best/only take on this egregious distortion can be found in the following must-read article from Slate.com:

Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder?
The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true.

Slate.com Article

Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? That’s what one of his jurors says, according to headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers. Trayvon Martin’s mother and the Martin family’s attorney are trumpeting this “new information” as proof that “George Zimmerman literally got away with murder.”

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice.

ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.

At this point, I'd encourage the reader to read the entire article at the link above because, in order to comply with ATS rules I will only list the author's points and not share the context (but that's what links are for...)

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.
2. She stands by the verdict.
3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.
4. The jury was not ethnically divided on Zimmerman’s culpability.
5. Race wasn’t discussed, and she didn’t focus on it.
6. She was no pushover in the jury room.
7. To the extent she feels racial or ethnic pressure, it’s against Zimmerman.
8. Acquittal is not personal—or national—exoneration.

The above 8 points were essentially made available by ABC News i(n the form of quotes from the interviewee) before a clip of the interview was ever broadcast on TV or online.

When the edited interview was broadcast, those 8 points seem to have gotten trapped in a vacuum somewhere because they didn't seem to be included as they would have derailed the narrative that someone is pushing.

While all of the information was available to ABC News competitors, not one attempted to present the voice of the juror whose words were yearning to achieve balance and appease all viewers and, in doing so, criticize a competitor for their manipulation of the facts; every other MSM outlet blindly followed the exact narrative of ABC News and all pushed the outrage messaging... but who is pulling the strings of these puppets and setting the narrative??? Because it seems clear that not all MSM outlets can miss the obvious unless their message is controlled.

Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much

Always found this as a good measure in life...

reply to post by NickDC202


At this point in my life I don't trust any of the mainstream media outlets. This is not the first time one of the big networks has manipulated the facts to push their own agenda.

I actually find ATS the most balanced place for news. Users here catch almost every worthy news item and if someone tries to spin the story they will get called on it pretty quickly.

Even if I don't agree with some of the opinions at least I get them here.

All you get from the MSM is BS and disinformation.

Originally posted by Metallicus
reply to post by NickDC202

 

At this point in my life I don't trust any of the mainstream media outlets. This is not the first time one of the big networks has manipulated the facts to push their own agenda.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply; I tend to agree with everything you wrote.

I should point out an important distinction:
You wrote that "This is not the first time one of the big networks has manipulated the facts to push their own agenda." [I absolutely agree with you]

HOWEVER

Can you think of an instance that one big network news outlet releases a written account of quotes from an "important" interview, quotes that show a balance and thoughtfulness. Then when that interview is edited by one big network news outlet, it is manipulated to communicate an extreme viewpoint (and not one that doesn't rock the boat).

Then, instead of being responsible and highlighting a competitor's inaccuracies, ALL other big network news outlets push the manipulated message in a visual medium (even though they were well aware that the arguments, messages, narrative and "phony outrage" they are pushing is inaccurate).

Such a blatant pushing of misinformation in the visual medium, when accurate information was published via the written word from the same media outlet that pushed the fake narrative, is very troubling and a great example to highlight to friends/family who don't believe that the narratives and the distractions are mostly controlled by the powers that be.

That is the press. They don't pitch a story the way the public shows it, except on a bias for the interests of their financial supporters. These days if you want your story made to hear you better do it yourself and not rely on a production studio. How frequent do subjects in stories say it's not fair, I was misquoted, and so on, but it doesn't go to the millions that way. Some press people can be vultures, swooping in on people, manipulating things to their own agenda.

It's a broken record argument. Just. Stop. Watching. TV. if you don't like what you hear. Make your own news.

reply to post by NickDC202


I was just posting this bit elsewhere and thought it belonged here. YES, I believe that media will become even more controlled than it is now, here is some reference for you:

Yesterday this DOD.gov article was linked on Drudge the link was titled

“When bad things happen, the American people should hear it from us, not as a scoop on the Drudge Report,” he said.

Which is a direct quote from the article.

Yes, this is a Department of Defense article on the media and how to spread news effectively.

Little said DOD’s public affairs professionals have done a stellar job over the past 12 years. In the face of new challenges, he added, they must push themselves to be even better, both in their individual skills and in collaborating as a community. “We must all think creatively on how best to communicate with the American people. … We must be ready to experiment with new and less expensive ways to connect with the nation,” he said.

Well, I can read between the lines.