DescentBB

This is just plain wrong!! At least my boss tells me to get the lubrication when its time to bend over.

Lets see...when the Dems were in power the mainstream news shamelessly promoted their fair haired children. So whats the difference with the republicans making a little "news" of their own. At least they are up front about it and not hiding behind the skirts of say CBS.

Woodchip, this is not about "republican" vs "democrat." This is about the government choosing what we, the public, sees (on local channels none the less).

I have no problem with the government doing this (I think it's important to know your government's views on certain issues), but the fact that there is NO mention that these are government programs, (they are not, as you say "up front about it," quite the contrary) is quite frightening.

Maybe I'm the only one who read 1984.

vertigo, don't even bother. Woodchip roots for political parties like someone roots for a football team

on topic, I don't like this type of deception by either party.

I feel ill now.

Vertigo 99 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/polit ... r=homepage

I didn't read the article (it's pretty long), but if what I read is accurate -- it was and is a stupid idea. Somebody should get canned, if it hasn't happened already.

BD

Glory to George W. Stalin!

I'll say up front that I only read one page of the article, because it just didn't seem to be saying anything worth reading, so if I say anything that's contradicted in pages 2-7 please correct me.

Vertigo 99 wrote:This is about the government choosing what we, the public, sees (on local channels none the less).

If the government was *really* choosing what we, the public, see... why would they have let the NYT run this article?

I was under the impression that the local stations still have the choice of whether or not to air the reports, and whether or not to announce that they're government-produced. If the local stations are willing to go along with it, it seems like it's their fault just as much as the government's. The government has created friendly news reports, and the stations are choosing to air them.

Of course, this reeks of bias -- why aren't they up front about it? But then, why wasn't Dan Rather up front about wanting to prevent Bush from being elected when he ran the TANG memo story? Why don't "journalists", in general, identify who they're voting for? Or is it OK when privately funded journalists pretend they're unbiased, but not when a government journalist pretends the same thing?

I agree with you lothar, the media really fails us regularly. It is really a media-based issue, but I still don't like the government putting out its propoganda tapes.

Yar, what Birds said.

It's just not right to pay someone to act like a reporter to put out what seems like a news report.

*But*
Assuming the content of the "reports" is factual,
It's also just as wrong that the administration had to actually create a reporter that was willing to report the good news that results from its efforts!

I'm really not sure which aspect of this story concerns me the most.

Will Robinson wrote:It's just not right to pay someone to act like a reporter to put out what seems like a news report.

Isn't that what is called a infommercial? Seems to be a pretty regular tactic.

woodchip wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's just not right to pay someone to act like a reporter to put out what seems like a news report.

Isn't that what is called a infommercial? Seems to be a pretty regular tactic.

Yea but I usually think of them as liars selling crap....

Heh:

Glenn Reynolds wrote:A LOT OF PEOPLE are noticing this story from the New York Times about prepackaged fake news from the Bush Administration. But if you read the whole thing, to coin a phrase, you come upon this passing acknowledgement:

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.

Funny, but I don't remember much of a stink about it when it happened during the Clinton Administration. However, Peter Morgan and I wrote about the practice in The Appearance of Impropriety and you can read a slightly-different version online here.

Oh. I missed that [bold] part.

I'm not for it. They should stop.

As lothar pointed out, and as the article mentions in several places, the news stations are free to either air, or not air, the government produced pieces, or to mention , or not, that they were government produced. I don't see a problem with having these as part of the data stream, although I think the source ought to be acknowledged. It's up to the citizens to process the data from any and all sources into information. When a cow processes its cud, some gets turned into new cow, or milk (something useful, like information would be) and some just comes out as crap. Although in the cow's case, it can be very useful crap (serve as fuel, fertilizer, etc). Not sure I can say the same for either government or 'free press' produced 'cud'.

And if this were Stalin-esque, then I think all of us on this board would be off mining icicles in some cold place by now. If people don't want to use their brains to get and understand good information, then they will get the government they deserve. The price of freedom.

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's just not right to pay someone to act like a reporter to put out what seems like a news report.

Isn't that what is called a infommercial? Seems to be a pretty regular tactic.

Yea but I usually think of them as liars selling crap....

Heh, me too. I just turn them off.