That damn liberal media! - Fake news direct from the White House

[Sir O]

This is blatantly stolen from Fark.com...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031305Z.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031305Z.shtml</a><!-- m -->

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
By David Barstow and Robin Stein
The New York Times

Sunday 13 March 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. 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.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

You should read the whole article, it's quite good...



<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer</a><!-- m -->

The controversy began when the White House said Air Force One was spotted by a British Airways plane but the president's pilots told the dubious British Airways pilots by radio that they were flying a Gulfstream V. The White House later said there was no British Airways plane involved and the conversation took place between British air traffic control and another plane while Air Force One was "off the western coast of England."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54651-2005Jan6.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Jan6.html</a><!-- m -->

Although television stations knew the materials were produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, there was nothing in the two-minute, prepackaged reports that would indicate to viewers that they came from the government or that Morris, a former journalist, was working under contract for the government.

"You think you are getting a news story, but what you are getting is a paid announcement," said Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel at the GAO. "What is objectionable about these is the fact the viewer has no idea their tax dollars are being used to write and produce this video segment."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-13-bush-williams_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... iams_x.htm</a><!-- m -->

a copy of the contract, obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act, says that in addition to the six-month ad campaign last year, Williams was to "comment regularly on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts" and "encourage the producers" of a cable TV program, America's Black Forum, to do the same. The program has terminated its relationship with Williams.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html</a><!-- m -->

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb10.html</a><!-- m -->

Pretty much every day, Gannon got cleared into the White House briefing room by a press office that knew his real name. Press Secretary Scott McClellan frequently called on him during the mid-day briefings, using his fake name. McClellan was consistently rewarded with questions that -- in stark contrast from most of what passes for questions in that room -- were more expressions of conservative dogma than actual attempts to elicit information. Members of the press corps individually confronted Gannon and told him that he didn't belong there. But nothing more serious than that happened -- until Bush called on him at his televised Jan. 26 news conference and he asked a loaded, inaccurate question partly derived from a Rush Limbaugh joke.

[Sir O]

"Perhaps this is an obvious point, but the democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish it to be perceived. Leaders of the media claim that their news choices rest on unbiased professional and objective criteria, and they have support for this contention in the intellectual community. If, however, the powerful are able to fix the premises of discourse, to decide what the general populace is allowed to see, hear, and think about, and to manage public opinion by regular propaganda campaigns, the standard view of how the system works is at serious odds with reality."

-some commie

[OAS]

I wouldn't find any of this to be that far from the truth. W was the only presidential candidate that required attendance at his "public" campaign appearances to be pre-approved. If you could not be verified as a Kool-aid drinking Bush supporter, you could not attend any of his political rallies during the election. Of course this was all done under the premise of "national security".

[Arpikarhu]

this sort of shit wouldnt go on in a libertarian run government