Skip to comments.Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials
Posted on 07/26/2012 2:55:37 PM PDT by Mozilla
In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories. For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for "quote approval" before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as "on message" as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost. But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, "quote approval" has become "commonplace throughout Washington". In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that "the free and independent media" in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.
The following quote comes from the recent article in the New York Times mentioned above and it is absolutely jaw dropping....
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
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.
Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the presidents top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.
The verdict from the campaign an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.
This is an article that everyone needs to read. If you have not read it yet, you can find it right here.
What all of this means is that both the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign essentially have "veto power" over any quotes from those campaigns that we see in the newspapers.
According to the New York Times, virtually every major news organization has agreed to submit their quotes for "quote approval"....
It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.
This is absolutely disgusting, and it goes against everything that our media is supposed to stand for.
The following is what Joseph Farah had to say when he learned about this story....
All I can say about these people I once considered colleagues is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.
It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. Its the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.
Keep in mind that Joseph Farah has been working in the world of journalism for decades. He is deeply saddened to see what is happening to a profession that he deeply loves.
But he is not the only one.
Just check out what Dan Rather had to say during a speech back in 2009....
At my age and stage I've finally reached the point where I don't have to kiss up to anybody, he said. What a wonderful feeling it is.
Even so, his talk emphasized what he believes is the erosion of quality journalism, because of the corporatization, politicization, and trivialization of news. Those three factors, Rather argued, have fueled the dumbing down and sleezing up of news and the decline of great American journalism.
Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that roughly 80 percent of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.
And Dan Rather is right. The control over the media in the United States is more tightly concentrated than ever before.
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.
The amount of control that those six corporate giants have is absolutely incredible. For example, the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. If you can beam 153 hours of "programming" into someone's head each month, that gives you an awesome amount of influence over that person.
The six monolithic corporations mentioned above are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.
There are some areas of the media that are not completely dominated by those corporations, but even control over those areas is becoming more highly concentrated than ever.
For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. The power that Clear Channel has over the radio industry in America is absolutely staggering.
Even control over the Internet is becoming much more concentrated. Giant corporations such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly controlling what we see and hear online.
But it really is the "big six" that dominate most of what we see, hear and read on a daily basis.
In a previous article, I detailed a portion of the vast media holdings of these gigantic corporations....
Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....
Home Box Office (HBO)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
ABC Television Network
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Country Music Television (CMT)
Nick at Nite
The Movie Channel
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
My Network TV
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
CBS Television Network
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CW Network (50% ownership)
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Television Network
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Studio Home Video
Please keep in mind that the list above is not exhaustive. It only contains a sampling of the companies that those six corporate giants own.
So are you starting to get an idea of how powerful they are?
If you ever wondered why the version of "the news" that you get is so similar no matter where you turn, it is because control of the news is concentrated in just a very few hands.
So who controls the "big six" media corporations?
Would it surprise you to know that the boards of directors of those big media corporations have a tremendous amount of overlap with the boards of directors of large banks, large oil companies and large pharmaceutical companies?
The following is from the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting website....
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.
You can find a list that shows how these boards of directors overlap and interlock right here.
The giant media corporations are not going to criticize the establishment because they are the establishment.
The messages that these media behemoths pound into our heads are going to be the messages that the establishment wants pounded into our heads.
Anyone that believes that the mainstream media is "independent" and that it does not have "an agenda" is being delusional.
Of course it is also worth mentioning that much of what we get from the mainstream media is also often directly controlled by the federal government.
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) has discovered that hundreds of American journalists have worked directly for the CIA.
Not that the federal government and the establishment are opposed to one another. The truth is that they very much work together hand in hand. But sometimes the federal government has slightly different priorities than the corporate establishment does.
In any event, the key point to take away from all this is that the news and entertainment that we all enjoy on a daily basis if very highly censored and very highly controlled.
It is imperative that we understand that those that own and control the media are trying to shape society in a certain way. They want to impose their values and their vision of the future on all the rest of us.
You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the "Big Brother" police state control grid that is going in all around us.
Instead, they insist that all of this added "security" will keep us safe even as our liberties and freedoms are being badly eroded.
You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the population control agenda of the global elite.
Instead, they insist that more "family planning" will help the environment and make the world a more prosperous place for all of us.
You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the Federal Reserve and none of them are warning us about the financial collapse that is rapidly approaching.
Instead, they tell us to keep having faith in the system and they promise us that everything is going to be okay.
Well, you can mindlessly believe the corporate media if you want, but I believe that in this day and age it is absolutely imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves.
Don't be a mindless robot for anyone.
Think for yourself and make your own decisions.
The truth is out there and you can find it if you are willing to go search for it.
It seems to me that they are just admitting what we all knew.
Pity the poor blogs who snag these bastardized “news” stories
and then try to re-write them in hope of getting hits.
They peddle twice-warmed-over bullshit.
The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials
No, the New York Times and every other major news organization willfully and enthusiastically censors the news ONLY when a Marxist/Communist/Socialist POS Demonrat administration has infested the White House.
Does anyone believe Bill Eee-go-reilly did NOT get his questions approved before hand?
“For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for “quote approval” before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. “
It is very frightening that the MSM would protect the Obama Campaign from ill-advised quotes or other information that might put a bad light on the president.
We must get our media to cease granting such editorial control to Democrat campaigns and Democratic presidents.
We need to split them up.
Think carefully about what’s happening though. People who will only use material from these censored sources (folks like Rush Limbaugh and most “conservative” pundits) are automatically self-censoring as well, because the only people who CAN give them the unfiltered stuff are people who don’t care to be “government approved”.
Blogs are where you can get new information that’s not censored. Unfortunately, because anybody can have a blog there is little way for people to know who is trustworthy and who not. That means if you run a blog and want to be considered credible you have to document everything. Which is good, but it also bogs down the issues in minutiae. If the reporters at NYT, for instance, had to show copies of every document that supports what they say, give the names and copies of all communications with the sources they rely on, etc.... who would ever talk to them, and who would ever slog through their reports?
And yet that’s what blog authors have to do. It’s almost a no-win situation because if you document everything it’s so tedious you lose your readers, and if you don’t document everything you’re not credible.
That’s where we’re at though. It’s not going to change anytime soon either.
So, which White House or Obama campaign gatekeeper signed off on “You Didn’t Build That” once it finally made it to mainstream outlets?
The reporter admitted what we knew about the NY Times. He cannot speak for others.The Times is a left wing rag. Consider the source.
Let me guess how this works.
Articles submitted back for review
Hell can’t be made too hot for this fifth-column traitorous press.
I haven’t trusted the press for a long time and that includes fox. I do not bother with it. These folks are completely out of touch with what is happening in this country ad throughout the world. They seem like rabid clueless dogs. The only thing they are good for is an argument based on hate and ignorance.
That is why I never even bother to watch any MSM. And you know they are allowed to make all kinds of mistakes and miss quotes against the Tea Party and Conservatives.
And these are the presstitutes that will get to moderate the presidential debates.
A rigged debate is worse than a rigged gameshow.
This is an Orwellian Nightmare.
The MSM are card carrying members of the RINO/DINO club. That is why when they want to report what Conservatives think, they ask John McCain.
Got a feeling we’ll need to refer to this article in the future...Are there cracks appearing in the wall?
” . . . except for the internet.”
Kinda reminds me, though, of the times when threads are pulled on various conservative sites.
Some wealthy conservative should buy them up, close them down and open modern conservative news services
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
~Pastor Martin Niemöller
Community and individuality are not opposites. People cannot survive on their own. When the odds are stacked against you, you must rally with the oppressed and hated.
When a growing oppressive regime is taking hold, you must act, otherwise you will soon face your enemy alone and hopeless.
Strength of community is a strength as much as individualism, as long you are willing to face weaknesses in your own community. Ignoring slacking values will mean that you will be rallied against by those you oppress.
Niemöller affirms we must rally against unhealthy organized regimes. We must also stay vigilant with those that appear to be good natured, as all organisation attracts corruption. Niemöller also warns us that if it is you who are corrupt, then you will face a stronger combined force of foe!
It certainly explains why any stories regarding Obama’s eligibility vanish down the memory hole within hours of their appearance.
Wow. Not surprising- but still...it somehow shocks me. Not about the NYT and some others- but the extent to which this is done is giving a very frightening picture.
Mind control is the ultimate weapon.
Thanks for the ping.
This of course, was the main reason that Bush I was forced onto the Reagan-Bush ticket. And the reason for all successive presidents.
Either they’re one of them or a Puppet Spammer.
Hillary Romney is one of them, and the Coffee Server is a Puppet Spammer.
Look a step farther and see who are the main equity holders of those same banks. And see why Extortion-Care was rammed down full panic.
Kinda reminds me, though, of the times when threads are pulled on various conservative sites. . . . except for the internet.
Every publication is edited for a target audience. When you post on FR, it is Jim Robinson who is exercising his freedom of the press, and he and his moderators do the editing by pulling comments or whole threads as they deem appropriate to their target audience.Its not necessary for you to submit to that censorship, of course - you can just make your own web site. And try to draw an audience to it . . .
Oh, I’m well aware of that nifty little argument, but exactly the same thing can apply to the entire media, old and new. It’s hypocrisy to point out the mote in the other fellow’s eye etc, but please do carry on!
Every publication is edited for a target audience. When you post on FR, it is Jim Robinson who is exercising his freedom of the press, and he and his moderators do the editing by pulling comments or whole threads as they deem appropriate to their target audience. Its not necessary for you to submit to that censorship, of course - you can just make your own web site. And try to draw an audience to it . . .
exactly the same thing can apply to the entire media, old and new.
. . . with the very minor difference that in the case of the old media - that is, pseudo objective journalism, in whatever medium - there is a monopoly (the AP) involved. Actually, in the case of broadcast journalism, there is the matter of outright government licensing of the press involved as well.It is true that there is some competition in the delivery of news to journalism outlets by other wire services, but the critical point is that in principle wire services homogenize journalism, no matter how many wire services there may be.
Before the advent of the telegraph and the AP, newspapers were mostly weeklies, and got their news largely the same way the general public did - from other newspapers, and by word of mouth. Consequently newspapers were very much about their individual printers viewpoints - in the mold of the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Newspapers were notoriously partisan, and didnt agree on much of anything.
Then came the telegraph, and the Associated Press. If you wanted to operate a telegraph, you needed two things:
Once you had your financing, the next thing you did was to offer free command, control, and communication services to a railroad - and the railroad would give you rights to string your cable next to the track. But how do you get the money? The AP will give you a lucrative contract to send AP news over your line. That contract gives you your baseline of funding which enables you to get up and running. If you can sell private messaging too, you will even make money. But as far as competitive news services, forget it - you have contracted to send AP news exclusively.
- money, and
- a right of way to string your line.
Thats the way the AP monopolized wire service. On the other end, the AP was the only game in town if you wanted to have a major newspaper. You paid the big bucks, and in exchange you had a cornucopia of news stories gushing out of the wire. People would consider themselves ignorant if they had not seen your newspaper today. But, what were those reports? Who even wrote them? The editor of your newspaper doesnt even know these guys, let alone employ them. How can your readers trust that stuff?Ah, my friend, that is the easy part. You have to tell your readers that all reporters are objective. And if anyone questions you, you just say that the AP is a group of newspapers, and everyone knows that newspapers dont agree about anything. So the AP is objective - and if anyone tells you different, why, they themselves are not journalists, not objective.Of course everyone who thinks about it knows that the only way to even try to be objective is to be open and honest about all the reasons you can think of that you might not be objective. And that when you are saying you actually are objective you are avoiding that first step in actually trying to be objective. If you know yourself to be objective, you cannot give both sides of the story without patronizing the side with which you do not agree. After all, you are objective, and they are not, right?Whatever barriers you perceive to entry into the field of web opinionating pale into insignificance compared with the barriers to entry into print journalism - say nothing of the barriers to entry into broadcasting. Hey, we all think our own opinions are important. But a mans gotta know his limitations.
But thats OK - hey, you are a grownup; you know the score. You know the people are like sheep, theyll believe anything you tell them. Just sign here, and you are part of the objective crowd. If you stay out of it - hey, everyone will know that you arent objective. Well see to that. And remember, stick with the program - Im objective, you are objective, everyone on the inside is objective - and nobody who thinks any different is anybody at all. You go along and get along - or else you are out of business. Just sign here - and dont forget to pay your dues.
New Orleans City Council passes resolution urging the Times-Picayune to remain a daily