Some media quotes

[Geggy]

Thought I'd throw in some media quotes...

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -William Colby, Former Director, CIA

"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 subjected 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."
- David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

"There is no such thing as an independent press in America, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune.

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
- Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."
- Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news.

"We in the press like to say we're honest brokers of information and it's just not true. The press does have an agenda."
- Bernard Goldberg, as quoted by Harry Stein in the June 13-19, 1992 TV Guide.

“In war, the truth must be guarded by a bodyguard of lies.”
- Winston Churchill

[Grislygus]

Interesting, this jackass uses a lot of the same quotes.


You know, I'd like to see whatever article that John Swinton quote came out of. I've never heard of the guy, so I'd like to see it in context before I condemn him as a bloody whore, who you should be ashamed of quoting.

Wait a tic, look at this.

Despite the misattribution, the quote raises the issue of whether there is not continuing truth in Swinton's remarks, and whether some candid journalist might not be able to fairly say similar things today. Anyone who has associated closely with journalists can hardly avoid finding a ring of truth in such words, and the best evidence lies in the actual product of journalists and how well, or how poorly, it both agrees with and covers what actually happens, especially involving such things as corruption and abuse of power.

Thought so. Not exactly as black and white as all that, is it?

[El Blanco]

Geggy, what is your point and where is that appology?

Are you capable of any independant thought at all?

[Grislygus]

The point is that the media and all journalists are whores, a point with which I take great offense, and the CIA and/or government is in cahoots.

The Churchill quote is just tacked on, though.

[El Blanco]

I was hoping geggy could actually give his own thoughts instead of crap cut-n-pasted from someone else. But then again, he is a lying, plagerising, self important bitch that likes to accuse people of supporting Nazis, use white supremeacy propoganda to back his points and piss on the graves of victims of terrorist attacks.

I guess I'm holding him to too high a standard.

[kahljorn]

Although I generally find it irrelevant to quote materials up to 300 years in referance to current events, I have to agree with geggy a bit here. Whether I agree that newspapers actually make bold faced lies because of the government is another issue.

Anyway, it's not as if there hasn't been a history of governmental (sometimes even religous) interferance in literature, journalism and science-- even up until recently. Perhaps accepting that there is a governmental agenda behind the papers you read would be rather difficult, but it's not really all that improbable. Personally, in modern times, I'd be more likely to condemn the entertainment industry than the government for newspaper inaccuracies.
Still, how often do stories we would find important get burried in a mass of shit beneath pictures of celebraties or why gay people should be banned from public? Why did every other place in the world have that TIME thing on Bush, whereas we had it on celebrity pictures? Again, whether this is entertainment or political pressure is hard to detect-- perhaps it's both.

[Grislygus]

Well yes, it's easy to see how journalists can abuse their position. It happens (just look at that bastard from the New York Times), and it usually pays off for the perpetrators (he got a frigging book deal).

However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code. While there are irresponsible individuals, that's NOT the de facto mentality, and journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs.

Of course, I doubt Geggy has ever interned at a newspaper, and I don't think he's even taken a serious journalism class, so I can understand why it's easy for people like him to look at the minority and use it to judge the entire profession. However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant.

[El Blanco]

I have to agree with geggy a bit here.

Agree with what? He hasn't said a goddamned thing. You, I and any reasonable person here can see these quotes as all refering to the ways and reasons the media presents information to the public. However, geggy has been caught many times posting articles and links that have nothing to do with what he is saying.

[kahljorn]

"However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code."

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened?
They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

"journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs"

I agree, they aren't all doing that, but I feel that the ones writing for the more prestigous magazines usually do-- possibly by necessity. You know, public opinion, contributor opinion etc.
Also, a point I'd like to bring up here about why geggy's an idiot: there's more than one "Government"! I mean, some people(journalists) will blow democrats and make a huge deal out of how NINE ELEVEN IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE CONSPIRACY THEORY CAUSED BY THE DEVIL GOVERNMENT (and geggy'll quote them) and others will blow republicans about how gays are gay and the war in Iraq is going beautifully. Again, though: Journalistic Ethic? Please.
A year or three later all of that will be opposite(except maybe the gay thing).

"However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant"

What about the quotes he posted? Weren't some of those people journalists? They weren't making assumptions, so is their opinion, which was gathered by experience, valid and worth considering?

Whether the government seriously completely controls the news paper is one thing, but it's ignorant to imagine a government or political body that doesn't use the media for their own benefit and for the management of the populus.

el blanco: i don't know. I don't know geggy's point really but i know it's something about how the government is evil. But I italized the "A bit" part because I figured somebody would respond to me asking about it and I didn't want to have to answer.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by Geggy

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune.

Originally Posted by Geggy

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.

I, for one, would think that the business of selling one's country and race on a daily basis would net a little more than $7,800 a year.

[Miss Modular]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

I, for one, would think that the business of selling one's country and race on a daily basis would net a little more than $7,800 a year.

Yeah, especially since $7,800 is probably what you pay for rent a month in NYC.

[Grislygus]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code."

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened?
They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to. It hurts, but there's no way I can really debate it, because it relies on what people want to believe.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs"

I agree, they aren't all doing that, but I feel that the ones writing for the more prestigous magazines usually do-- possibly by necessity. You know, public opinion, contributor opinion etc.
Also, a point I'd like to bring up here about why geggy's an idiot: there's more than one "Government"! I mean, some people(journalists) will blow democrats and make a huge deal out of how NINE ELEVEN IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE CONSPIRACY THEORY CAUSED BY THE DEVIL GOVERNMENT (and geggy'll quote them) and others will blow republicans about how gays are gay and the war in Iraq is going beautifully. Again, though: Journalistic Ethic? Please.
A year or three later all of that will be opposite(except maybe the gay thing).

You know, journalism covers a wide variety of subjects outside of politics. And there's a clear difference between reporting and editorializing. A journalist's job is to be as impartial as possible. You can't be TRULY impartial, you just do the best you can. That is why there are clear rules of conduct, and they are followed. Please don't scoff at them.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant"

What about the quotes he posted? Weren't some of those people journalists? They weren't making assumptions, so is their opinion, which was gathered by experience, valid and worth considering?

John Swinton was the only actual journalist listed. He lived in the 1800s. The CBS quotes were from the McCarthy era.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Whether the government seriously completely controls the news paper is one thing, but it's ignorant to imagine a government or political body that doesn't use the media for their own benefit and for the management of the populus.

That is a highly heated topic, and I'm not qualified to argue it. however, I would like to clear something up.

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.

No one who actually knows anything about journalistic responsibilites will completely disagree with this.

HOWEVER, pretty much every journalist will forcefully disagree with the extent to which it's applied. Unfortunately, people like Geggy take quotes like this and portray it as ironclad government control over the media.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Why did every other place in the world have that TIME thing on Bush, whereas we had it on celebrity pictures? Again, whether this is entertainment or political pressure is hard to detect-- perhaps it's both.

It was on Afganstan not Bush and I think ti has more to do with what interests Americans and wills ell a magazine than HIDING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Preechr]

Back in the earlier part of the last century, your average metropolitan area would generally be served by 15-20 or more newspapers, each one with it's own slant on the news of the day. It was much more like the internet is now, only on paper, and gay. The problem is not that the media is biased... there's no way to assure that we could EVER have a media that's not biased in some way or another... The problem is that the people of today are morbidly retarded.

If your mind is an empty well, anything anyone wants to drop in it has exaggerated value. We think by comparing new information to knowledge we already possess. Let's use Geggy as an example: He woke up intellectually one day to read an allcaps blurb on how 9/11 was an inside job manufactured by the Bush Crime Family. He had no personal knowledge with which to compare that shocking new information, and he liked the sound of it, so he categorized it as fact.

Deep down inside, he knows the websites he is reading are a bunch of crap drizzled out by lifeless blobs of parasitic goo with fantastic imaginations and no real connection to how the world really works because they've spent most of their adult lives so far in grandma's basement chewing hotpockets and pecking away at their keyboards in search of the e-female of their dreams they know is out there somewhere frantically searching for their love... but the truth probably hits a bit too close to home and the fantasy is just so much more appealing...

That's basically about 50% of America. It's sad, but entirely in line with the history of other great civilizations, though the internet part is a recent addition. The luxury of a truly free and economically vibrant society (which go hand and hand) has a pretty bad effect on it's citizens over time. When we are free, we are, unfortunately, free to live as self-destructively and nihilistically as we wish.

Journalists are, of course, just as fucked up as the rest of their society, but they are not the problem. We are.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

The point is that the media and all journalists are whores, a point with which I take great offense, and the CIA and/or government is in cahoots.

The Churchill quote is just tacked on, though.

The Churchhill quote is the only interesting one.

I know mainstream media colours half truths to sell more papers and endorse the politics they want. But I don't really buy the "alternative" media as people cal it cause that's just some redneck in a shack.

Your best bet for news is to resource every source on it and gather as much you as you can on a story from differing networks.

Here is an example:

CNN: Israeli's blow up ambulance, kills civilian

BBC news: Israeli artillery blew up an ambulance in Beirut during the Lebanese war, few pix etc.

EVENTUAL full news sometimes as tiny retraction later or earlier at local news sites in the region: That ambulance was being used as a transport for Hamas armed gunman and the driver was a human shield. As usual Israel peppered the streets with "LEAVE town NOW" leaflets during protests days befor opening fire on militants when they had the least human shields, all pix and relevant things linked too.

Ironic thing? Israel's satellite station now carries Al Jazeera and NOT BBC, the reason given? Al Jazeera was less anti-semetic in their reporting so was less offensive.

Of course there is also the blatant Republican Fox News and the blatantly Democrat ABC news. But a smart person isn't told what to think by either party OR some crazy Geggy in a shack with conspiracey theories. they research all they can and think logicly. At least I assume SOMEONE does I haven't seen them on the internet yet.

Republican biased media won't tell the true danger in Iraq and the state of the war.

Democrat Biased media doesn't report a thing about 80s era WMDs and mustard gas being found and destroyed in Iraq.

Green party biased media smokes weed, forgets to go to work, instead types on internet conveluted pothead theory about 9/11 and feeds it to Geggy.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Courage the Cowardly Dog

Preechr's just some redneck in a shack.

HEY!

[Geggy]

Sorry I have a habit of listening to someone who has been in the game

I'll come back and explain what I learned from the recent protest at galladuet university in DC and the mainstream media. The media is so full of shit. The PR office at the university is partly to blame.

[Geggy]

By the way I've come to a conclusion regarding 9/11 because I have some juicy inside information.

*cough*otisairforcebase*cough*

[CreativeOnlineSurname]

You astound me.

How can someone so clueless be so condescending?

[kahljorn]

i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored:

"This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to."

What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.
Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.
is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that. I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"?
See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle.
I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance.

And yes there are OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM big surprise and yes it's easier to be impartial about sports or fires because you can't lie about the score at the end of the game. but then, sports are inconsequential and gay.

"That is a highly heated topic, and I'm not qualified to argue it. however, I would like to clear something up. "

The government chooses it's press releases and chooses what information to release. Kind of like when the police department only releases certain information about crimes. Same thing could be said for democrat/republican press releases versus the other side ;/
Politically, information is released when it's most valuable or "Needed". Since the government controls what information they release to the press, and they actually consider what effect that information has, they are ERGO using the press. It's not like the government or practically any institution gets involved with the press without considering the publicity and such.
No heated debate about it. Just fact. Whether the government uses the press to some extreme degree is a completely different matter. Never once in this thread did I state that the press is the governments mouth of propaganda and manipulation for hiding the truth. (bolded so idiots like ant can read before they run their mouths) Usually hiding the truth is done best by not talking about it :O Or behind a wall of lies I guess but walls are easily peeked over.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by Geggy

By the way I've come to a conclusion regarding 9/11 because I have some juicy inside information.

*cough*otisairforcebase*cough*

HE HAS CRACKED THE MYSTERTY.

[Abcdxxxx]

*cough*otisspunkmeyercookie*cough*

[Grislygus]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored:

"This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to."

What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.

Let's see...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots.

An offensive assumption held by many people. A partial truth, yes, but isn't that the case with most slander? (or is it libel? I can never remember which is in printed form)

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't.

An offensive assumption held by many people, and this one not even a partial truth. The only group it could possibly apply to in "journalism" would be guerrilla papparazzis.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

An offensive assumption held by many people. It's also a bullshitting tactic, by the way.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.

So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct. No reason to argue that at all, mainly because no one would take it seriously anyway.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that.

For the record, if it has ANY OPINIONS STATED WHATSOEVER, it's editorializing, not reporting.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"?

Of course it's impartial. It's also irresponsible reporting, and in violation of journalistic ethics. It's a problem which continues to be debated, and has nothing to do with my current problem with you:

1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics.

2. You refer to all journalists as idiots, and make various other sweeping accusations. Basically, you're bullshitting.

3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans, and am trying to make my meager credentials a bad thing. I'm assuming it's because you don't have any.

You know, a while back, I was spouting off opinions in some political thread, when Preechr called me on the fact that I didn't have a background in or extensive knowledge on the topic. To paraphrase, he told me that if I "wanted to argue a subject that you haven't even bothered to crack a book on, that's your decision".

Once again, a crude paraphrase, but the point is made. I then shut up, because he was correct, and it didn't really occur to me to take umbrage and make fun of him for knowing more than I did. Of course, I hadn't thought of calling his response "gay", or calling him "PREECHR CLARK CUNTFACE", either, so maybe that would have worked.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle.

You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics".

There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals, considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance.

See above.

Originally Posted by kahlhorn

And yes there are OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM big surprise and yes it's easier to be impartial about sports or fires because you can't lie about the score at the end of the game. but then, sports are inconsequential and gay.

I was only making sure that you knew about it, since apparently you don't. Let's go through hypothetical situations. They'll be limited though, apparently all other forms of journalism only cover sports and fires.

What about a riot at a ball game? That's covered by sports reporters. Lets say that a fan hit a player, and the team attacked him. This particular journalist doesn't like the team, so he completely covers the attack on the fan, but he glosses over the unruly insigator himself.

This is irresponsible journalism. A firestorm of angry sports fans will flood the paper with letters, and the editor, who really doesn't want to put up with any more shit than he has to, will verbally ream the reporter.

And what about that fire? Look at the reporting during the nightclub fire in Southern California. Someone was obviously at fault. On one hand, the band was not licensed to handle indoor pyrotechnics. On the other, the club itself was a fucking deathtrap. So whose fault was it? Everyone obviously had opinions, as the local commentary section clearly showed.

When it came to actual reporting however, the MEDIA somehow managed to report the event without villifying anyone. A fluke, I guess.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I think newspapers should publish point counterpoint like this forum does but with spammers like me not allowed in.

[Preechr]

Make the media more like I-mock?

CONGRATUMAFREAKINLATIONS!!!

You just succeeded in slapping together the one way to make the media even LESS dependable, honest and trustworthy! Sweet!