Let's start giving media manipulation the attention it deserves
By Sharyl Attkisson, opinion contributor — 10/31/17 06:00 AM EDT
Whether it’s a Friday leak to the press (meant to overtake a damaging narrative on Sunday news programs) or a Friday “document dump” of damaging material (meant to be overlooked by reporters ready to start their weekend), such news events rarely happen as a result of a reporter’s intrepid independent digging.
They’re orchestrated, leaked, planted and timed.
And too often, we in the media serve as willing repositories for propaganda, talking points and spin du jour, whether generated by Democrats, Republicans or corporate interests. Deals are cut in secret. Backs are scratched. One hand washes another.
The transactional nature of relationships between newsmakers and the media can make it easy for special interests to advance a narrative or accomplish a smear. Sometimes, it’s as if the newsmakers have state-run media or free advertising at their disposal, masquerading as news.
In October 2011, the Department of Justice was roiling in controversy over the multi-layered cover up of Operation Fast and Furious, where federal agents secretly allowed the trafficking of thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
“Where are our surrogates,” then-Attorney General Eric Holder asks his top press aide Tracy Schmaler in an email.
“Gave our stuff to some of the regular dem pundit and bloggers on cables,” replies Schmaler. “Lanny D – was on o’reilly this week and pushed back. Talked w/him at length last night and gave him our stuff…Reaching out to some others.”
In another email, adviser Matthew Miller recommended , to Holder: “Find a way for you to get in front of a reporter or two about this…you could find a way to ‘run into’ a couple of reporters on your way to something. Maybe Pete Williams, Carrie, Pete Yost – that part can be managed. Most important is that you’re in front of a camera in a relaxed manner giving a response you have rehearsed.”
Other emails from the 2016 campaign show Hillary Clinton officials confident that they can plant stories and dictate terms of news coverage with multiple national news outlets.
Fortunately, not everyone in the press plays along all the time.
An email on May 2, 2015 showed Hillary’s camp was furious that NBC supposedly violated an agreement dictating how a story was to be written in exchange for an interview with former President Clinton.
“Going in, NBC agreed to do 70 percent of the piece on work of the [Clinton] Foundation and 30 percent about the book,” the Clinton campaign’s Jennifer Palmieri wrote to staff.
“Cynthia McFadden was the interviewer and didn’t ask one question about work of the Foundation. Not one,” Palmieri complained. “Absurdly, NBC is still promising Craig that they will stick by 70-30 agreement by using footage of the events and Cynthia describing the work of the Foundation.”
Palmieri added, “Not sure it will help, but I called Chuck Todd (as head of [NBC] political unit) to let him know how outrageous and ludicrous this was and that our side of the house is watching to see how NBC handles this…I think we have to make this public.”
How pervasive is all of this? Surely Republicans seek to be as successful as Democrats. But one of the best in the business is the pro-Hillary super PAC Correct The Record, one of the myriad of partisan groups started by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock of Media Matters.
In internal memos revealed by WikiLeaks in October 2016, Correct The Record boasted it conducted “over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and sent “80 sets of talking points, background materials and briefings on topical issues” to defend Clinton to “372 surrogates including influential and frequent pundits on broadcast and cable news.” It also sent “media advisories” and “talking points” to “960 members of the national media and 10,756 regional reporters in 28 states,” and to “369 televisions producers and bookers.”
In the end, I don’t blame the PR flacks, the spinners or the politicians for trying to work us. It’s our fault in the media for being so eminently susceptible to manipulation.
Knowing all this, I view news differently than I used to. I don’t assume it’s false, but I also don’t assume it’s true. Even if true, I don’t assume it’s the whole story or that it’s presented in context until I can find out more. More frequently, I ask myself:
Who wanted this story placed at this time?
Who wants me to believe this, and why?
Answers to those questions can generate entirely different stories. Those stories aren’t being pushed by influential people, companies or political interests. Instead, they are stories that the powerful are trying to censor, “controversialize” or mute. These stories, I would argue, may be more important and insightful. And they’re not told often enough.
Sharyl Attkisson ( @SharylAttkisson ) is an Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist, author of the New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “ Full Measure .”
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
This video may take some time to process. It's the same as the one above.
After watching that, I realized I should never have sold my Encyclopedia Britannica with annual updates. I once corrected something on Wikipedia that I knew was wrong from personal experience. I guess you cannot really rely on Wikipedia - you just take your chances.
Same with my children's teachers.
I know what you mean Buzz. I have a friend who didn't throw away his old encyclopedias nor his old dictionary. If he wants to know the truth he refers back to them. Some things change. Even the perspectives of things change, but some things never change and history is one of them, although the perspective of that history may.
I see below where John makes a stab at Sharyl Attkisson right away. She was once the love of the MSM until she broke away and started exposing the lies and deceitfulness of the news we receive from them and no different than the black who becomes aware he has been deceived by the Liberals and the Democrat Leadership, he becomes the enemy.
Rules 5 and 12 from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Wilipedia is still the handiest tool I have to use for research. It depends a lot on the specific issue in order to rely on it. For exaple, recently I posted an article on the great portrait photographe Yousef Karsh. The information about him and his work was not much different from his official site. However, I know that if I were to search the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I will expect it to have been edited by pro-Palestinian propagandists. I think "official sites" where they exist should be more accurate. For instance, the Wikipedia description that I had edited was relatively accurate to my personal knowldedge of events, but it had made an error that I lived through myself so I knew I was making it correct.
Even the site that had the best articles on classic movies made an error as to what a certain individual did in a movie. The site indicated that in the movie "The Life of Emile Zola" Pual Cezanne gave the eulogy at Zola's Funeral, but even the movie itself let alone Zola's history showed that it was Anatole France who did it, so I wrote to the site owner with the correction and he wrote back saying I was correct and thanked me, and of course edited his article. I guess it's hard to rely on anything.
There is (and has always been) a laziness in the press corps. They are much happier taking stuff someone else has 'researched' than doing the legwork to verify the truthfulness of a story. Once upon a time, reporters refused to be co-opted by one side or the other on any subject. Sadly, we're not seeing much of that anymore as corporate and party interests are dictating their agenda as news.
I'm not sure Spike if we were told the truth back then or we were more gullible and the truth was not as accessible as it is today. We only had two or three sources to tell us the stories and they didn't have anyone to challenge its validity. Today the truth seems to be a distant memory, but actually the truth is in your face if you use your common sense.
There is a reason the MSM is becoming less and less trusted by anyone with two brains cells. The internet has and will in the future become more and more it's competition.
The Internet spreads lies and also exposes the truth. You have to decide which one you want to believe and that takes an effort from you many today are unwilling to undertake
Yep, the internet is so trustworthy.
Seemed like a topic I could get into but as soon as I started reading it the message was clear. Of course it's not "real" news unless it's bashing the left or more specifically the former President and let's not leave out Hilary Clinton!
Great potential for a common ground issue but you fucked it up by making it political.
Let me guess. You didn't like for this point to be exposed.
You can still present your case PJ. This is war. This is the war or the media being unbiased or manipulated one way or the other to promote one side or the other. We are talking media and politics here and pertinent facts are very important as to allowing the citizens to either get unbiased news or news that has been manipulated. Does the MSM tell the truth or do they get their talking points from one side or the other and the truth become the last thing we are expected to receive from them?
And you could have provided a balanced set of examples to ENCOURAGE bipartisan discussion. You'd get more consensus if you didn't put people on the defense from the very beginning.
Your approach is pretty much the norm on this site these days. What's the point in trying to have open discussions when the discussion has been framed in a way that people are forced to choose a side?
Her book Stonewalled was a good read.
Sharyl Attkisson is a crackpot.
Yeah, she's just an Emmy award winning investigative journalist with two NYT best selling books to her name.
WTF does she know right?
Mindless "conservatives" buy whatever books get talked up on their radio and tv shows. This phenomenon has been in place for years.
Lol, whatever helps you sleep at night John.
I'm all for that, sleep is important to your good health.
That's your opinion and your opinion means nothing to me.
Everyone who isn't on the same page as you is a crackpot, so what's new?
Seems like those credible sources we've heard so much about over the years has been thrown out the window.
Vanity Fair
*Voting Polls do not affect MBFC bias ratings
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
You know what they say about assholes, uh, I mean opinions.
you and those damn arrows!
I can't say anything about her book as I haven't read it.