'Purely Informational' Propaganda
 

[quote="The Register-Guard":e66a3] Americans should be upset to learn that in its first term the Bush administration spent $254 million on news releases that were made to look like television news reports.

The fact that stations across the country broadcast the propaganda pieces without identifying the government as their source, however, should leave people sputtering with anger.

The Bush administration is being manipulative - nothing new about that. The Clinton administration did the same thing, though on a smaller scale. Politicians are always looking for ways to improve their images, and the line between public information and promotion is blurry. The use of broadcast news formats for government press releases is deceitful - but the deceit can work only if the government has a partner. [/quote:e66a3]
[url="http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/03/19/ed.edit.fauxnews.0319.html"]http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/ ... .0319.html[/url]

[quote="The New York Times":e66a3]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 different 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 acknowledgment of the government's role in their production. [/quote:e66a3]
[url="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/13/MNGFEBOM6D1.DTL"]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... BOM6D1.DTL[/url]

[quote="The Village Voice":e66a3]Some of the "news reports" you've seen on your local TV station may have been produced at taxpayer expense with PR specialists posing as reporters but broadcast to you as if they were objective stories composed by independent journalists.

But that's OK, according to the White House.

Before the Bush information machine was rocked by revelations that Armstrong Williams was on the Education Department payroll and White House "reporter" Jeff Gannon was backed by GOP funders, a battle was already brewing over "video news releases," which government and companies use to spread the word about the good works they do. [/quote:e66a3]
[url="http://villagevoice.com/blogs/pressclipsextra/archives/2005/03/propaganda_what.php"]http://villagevoice.com/blogs/pressclip ... a_what.php[/url]

this is just getting fucking rediculous.

What’s even more ridicules is that the entertainment news media in the US doesn't give a shit about this story and neither do the American people. Michel Jackson jerking off pre-pubescent cancer victims is more important then the American standards in democracy.

No foreign body will lead to the downfall of the America, ignorance toward real issues that affect us all and the lack a dissent will.

Have you guys actually seen these spots?

I saw one during the run-up to the election while I was in Virginia.

If you couldn't tell that the spots were not real newscasts, you're a flaming retard and don't deserve to breathe anyway.

They were obviously faked, usually airing right in the middle of a commercial block for a sitcom, etc.

Not a big deal, really. calmdown:

It doesn't matter if you personally could tell, or if everyone who viewed them could tell. Thats not the point.

The point is that the Government is trying to pass them off as actual news that you would find from an investigative reporter.

Can you not see the insanity of this idea? The government shouldn't have the ability to infiltrate and produce its own programs within media without announcing it. The media is how the people are supposed to get an objective look at things. If the media were controlled by the government, they could say whatever they want. It would be like living in pre war Iraq or North Korea. This is propaganda, plain and simple.

If at the end of the segment they had a disclaimer that said "this news program was paid for and produced by the US government" then there'd be no controversy.

Obviously the news the government is putting out would be biased toward the government. Why would the government put somehting out there that hurt them? They wouldn't. And that's ther problem.

It is a big deal. It's a huge deal.

In addition, these are not run during commercials, this is in the middle of actual news casts.

[quote:ee826] TV stations across the country, including some in the nation's largest markets, aired these reports without telling viewers who had supplied them. Indeed, viewers were led to believe that the government-paid public relations professionals delivering the pre-packaged reports were members of local news teams.

The reports would often come with lead-ins written for local anchors, and in some cases were customized with "back to you, Jim"-style endings. [/quote:ee826]

Good quote:
[quote:ee826] Government attempts to shape public opinion deserve to be reported by the news media, as part of their coverage of public affairs. Viewers shouldn't have to wonder whether what they're watching is, in fact, the government covering itself.[/quote:ee826]

Ah, now that is something different from what I saw.

I think that is something that I would need to see to get a better understanding. If it's true, that's a bit shady.

get ready for the Civil War

[quote:64ee9]His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after they were deemed a form of covert propaganda by the Government Accountability Office watchdog agency.

GAO, an arm of Congress, said this ran counter to appropriation laws and was a misuse of federal funds. [/quote:64ee9]

[url=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=792374 4:64ee9]Bush Defends Packaged News Stories from Government[/url:64ee9]

I'm getting a bit confused on this.

If they're based on fact anyway, what is the problem? I guess I really need to watch some of these. It just doesn't strike me as being a huge deal at all.

Because the government says their based on facts, doesn't make it so.

The fact is, no matter if the govt is telling the truth or not, their still trying to pull a fast one over its citizens.

[quote:a1c83]he "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public-relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration.[/quote:a1c83]

[quote:a1c83]In all, at least 20 different 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 acknowledgment of the government's role in their production.[/quote:a1c83]

If it doesn't strike you as a huge deal, no problem. I see this as the root of a more serious problem. Jeff Gannon anyone?

That's why I want to find one of these and watch it.

why are you-from Canada-brining this up. You are just instigating things.

If you want to contribute, try researching something and then making an argument. If you can't do that, stay out of the thread.