6 ms·

I don't know a good way to prove that US media is not a government mouthpiece, but I don't think there is much evidence to support such a strong claim, whereas

I don't know a good way to prove that US media is not a government mouthpiece, but I don't think there is much evidence to support such a strong claim, whereas it is pretty easy to argue that RT is a government mouthpiece. EG: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12/the-truth-about-russia-today-is-that-it-is-putins-mouthpiece/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12/the-truth-about-russia-to...

Someone1234 11y ago
Just to be clear I never said RT wasn't a government mouthpiece. I said that some US news is "as bad as" them. I have no idea how exactly it works with CBS/NBC/60 minutes. Does the US government literally write the words? Do they just dictate what they should report on? Do they send them pre-produced bottled reports? It is unclear, but what is clear is the ultimate result: pure dripping pro-US government propaganda of the worst kind.
- learc83 11y ago
  I don't think we are watching the same news at all. CBS and NBC regularly have reports that the government would stop if they could. >I said that some US news is "as bad as" them. I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power?
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? Yes. Additionally I didn't say Obama was running anything, I was more thinking the DoD. They likely fund, produce, or have produced specific bottled segments. Which isn't to say they have direct editorial control, just that propaganda is a common sight on US TVs. Plus I can back up what I am saying, here's a program from 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog... So from 2002 to 2008 I can prove that this occurred. But since then it has definitely continued, I'm sure they renamed it, and retooled it, and involved more private entities to act as legal buffs, but it definitely still goes on to this day. > How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power? I don't understand the question.
    - electricblue 11y ago
      The US isn't run by an autocracy so there are competing interests in the government. It doesn't make sense to claim they are being controlled by the government, because they wouldn't agree with each other on what should be said. That said, there's definitely an implicit bias that America is right and North Korea/Iran/Russia etc are wrong but that's a nationwide problem, hardly evidence of some mass conspiracy.
      - rdancer 11y ago
        You're replying to a comment that links to an article on the domestic PsyOps program run by the DoD, officially, since shortly after 9/11. The issue is not that people are patriotic. It is not even that political dissent is not tolerated in mainstream media. It is that propaganda pieces, manufactured with the expressed purpose to manipulate the electorate, are broadcast. It's not like there is a party line on everything. You are allowed to have differing opinions on benign issues, such as cooking, celebrities, or football.
  - abalone 11y ago
    There is a saying.. We in the USA have one party, the Business Party, with two right wings. The Democrat-Republican spectrum spans the spectrum of opinion that is fundable by the business community. There is plenty of vigorous debate within that spectrum. But money wins elections and funds advertising-dependent media, so that's how non business friendly perspectives get filtered out. It's not a conspiracy, it's more "unnatural selection" by money in the media and political systems. The working class press of a century ago had a much broader spectrum of opinion, for example. But it didn't rely on advertising.
    - stvswn 11y ago
      If money wins elections, can you explain why Jeb Bush isn't polling first in the Republican primary process right now? Can you also explain why Bernie Sanders is within single digits of Clinton nationally, and beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire? You'd expect that the candidates who spend the most (and represent the monied establishment) would do the best, right? Is it possible that there are other forces at play (for instance, popular opinion?)
      - abalone 11y ago
        Those are not election wins. We are not even close to the peak of the election cycle where the real money gets spent. There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role.
        learc83 11y ago
        >There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role. I don't think money is close to playing the key role. If that were true it would only take a few billion to buy a presidential election. Money is definitely necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      Removed old comment, replaced it with this one: Here, read this: http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-political-parties.html http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-politica...
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT?" Here you go: http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs
    - learc83 11y ago
      And immediately after she said that RT executives issued statements saying that she was "misled by the American media" and that “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea." RT then used this one piece of dissent against the normal pro Russia coverage of Crimea to parade around as example of their openness. You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network." Fair point, but I wouldn't say the US networks were much better... http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Does the US government literally write the words? Do they just dictate what they should report on? Do they send them pre-produced bottled reports? It is unclear, but what is clear is the ultimate result: pure dripping pro-US government propaganda of the worst kind. They often attack and upset the government, including leaking government secrets and sometimes getting prosecuted for it. I don't think it's at all comparable. Is Fox a mouthpiece for Obama? Was MSNBC a mouthpiece for Bush? The NY Times, to its credit, is criticized by all sides a being on the 'other' side.
  - tedks 11y ago
    When was the last time NBC, CNN, Fox, or CBS leaked government secrets?
huac 11y ago
There's pretty good evidence that lots of American media outlets are government mouthpieces - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent for example
- stvswn 11y ago
  That book argues that mass media are biased because they are beholden to for-profit corporations, advertisers, and large-entity sourcing. I didn't read it, that's just in the outline that's in the link you provided. I think Noam would prefer if they were government mouthpieces instead of corporate mouthpieces, as he's socialist. Regardless, I don't think "Noam Chomsky wrote a book" is an argument with evidence. It's rather an appeal to authority. But if it were, the book should actually be about the argument you're making.
  - huac 11y ago
    The book is about the argument. One example from the book is the 1984 Nicaraguan general election (Wikipedia notes this), where US media sources took the White House press secretary's words as gospel, ignoring the atrocities on the ground. Also, thinking that socialists are willing to blindly trust government sources is pretty wrong as well. Far left and far right both share a distrust of the state.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    US mass media exhibit both government bias and corporate bias. And it can be hard to distinguish them, because US government is also subject to strong corporate bias. That was very much so during the Regan and Bush years. The Democrats are more subtle, and reflect a power base that's far more covert.
  - br_smartass 11y ago
    Suggestion: try reading on stuff you want to critique before commenting about them instead spouting malformed ideas that you patched up from internet comments, Facebook posts and other distortion prone medium. People who do read up on stuff can clearly see you don't know what you're talking about.
abalone 11y ago
Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman have done excellent comparative research demonstrating exactly that in great detail. For example by comparing coverage of events by the U.S. and its allies to similar events by enemies, finding consistent and strong bias in the mainstream media. They also develop a theory, more of an explanation, that this is essentially because mainstream media is funded through advertising which then naturally biases it towards the interests of the business elite. That is how we get thought control in a democratic society. See Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions for numerous cases. Wonderful books. See also Alex Carey's work on corporate propaganda, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy.
United857 11y ago
Not directly -- but the networks depend on the government to give them all-important access to events (press conferences, interviews, etc). Report something the government doesn't like? Next time, you'll be the one that's shut out from the next White House press briefing.
gozur88 11y ago
The news media in the US isn't a "government mouthpiece", but there is definitely East Coast government-media-academia axis which considers itself "elite" and has common goals. To have the wrong opinions is bad for your career.

Someone1234 11y ago

Just to be clear I never said RT wasn't a government mouthpiece. I said that some US news is "as bad as" them. I have no idea how exactly it works with CBS/NBC/60 minutes. Does the US government literally write the words? Do they just dictate what they should report on? Do they send them pre-produced bottled reports? It is unclear, but what is clear is the ultimate result: pure dripping pro-US government propaganda of the worst kind.

learc83 11y ago
I don't think we are watching the same news at all. CBS and NBC regularly have reports that the government would stop if they could. >I said that some US news is "as bad as" them. I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power?
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? Yes. Additionally I didn't say Obama was running anything, I was more thinking the DoD. They likely fund, produce, or have produced specific bottled segments. Which isn't to say they have direct editorial control, just that propaganda is a common sight on US TVs. Plus I can back up what I am saying, here's a program from 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog... So from 2002 to 2008 I can prove that this occurred. But since then it has definitely continued, I'm sure they renamed it, and retooled it, and involved more private entities to act as legal buffs, but it definitely still goes on to this day. > How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power? I don't understand the question.
  - electricblue 11y ago
    The US isn't run by an autocracy so there are competing interests in the government. It doesn't make sense to claim they are being controlled by the government, because they wouldn't agree with each other on what should be said. That said, there's definitely an implicit bias that America is right and North Korea/Iran/Russia etc are wrong but that's a nationwide problem, hardly evidence of some mass conspiracy.
    - rdancer 11y ago
      You're replying to a comment that links to an article on the domestic PsyOps program run by the DoD, officially, since shortly after 9/11. The issue is not that people are patriotic. It is not even that political dissent is not tolerated in mainstream media. It is that propaganda pieces, manufactured with the expressed purpose to manipulate the electorate, are broadcast. It's not like there is a party line on everything. You are allowed to have differing opinions on benign issues, such as cooking, celebrities, or football.
- abalone 11y ago
  There is a saying.. We in the USA have one party, the Business Party, with two right wings. The Democrat-Republican spectrum spans the spectrum of opinion that is fundable by the business community. There is plenty of vigorous debate within that spectrum. But money wins elections and funds advertising-dependent media, so that's how non business friendly perspectives get filtered out. It's not a conspiracy, it's more "unnatural selection" by money in the media and political systems. The working class press of a century ago had a much broader spectrum of opinion, for example. But it didn't rely on advertising.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    If money wins elections, can you explain why Jeb Bush isn't polling first in the Republican primary process right now? Can you also explain why Bernie Sanders is within single digits of Clinton nationally, and beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire? You'd expect that the candidates who spend the most (and represent the monied establishment) would do the best, right? Is it possible that there are other forces at play (for instance, popular opinion?)
    - abalone 11y ago
      Those are not election wins. We are not even close to the peak of the election cycle where the real money gets spent. There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role.
      - learc83 11y ago
        >There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role. I don't think money is close to playing the key role. If that were true it would only take a few billion to buy a presidential election. Money is definitely necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Removed old comment, replaced it with this one: Here, read this: http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-political-parties.html http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-politica...
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT?" Here you go: http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs
  - learc83 11y ago
    And immediately after she said that RT executives issued statements saying that she was "misled by the American media" and that “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea." RT then used this one piece of dissent against the normal pro Russia coverage of Crimea to parade around as example of their openness. You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network." Fair point, but I wouldn't say the US networks were much better... http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
hackuser 11y ago
> Does the US government literally write the words? Do they just dictate what they should report on? Do they send them pre-produced bottled reports? It is unclear, but what is clear is the ultimate result: pure dripping pro-US government propaganda of the worst kind. They often attack and upset the government, including leaking government secrets and sometimes getting prosecuted for it. I don't think it's at all comparable. Is Fox a mouthpiece for Obama? Was MSNBC a mouthpiece for Bush? The NY Times, to its credit, is criticized by all sides a being on the 'other' side.
- tedks 11y ago
  When was the last time NBC, CNN, Fox, or CBS leaked government secrets?

huac 11y ago

There's pretty good evidence that lots of American media outlets are government mouthpieces - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent for example

stvswn 11y ago
That book argues that mass media are biased because they are beholden to for-profit corporations, advertisers, and large-entity sourcing. I didn't read it, that's just in the outline that's in the link you provided. I think Noam would prefer if they were government mouthpieces instead of corporate mouthpieces, as he's socialist. Regardless, I don't think "Noam Chomsky wrote a book" is an argument with evidence. It's rather an appeal to authority. But if it were, the book should actually be about the argument you're making.
- huac 11y ago
  The book is about the argument. One example from the book is the 1984 Nicaraguan general election (Wikipedia notes this), where US media sources took the White House press secretary's words as gospel, ignoring the atrocities on the ground. Also, thinking that socialists are willing to blindly trust government sources is pretty wrong as well. Far left and far right both share a distrust of the state.
- mirimir 11y ago
  US mass media exhibit both government bias and corporate bias. And it can be hard to distinguish them, because US government is also subject to strong corporate bias. That was very much so during the Regan and Bush years. The Democrats are more subtle, and reflect a power base that's far more covert.
- br_smartass 11y ago
  Suggestion: try reading on stuff you want to critique before commenting about them instead spouting malformed ideas that you patched up from internet comments, Facebook posts and other distortion prone medium. People who do read up on stuff can clearly see you don't know what you're talking about.

abalone 11y ago

Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman have done excellent comparative research demonstrating exactly that in great detail. For example by comparing coverage of events by the U.S. and its allies to similar events by enemies, finding consistent and strong bias in the mainstream media. They also develop a theory, more of an explanation, that this is essentially because mainstream media is funded through advertising which then naturally biases it towards the interests of the business elite. That is how we get thought control in a democratic society. See Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions for numerous cases. Wonderful books. See also Alex Carey's work on corporate propaganda, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy.

United857 11y ago

Not directly -- but the networks depend on the government to give them all-important access to events (press conferences, interviews, etc). Report something the government doesn't like? Next time, you'll be the one that's shut out from the next White House press briefing.

gozur88 11y ago

The news media in the US isn't a "government mouthpiece", but there is definitely East Coast government-media-academia axis which considers itself "elite" and has common goals. To have the wrong opinions is bad for your career.