16 ms·

Welcome to the news business. Even your local TV station receives its news directly from businesses, who often send multiple versions of the script to fit diffe

Welcome to the news business. Even your local TV station receives its news directly from businesses, who often send multiple versions of the script to fit different time allotments. This is where "PR consultants" come into play - highly paid networking people who have the inside-track to, say, Walt Mossberg, and for a fee will happily send him your story and any related materials in the hope he'll decide it's worthy of publishing in his brand. Whether or not money makes its way to the news entity, and how that factors into their decision of what to publish, is an open question ... I'll simply point out there are economic incentives at play, and leave it at that. Macro vision ... Americans get news and updates from two sources: - "news" entities like the paper, magazines, television news, and their related websites - advertisements Only in the latter is it obvious that the viewing audience is being sold a product. In the former, it's absolutely still true, it's just less obvious.

ProAm 9y ago
The government has been know to do this as well, pay the big three newspapers to run stories especially regarding foreign policy, it's just business. This is why 'don't believe everything you read' is valid more than ever.
- sailfast 9y ago
  [citation needed] - the government has paid newspapers to run stories that were not advertisements? Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribed? Care to clarify?
  - ProAm 9y ago
    I tried to find the specific article that mentioned it but could only find ones that were vaguely similar [1] The gist of what I can remember is that the government (and entities like the CIA, FBI) would pay to push certain stories, sometimes submit editorials that would be printed regardless, etc... Usually to build support for foreign policy (push that the middle easy was bad, China evil, communist Russia bad), etc... mostly propaganda-ish content to slowly sway US citizens mindset. I wish I could find the article, I believe it was between 7-10 years ago... Sort of similar to this as well [2] (very hard to search for 'government pays NY Times, Post WSJ' or 'Pentagon articles in newspaper' etc.... So many results that are not related in whatever search bubble google has me in [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaga... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      What you suggested in your previous post is incorrect. You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known. Maybe you are confusing it with this change to the law in 2013: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici... The closest thing to what you suggest (and it is not that close) is probably Judith Miller's Iraq reporting for the NY Times, but that's mostly down to her incompetence.
      - ProAm 9y ago
        > You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known I disagree, or maybe Im just poor at searching but terms like "NY Times, government, paying, publish, stories, CIA" I get so much non-relevant search returns its impossible to separate the whet from the chafe. It was also many years ago, so Im sure search bubbles these days will tend to return stories that are newer as a default. The story I am remembering is definitely different from the one you recommended. I wish I could find it, it was a fascinating read at the time.
    - barrkel 9y ago
      Foreign Policy is more a matter of experts funded by agencies and think tanks (more political again) trying to shift the debate in the community. Not sure it's of major relevance right now, when Trump does stuff that is not the common wisdom of the FP crowd, but normal behaviour should resume sooner or later.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Basically by being extremely cozy with reporters. Reporters who report on government happenings build contacts with people in government for leads. of course there is a quid pro quo in that the person helping them has their own motives, either on an individual (e.g. political) or government level. If your government buddy in the State Dept. (who may himself just be a CIA agent) essentially does a lot of the "investigative work" on a major story for you by serving it on a platter, and there's an implied understanding that reporting against your buddy's narrative would end future help from the buddy, you're going to do write what he wants.
    - vevoo 9y ago
      Well, you just backed from your initial saying "pay". That was a great concern, being "cozy", etc. is not so.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        Note that these are two different people.
      - austinjp 9y ago
        Why is cozy less of a concern? If you're in with the in crowd, you go places. That might mean socially and professionally. Both of these have financial implications, if finance is your main concern.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        smcl 9y ago
        Cozy/informal incentives may be even more sinister. At least monetary payments have a hope of being tracked or spotted by someone. A wink-and-a-nod that in the future you'll get some juicy scoop or could land a cushy job somewhere else through a mutual contact if you run some story is pretty hard to spot.
      - coldtea 9y ago
  - indubitable 9y ago
    There are lots of good examples here. One of the one's that's more entertaining is the CIA's role in popularizing modern art [1]. Modern art's reception was unnatural and driven largely by propaganda. The CIA saw it as an effective weapon in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was supposed to emphasize the creativity capitalism and the free markets enable contrasted against the rigid conformity and authoritarianism of communism and state controlled markets. Finally, Rothko explained! Quoting the article, "Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the [CIA] set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.". This played in synergistically with the Congress for Cultural Freedom [2] which was another government organization acting like an independent organization, but was just a CIA propaganda tool. Anyhow, this stuff takes decades to be declassified. It should be interesting seeing things like what was happening behind the scenes to build up the Iraq war. The ironic thing is by the time that's declassified - probably in the 2040s - people will think that it happened so long ago that it's no longer relevant to their issues of the day. Of course it is, and will be -- perhaps even moreso than today. As the apparent desire for governments to gain ever greater control and ever greater power -- mingling with media (in the general sense -- not just news) in covert ways will be ever more part and parcel of our brave new world. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
  - e12e 9y ago
    > Paid for logistics for reporters? See "embedded war correspondents" from anything after Vietnam. Iraq 1 is probably still the war machine's most spectacular TV production.
  - nathancahill 9y ago
    Highly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo...
  - gm-conspiracy 9y ago
    The government has paid TV networks to promote a specific "viewpoint" in non-news TV shows: https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/ https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/
Angostura 9y ago
I've worked on both sides of this, in both PR and as a journalist. What you're describing is perfectly ethical - as a PR I, of course would send journalists specific pitches tailored to what I thought were their interests, and make sure that they had all the material they needed to do minimal work. As a journalist, I loved PRs who sent me interesting stories pitched at my interests and publication. Yes please - send them in. That didn't mean that I didn;t then do my job; speak to competitors, treat the pitch with a fair degree of scepticism, etc. What's being described in the article is quite different - deliberate corruption of the editorial process.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Getting focus on an area of industry / interest is 80% of the battle, especially if the PR subject has saliency and recency.
- Retric 9y ago
  You can tell yourself that, but it's completely unethical by the news organization and thus unethical for the company to create the temptation in the first place.
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    When I worked in local news I received those pitches. How else do you think news about local businesses gets to a newsroom? Do you think a producer is calling every business in town every day saying hey, anything going on today? This is really part of the broader problem: people don't understand how news works, but are more than ready to hop aboard a choo choo train of tossing around big words like "unethical." The copy that a business would send us rarely made air. I know, because I was often the person who rewrote it. Example: At a talk radio station I worked at a number of years ago, we received a press release from a person who was protesting John McCain's policies in a very particular way. It was very positive, and spoke of his mission, and blah blah blah. We had no clue who this guy was, but it tipped us off to a great story; we didn't cover it in the news portion of our broadcast, but the talking heads that evening had a very good time pointing out how ridiculous it was. This is how news works. PR helps a producer by bringing their attention to something, because let's face it, omniscience is not a trait of local news producers. The producer might help PR with a bit of coverage, or very likely doesn't. (The fax machine at a local newsroom is hilarious to watch.) The angle that gets covered is occasionally not what PR wants. This relationship is push and pull.
kifleswing 9y ago
This is not how the news industry works, at all. Have you ever worked in media?
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  I used to work for a media production company that was hired by various non-profits to pitch their "story" to local TV news departments (nationally). We would create a Betacam tape of B-roll, have a written synopsis and other relevant details, and after cold-calling news editors (we had a book we purchased yearly with their contact info), we would FedEx them the package of content, and follow up w/ an additional call after delivery conformation. It worked well. Although this was some time ago.

ProAm 9y ago

The government has been know to do this as well, pay the big three newspapers to run stories especially regarding foreign policy, it's just business. This is why 'don't believe everything you read' is valid more than ever.

sailfast 9y ago
[citation needed] - the government has paid newspapers to run stories that were not advertisements? Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribed? Care to clarify?
- ProAm 9y ago
  I tried to find the specific article that mentioned it but could only find ones that were vaguely similar [1] The gist of what I can remember is that the government (and entities like the CIA, FBI) would pay to push certain stories, sometimes submit editorials that would be printed regardless, etc... Usually to build support for foreign policy (push that the middle easy was bad, China evil, communist Russia bad), etc... mostly propaganda-ish content to slowly sway US citizens mindset. I wish I could find the article, I believe it was between 7-10 years ago... Sort of similar to this as well [2] (very hard to search for 'government pays NY Times, Post WSJ' or 'Pentagon articles in newspaper' etc.... So many results that are not related in whatever search bubble google has me in [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaga... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    What you suggested in your previous post is incorrect. You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known. Maybe you are confusing it with this change to the law in 2013: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici... The closest thing to what you suggest (and it is not that close) is probably Judith Miller's Iraq reporting for the NY Times, but that's mostly down to her incompetence.
    - ProAm 9y ago
      > You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known I disagree, or maybe Im just poor at searching but terms like "NY Times, government, paying, publish, stories, CIA" I get so much non-relevant search returns its impossible to separate the whet from the chafe. It was also many years ago, so Im sure search bubbles these days will tend to return stories that are newer as a default. The story I am remembering is definitely different from the one you recommended. I wish I could find it, it was a fascinating read at the time.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    Foreign Policy is more a matter of experts funded by agencies and think tanks (more political again) trying to shift the debate in the community. Not sure it's of major relevance right now, when Trump does stuff that is not the common wisdom of the FP crowd, but normal behaviour should resume sooner or later.
- opportune 9y ago
  Basically by being extremely cozy with reporters. Reporters who report on government happenings build contacts with people in government for leads. of course there is a quid pro quo in that the person helping them has their own motives, either on an individual (e.g. political) or government level. If your government buddy in the State Dept. (who may himself just be a CIA agent) essentially does a lot of the "investigative work" on a major story for you by serving it on a platter, and there's an implied understanding that reporting against your buddy's narrative would end future help from the buddy, you're going to do write what he wants.
  - vevoo 9y ago
    Well, you just backed from your initial saying "pay". That was a great concern, being "cozy", etc. is not so.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Note that these are two different people.
    - austinjp 9y ago
      Why is cozy less of a concern? If you're in with the in crowd, you go places. That might mean socially and professionally. Both of these have financial implications, if finance is your main concern.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - smcl 9y ago
        Cozy/informal incentives may be even more sinister. At least monetary payments have a hope of being tracked or spotted by someone. A wink-and-a-nod that in the future you'll get some juicy scoop or could land a cushy job somewhere else through a mutual contact if you run some story is pretty hard to spot.
    - coldtea 9y ago
- indubitable 9y ago
  There are lots of good examples here. One of the one's that's more entertaining is the CIA's role in popularizing modern art [1]. Modern art's reception was unnatural and driven largely by propaganda. The CIA saw it as an effective weapon in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was supposed to emphasize the creativity capitalism and the free markets enable contrasted against the rigid conformity and authoritarianism of communism and state controlled markets. Finally, Rothko explained! Quoting the article, "Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the [CIA] set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.". This played in synergistically with the Congress for Cultural Freedom [2] which was another government organization acting like an independent organization, but was just a CIA propaganda tool. Anyhow, this stuff takes decades to be declassified. It should be interesting seeing things like what was happening behind the scenes to build up the Iraq war. The ironic thing is by the time that's declassified - probably in the 2040s - people will think that it happened so long ago that it's no longer relevant to their issues of the day. Of course it is, and will be -- perhaps even moreso than today. As the apparent desire for governments to gain ever greater control and ever greater power -- mingling with media (in the general sense -- not just news) in covert ways will be ever more part and parcel of our brave new world. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
- e12e 9y ago
  > Paid for logistics for reporters? See "embedded war correspondents" from anything after Vietnam. Iraq 1 is probably still the war machine's most spectacular TV production.
- nathancahill 9y ago
  Highly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo...
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  The government has paid TV networks to promote a specific "viewpoint" in non-news TV shows: https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/ https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/

Angostura 9y ago

I've worked on both sides of this, in both PR and as a journalist. What you're describing is perfectly ethical - as a PR I, of course would send journalists specific pitches tailored to what I thought were their interests, and make sure that they had all the material they needed to do minimal work. As a journalist, I loved PRs who sent me interesting stories pitched at my interests and publication. Yes please - send them in. That didn't mean that I didn;t then do my job; speak to competitors, treat the pitch with a fair degree of scepticism, etc. What's being described in the article is quite different - deliberate corruption of the editorial process.

barrkel 9y ago
Getting focus on an area of industry / interest is 80% of the battle, especially if the PR subject has saliency and recency.
Retric 9y ago
You can tell yourself that, but it's completely unethical by the news organization and thus unethical for the company to create the temptation in the first place.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  When I worked in local news I received those pitches. How else do you think news about local businesses gets to a newsroom? Do you think a producer is calling every business in town every day saying hey, anything going on today? This is really part of the broader problem: people don't understand how news works, but are more than ready to hop aboard a choo choo train of tossing around big words like "unethical." The copy that a business would send us rarely made air. I know, because I was often the person who rewrote it. Example: At a talk radio station I worked at a number of years ago, we received a press release from a person who was protesting John McCain's policies in a very particular way. It was very positive, and spoke of his mission, and blah blah blah. We had no clue who this guy was, but it tipped us off to a great story; we didn't cover it in the news portion of our broadcast, but the talking heads that evening had a very good time pointing out how ridiculous it was. This is how news works. PR helps a producer by bringing their attention to something, because let's face it, omniscience is not a trait of local news producers. The producer might help PR with a bit of coverage, or very likely doesn't. (The fax machine at a local newsroom is hilarious to watch.) The angle that gets covered is occasionally not what PR wants. This relationship is push and pull.

kifleswing 9y ago

This is not how the news industry works, at all. Have you ever worked in media?

gm-conspiracy 9y ago
I used to work for a media production company that was hired by various non-profits to pitch their "story" to local TV news departments (nationally). We would create a Betacam tape of B-roll, have a written synopsis and other relevant details, and after cold-calling news editors (we had a book we purchased yearly with their contact info), we would FedEx them the package of content, and follow up w/ an additional call after delivery conformation. It worked well. Although this was some time ago.