18 ms·

I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. You have to ask why they chose to report this, why they slant thi

by seaorg 5y ago

I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. You have to ask why they chose to report this, why they slant things one way or another with their choice of wording and emphasis. What is the aspect of this story that is too politically incorrect or unfashionable to be included? I have never researched a topic deeply and found that the media had been covering that topic accurately, ever. The harsh truth is that generally speaking the news is almost completely useless. You might as well just never watch it. I think the very final nail in the coffin was the leaked recordings of the CNN technical director basically admitting what everyone pretty much already knew. That they spread misinformation deliberately, only give interviews to subject experts who they know will say what CNN prefers them to say and ultimately design everything they put on the screen to get hooks inside your limbic system and keep your eyes glued. The main tool they use to do this is the emotion of fear, and it was for this reason and no other that they created a COVID death counter. And every single one of those points is explicitly, literally and plainly stated on video by a very senior employee of CNN for all to see. so I’m afraid that I can’t be brushed aside as a Russian bot. It’s right there on YouTube. And what about all the other media companies? This CNN leak, which is maybe the very embodiment of a scoop, was not on the front page of any major newspaper or news website. It was not elaborated on. It was basically not reported.

ManuelKiessling 5y ago
I could easily find a lot of reporting on the "CNN leak", even in German online media, and from my understanding, we cannot, at this point in time, be sure that this leak is legit. Right now, it's simply a news story that is very difficult to confirm. In any case, my recommendation would be to apply "I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now." here, too. Everything else would be a bit inconsistent.
taeric 5y ago
If you think the news is bad, you should consider the hot takes that online posters come up with. :)
- forgingahead 5y ago
  If the news is fake, imagine history.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    I used to think "winners write the history books" was pithy and false. Then I realized that in the moment we can barely come to a consensus reality on even the most obvious and well-evidenced topics and that every historical account I had ever read was completely devoid of the debate over what was true. History is mostly propaganda. I'm sure if you get deep enough in the academic discipline you will find honest attempts to reconstruct the past in all its messiness, instead of just explain a preferred conclusion. Don't know that I have ever read a thing like that though, and certainly never read it in a book or seen it on tv. So yes, if the news is fake, imagine history.
    - Tainnor 5y ago
      Then... you have never engaged with actual history? Historians are extremely aware of the difficulty of determining what is true, and they certainly have no problem engaging with the messiness of it all.
      - bananabiscuit 5y ago
        Can you blame him? Throughout all my schooling at least, history was always presented as “this is what happened”. Never once in any history class I took was there ever any doubt presented about historic events. It was never “well, a lot of evidence shows that this probably happened for that reason, but theres also potential that it might have happened for this other reason.” I’m sure real actual historians in universities have these sort of discussions, but history class as it’s used in schooling is pure propaganda.
        Tainnor 5y ago
        Do you have any specific examples? I'm fairly certain I was taught about conflicting evidence and, even more importantly, differing interpretation of events in school, for example we discussed the role of the US and the Soviet Union in the cold war quite extensively and controversially.
im3w1l 5y ago
> I have never researched a topic deeply and found that the media had been covering that topic accurately, ever. Maybe that's because of the stories you select for checking. Did you ever deeply research something non-sensational? Like a feature about new-years celebrations in Nepal?
- seaorg 5y ago
  And where is this news outlet that specializes in non-sensational things?
- lmm 5y ago
  I've looked at coverage of things I was personally familiar with - particular subcultures, the rural area I grew up in, the field I work in - and seen a similar pattern. The inaccuracies didn't seem to be ideologically driven (indeed they sometimes went against what I think of as particular outlets' biases) but they were very much there.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  Anecdotally, whenever I've had insider knowledge of a news story, it's always been the case that some of the basic facts are reported wrong. Even small local newspapers twist the truth slightly in order to present a more easily digested narrative.
  - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
    Maybe they did not have insider access to info and were wrong? You don’t have all day to do research on news, you have to rush it out i guess?
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  That does not matter, it is just an aesthetical thing. It’s like when they report that some pandas got offspring in captivity in zoo X. Even if they lied about it, even if they invent a new country where there are celebrations, it makes no difference. It is useful to consume and fact check news on what could have an effect on your life. It also brings about the bias you are talking about. Because the newly born panda might matter to the local veterinarian. Well my train of thought certainly took a 180 degree turn there..
xwolfi 5y ago
To be fair I learned that at 7 in civic education class in Normandy... The media is a counter power but a power nonetheless. Just like you cant trust the president to judge a criminal, you shouldn't trust the media to judge the president. Just let everyone speak, make your soup yourself and split responsibilities: the executive lead the police and military, the judiciary protects criminals as much as society , the media warns of big and small events and they each compete and drag the carpet to themselves. This is healthy. The alternative is hanging liars and people with difficult truths rather than letting them both speak. Or: detecting lies from truth is only possible by opposing several (and not just two or the border is skewed towards the most sensational) views. CNN will say there a radioactive event south of China, China will say there s absolutely nothing wrong, the minority owner of the plant will say it s worrying but the problems lies in China moving the red line regulation, experienced people will say this probably warrant waiting, panicked people will say it must shut down now, ecologists will say any nuclear plant is too risky for the cost, and the truth is somewhere in the merging of all these but you can only have a gradually improving view of the event as pawns position themselves over time.
- laurent92 5y ago
  > the media is a counter-power Is it? Is it not the main power? What politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media? Can any politician decide something different than what is broadcasted by the media, for example if all media say we should lock down for Covid, despite population disapproval, can any politician resist? Media is probably the power, and the 3 other heads (executive, legislative, judiciary) are basically following, at our current point, in 2021. At least, if they want to stay relevant. Corollary: The definition of democracy should include the 4 powers. Media should be free, and due to Loi Avia in France, and due to the state of emergency, media is not currently free to say what it deems correct.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Lots of politicians and wealthy people control some media. Also, "what politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media?" -> isn't Trump a strong countexample?
narrator 5y ago
>I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. I used to subscribe to The Economist. I then realized, after they kept getting a lot of things wrong over the years, that in my humble opinion, a lot of their headlines should be read prepending the phrase "We would like you to believe that..." A lot of "movements" these days are completely astroturfed. There's a few foundations that sponsor thousands of institutions all with the same mission statement to make things look like they're a grassroots movement, but nobody really wanted any of it. That's what disconnecting from the media gets you. All that astroturfing flooding in from everywhere stops infecting one's understanding of the world with useless B.S. I've given up almost all mainstream media for podcasts because they can be produced for nothing and spend a long-time looking deeply into issues. They cost nothing to produce and host, so it's really hard to cancel them as well. It's not like video. Hosting audio costs very little. Listening to random podcasts I find from guest appearances on other people's podcasts and on and on almost feels like eavesdropping on real people talking instead of the same simple message broadcast over and over again via every notable news outlet.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshJn7lgVsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshJn7lgVsY
- rolleiflex 5y ago
  As a subscriber to the Economist myself, would you be able to give examples as to what you found wrong and in bad faith? I have found errors in the past, especially in subjects that I am more of an expert on, but none (so far) in bad faith. If you know of some, I’d very much like to know so as to reassess who my trust lies with.
  - narrator 5y ago
    For one, regularly since the early 1990s, they've been predicting a Japan style credit crisis in China. That credit crisis never comes. They have had article after article talking about huge debt levels in the banks, etc. Nothing ever happens.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Good, their economic prediction concerning China was wrong. So far. I don't see any substantial error or bad faith in that.
ddxxdd 5y ago
I recommend reading Axios. It feels like they're trying their best to stick to the facts and avoid editorializing. I will happily listen to other recommendations.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Axios is also rolling out local newsletters! (? daily email but also available online as stories) they have a lot of cities check it out! Can't go wrong with PBS either. I love a Frontline deep dive
vecinu 5y ago
> the leaked recordings of the CNN technical director basically admitting what everyone pretty much already knew. Could you link this out please?
- seaorg 5y ago
  https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw “There’s no such thing as unbiased news” — high level CNN employee
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Yeah, and that's true. Because people are biased. Not saying CNN is the benchmark so. But deriving that all news is bad because of that is going too far.
    - seaorg 5y ago
      Don’t mix up intrinsic human bias with deliberate misinformation (which in the context of big media companies is informally called “bias”). I haven’t derived anything.
    - nverno 5y ago
      There's a difference between news that is trying to enlighten vs. trying to convince. When I start to feel like the news is doing the latter, I would call it biased.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    There's no such thing as pure anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards the ideal. Or to put another way, just because nobody is 100% a saint all the time, doesn't make being an asshole ok.
    - bildung 5y ago
      Yes. But news should strive for thruth, not for objectivity. For example, if the president says something that is evidently false, the press IMO has the responsibility to say so, even if this is clearly biased towards the interests of the opposition.
greendude29 5y ago
This sounds like a pretty childish take to be honest. Of course there is no such thing as objective news, but that's because reality isn't that simple either. CNN and most mainstream news are indeed trash (more like entertainment), but there is very good news out there. You have to find the right news source for the right topic. For American foreign policy, read The Intercept; for American domestic issues - Propublica, for middle eastern news - Al Jazeera English, and so on and so forth. News is never "objective facts" and neither should it be. Good journalists put news in the context of reality.
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  I was surprised when I found that Al Jazeera was the most neutral source of news (on non-middle eastern topics) I have seen in a while
- naturalauction 5y ago
  I’d be skeptical of Al Jazeera’s Middle East coverage. They are pretty much a Qatari state outlet and Qatar isn’t friendly with a lot of countries in the region. It certainly was an issue in the past https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cabl...
  - fakedang 5y ago
    I (and a lot many other residents and citizens of ME countries) find Al Jazeera English to be pretty okay. They give very neutral reporting, and when they do shit on someone, it's usually against someone with a vested interest against Muslims (such as Netanyahu or Narendra Modi), which is to be expected from a Mideast media outlet. Now Al Jazeera Arabic though, that is one steaming hot pile of bullshit, that is still so popular in the Arab World that they call it the "people's news". Saudis and Emiratis alike used to watch it, likely because of their strongly biased reporting against their respective governments, as well as their pro-Muslim position on all matters. And interestingly, they were mostly allowed to broadcast in those countries up until recently.
HanShotFirst 5y ago
Without having watched all of the CNN "leak" linked below, I'd like to point out two things that will color my viewing of it: 1 - Project Veritas has a history of misleading / baiting subjects into saying things that sound bad, and of taking pieces of conversation out of context. 2 - A "technical director" in television isn't an editorial role, nor is it very high ranking. The job of a technical director is to physically operate things like the video switcher to choose which camera is on screen or to put up a lower third; their job typically would not be to decide who to interview, what to ask in an interview, direct the on screen talent, etc. I am sure CNN, like most workplaces, has employees with varied opinions and political views. Seeing any one of those employees statements as evidence of the overall views of the company is kind of ridiculous.
- mistermann 5y ago
  And therefore, is it true that what he says is not true?
- ewmiller 5y ago
  Project Veritas is great at getting low-level scoops and inflating their importance for views. Almost like the mainstream news sources they transparently claim to be "above." During the 2016 presidential race they promised to drop a big discovery about the Hillary campaign's corruption, and it literally turned out that it was something to do with canvassers dressed as ducks who got into some kind of minor altercation. It was the cringiest non-story of all time.
Layke1123 5y ago
A disease kills more Americans, and you question why there was a death counter? I hope that every here reading this sees through the very thing he is trying to use to spin your mind against reality. It's damm effective too, but you can't unsee the death this disease caused first hand. You can't trick me.
271828182846 5y ago
It's also interesting to check who owns a media outlet and what companies are its largest customers by placing ads. I find Russell Brand's YT Channel frankly speaking surprisingly illuminating on many subjects like deep state*, corona, environmentalism, data protection. According to him most of the largest news papers in the States are basically controlled by pharmaceutical companies. Guess who they will be catering to. *: I know this is a trigger word and I don't use it exactly in the sense of AJ or reptiloids. But it has its merit as a concise term refering to invisible power structures in the government.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  I find it crazy that Russell is one of a very few people providing analysis of how power works. He’s extremely well informed and has gone away and educated himself. He also never gives out conspiracy theories, all of the things he says are based on experiences, for example being asked to leave Richard Brandson’s island because he suggested people in the British Virgin Islands pay their tax…
  - 271828182846 5y ago
    I respect him for his ability to think for himself and express his thoughts pretty eloquently. He's no doubt very intelligent. Having said - I find him absolutely not funny ... his humor leaves me completely cold.
camillomiller 5y ago
I don’t know how you learned about how media worked, but when I was taught about it in elementary school in Italy, I clearly remember my teacher explaining the concept of Agenda and News Cycle. Maybe I just had an amazing teacher (she is, indeed). That said, this is not a new development. Mainstream media today are doing this in subtler ways because they are forced to transparency by the rise of the Internet. As long as media organization need to turn a profit, this will always be the case. By having a rich media landscape, with different point of views, we were always able to keep a general balance despite the singular imbalances. The radicalization of opinions and the outrage economy, along with the Internet, have disrupted that general balance, with mostly right-wing leaning medias seizing that unethical advantage, and liberal left-leaning media trying to decry it, while having a hard time swiping their own conflicts of interest under the rug. Surprisingly enough, this is mostly true for generalist media, though. I’m lucky enough to be a tech journalist, and despite having to deal with a lot of companies and a lot of products that they want to ultimately sell, I feel that our conflicts of interest are way easier to navigate, and easier to address. Picking your news from carefully selected sector-specific publications, and putting together your own media diet, is the equivalent of eating organic and cooking your own meals vs eating out at McDonald’s every night. The equivalence, sadly, is true also for the level of education and income (and time) you need to have to do that, though.
- concordDance 5y ago
  "Balanced"? There's far more to the world than politically exciting topics. News media is entertainment, it's optimizing for engagement, not producing accurate impressions in the viewer's mind. Following multiple sources of news just means you are being focused on lots of things of questionable relevance and importance. An example that comes to mind is the various investigative interviews being conducted in the UK about the covid response last year. The news media focuses on gossip rather than the structural issues, institutional biases and lessons. Though even covid itself is probably not the most important issue today, it'll probably be something obscure like the reverse Flynn effect in Europe.
  - makomk 5y ago
dougmwne 5y ago
Basically every single story was either placed by an interested party or hits our emotions in a way to keep us clicking. Lots of companies, political campaigns and advocacy organizations have highly skilled media relations departments that know exactly how to get a story printed on any topic. I have been on that side and basically have seen our talking points published word for word without being challenged or examined, which was the goal. For awhile last year I felt like I needed the news to keep my family safe. After a while stewing in the fear factory, I realized that that the reporting didn't bare much relation to the actual scientific studies it claimed to be based on when I bothered to actually go and read them. I unplugged and only check niche interest news now. I was becoming a worse citizen and person for reading the news, not a better one.
nickstinemates 5y ago
> I have never researched a topic deeply and found that the media had been covering that topic accurately, ever. This applies to a lot more than just media, including important to mundane issues inside of an organization. Path of least resistance (aka bullshit) and all that.
re-al 5y ago
I think that news stories are more about the 'story' than the 'news'. They are about framing some perhaps genuine facts (but perhaps not) in a specific way, in such a way that a genuinely independent assessment is impossible for anyone taking their information from these sources. I think when the stories and angles are so detached from reality, it is fair to wonder what is going on. You can call it conspiracy, or companies working together in a co-ordinated way for their best interests, fascism (with corporations and governments working in tandem), etc but its hard to dispute that there is an agenda to prevent the general population from receiving information that would allow them to make straightforward judgements.
lazyeye 5y ago
The internet destroyed the business model for old-school media. So now they just generate a never-ending stream of fake controversy to sell eyeballs to advertisers.
cousin_it 5y ago
I think "the technical director" and "very senior" bits are misleading. You can google "cnn" "technical director" site:linkedin.com and find lots of people with that job title, some as "senior technical director" and so on. It's like "vice presidents" at banks.
dalbasal 5y ago
It's not bias that bothers me. Attempts at neutrality can create their own bias-ish issues. Variety and independence is the best help here, IMO. Independence of outlets from one another. Independence of journalistic voices within outlets, etc. What does bother me is quality, effort even. The majority of high visibility reporting is mostly commentary. Factual accuracy isn't even applicable. They don't do the work. I very rarely encounter articles that feel like a journalist has poured over documents, spent hours with experts, etc. A good example is the latest G7 meet. Every summary of the underlying tax problems I read was substandard. The speculation about what G7 decisions would mean was substandard. No one actually understood what they were writing about. They dig just far enough to strike emotional or partisan content: "Apple paid just %X tax, because tax havens, cheating & stuff." Tax is all about details. You have t The average engaged reader who has read dozens of articles on the topic has not learned anything, besides good guys, bad guys and moral outrages. I don't think the journalists do either. If you want to actually know something about the topic, you need to go to wikipedia or hunt down a good blog article.
- bnralt 5y ago
  > They don't do the work. I very rarely encounter articles that feel like a journalist has poured over documents, spent hours with experts, etc. Indeed. Many times when I look at the original sources for news articles, the sources either include major pieces of information omitted from the article, or even information that contradicts the article. There's talk about how people on Hacker News/Reddit/Twitter/etc. comment without reading an article, but it looks like most reporting is the same - writing an article without looking at the source. When you see that neither the reporters nor the consumers of the news seem to care about this, it's clear that the purpose is to entertain and not inform.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    I don't even blame them, really. Depth isn't all that compelling. A well researched article doesn't get more views. The incentives to do a quick write up are strong. Spend 100 hrs researching a topic, for no gain... or spend 1hr writing an article with just enough content to draw agreement or disagreement.
oezi 5y ago
Counterpoint (as someone married to a journalist): most news outlets do not have the time, resources and intent to further any special interest agenda except for their front page and op-eds. To achieve Murdoch-level disinformation is hard work. It requires so much work, that most news outlets cannot compete. There just isn't enough time and money in the news business. Remember this isn't science where there is time for research. Many news outlets have individual journalists contribute 3 to 5 articles per day. Do you think this allows for a lot of spinning an agenda? No, the reality is different. Lots of news is just repeating what others report (news agencies to online news to news papers) because there aren't that many original sources anyway. I believe what you think is (malicious?) agenda, is really just news outlets trying to survive. Murdoch/Springer/FoxNews to the contrary, but these are easy to avoid.
- BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
  I think the argument here is more about what journalists know that they can cover, what goes onto the front page and in headings, rather than journalists themselves writing with a hidden agenda. Also who is promoted, Greenwald wrote about a particularly bad example: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-b... In addition, no news outlet seemed to be in enough of a survival mode to report on the Hunter Biden story for example.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  > Remember this isn't science where there is time for research. Many news outlets have individual journalists contribute 3 to 5 articles per day. Do you think this allows for a lot of spinning an agenda? I always thought of this as exact the problem. There isn’t time for a journalist to do their research (and the bar is low enough), so instead of reporting the truth, you get what they already thought and already wanted to say, sprinkled with a tiny bit of new info. Maybe agenda is the wrong word, but it’s close.
fumar 5y ago
You used CNN as an example but these tactics apply to most media outlets. Isn’t this the thesis of Manufacturing Consent? Crafted mass messages to sway public opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
pwagland 5y ago
And this is why state sponsored, but _not_ controlled media is what you want. In most countries that have these institutions, these media outlets are consistently rated, by both sides of the local spectrums, as being the most balanced. Note, that this is _not_ the same as saying that they cannot be biased, since at the end of the day every decision is the result of some bias or another, but their mandate is to serve the greater public, and so they don't try to carve out and to chase a specific demographic.
miltondts 5y ago
Find news that are published independently. For example if you want (mostly) Australian news that are funny, see https://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia https://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia
- krapp 5y ago
  Being published independently doesn't guarantee honesty or the lack of an agenda or bias, it only guarantees any agenda or bias isn't being dictated by a third party, rather than the company itself. Also, The Juice Media appear to be satirists, not journalists. While this and other satirical sources like the Daily Show may seem more truthful than mainstream news because they provide an emotional catharsis, they can actually be far more distorted than the mainstream media in terms of fact. Because while satire can express the truth, being honest isn't its purpose, so much as being funny.
  - miltondts 5y ago
    I agree with your first sentence. The Juice Media are satirical journalists, but as far as I can tell all the satire is contained to the presentation, not the facts. The Daily Show is not independent, so putting them in the same bag as The Juice Media doesn't seem fair.
mrfusion 5y ago
> I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. You have to ask why they chose to report this, why they slant things one way or another with their choice of wording and emphasis. What is the aspect of this story that is too politically incorrect or unfashionable to be included? You say this like it’s a bad thing. That’s exactly what everyone needs to be doing.
IncRnd 5y ago
> I think the very final nail in the coffin was the leaked recordings of the CNN technical director basically admitting what everyone pretty much already knew. That they spread misinformation deliberately, only give interviews to subject experts who they know will say what CNN prefers them to say and ultimately design everything they put on the screen to get hooks inside your limbic system and keep your eyes glued. For anyone who may not be aware of the contents of the actual recordings, here are some quotes. Trump was — his hand was shaking, he was losing it. He’s unfit. We were creating a story there. I think that’s propaganda. [Trump's] hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to tell a story that was all speculation -- that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it. He's unfit to - you know, whatever. We had nothing else to run with at that time. We were like, just taking shots off a bow, just hoping something would hit, you know? We were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about. That's what - I think that's propaganda Look what we did, we got Trump out. I am 100 percent going to say it, and I 100 percent believe that if it wasn't for CNN, I don't know that Trump would have got voted out. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that's what it was, right? So, our next thing is going to be climate change awareness.
- season2episode3 5y ago
  I found this claim really intriguing and rabbit holed on researching it for a bit... but upon further research I am skeptical. It strikes me that I'm basically only seeing articles out of News Corp outlets and random blogs which appear to be rehashing the same content. News Corp outlets definitely dominate here. But let's agree that CNN's agenda was obviously anti-Trump because it was a major driver of their traffic... here's what really made me skeptical: > our next thing is going to be climate change awareness This line is really telling. The CNN tech director, ostensibly caught in an unguarded moment, draws a line directly from Trump's fake news/voter fraud claim all the way to climate science. This is really, really fishy. It is a _moral imperative_ for humanity to live in greater harmony with the planet, which includes reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. This is not politics, it's an informed take based on science that aligns with an understanding of physics, a long record of paleoclimatological data, and things I can literally see with my eyes (I enjoy mountain climbing and have seen glacial retreat firsthand over years). I don't believe it's a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the News Corp outlets, has enormous fossil fuel holdings and would be negatively affected by this inconvenient moral imperative. I hadn't heard of Project Veritas, the originators of this claim, but a little research into their past history also makes me want to take their presentation with more than a little skepticism. Again, I don't have any _direct_ evidence to claim that the quote is fabricated. I do believe that there are significant ulterior motives here in the reporting of this claim, and the claims are reported by outlets that themselves have a spotty record of journalistic integrity.
batushka3 5y ago
One vise man told years ago "The facts are true, the news are fake" - and was ridiculed. And look where we came to with media.
gofreddygo 5y ago
Why can't you just report facts and be done with it? Something I always wondered, why journalists, news and journalism is always about the "story", the narrative, the emotion ? That would take away a lot of scope for manipulation, harder to misinterpret and easier to spot the culprits. Till few years ago, it was brought to my attention, they, like all surviving orgs, adapt and simply give what "the people" want.
onetimeusename 5y ago
I think of them as PR firms now. Unfortunately, journalism has probably been like that for a long time since special interests can pitch stories to journalists. They've put a lot of effort into making themselves seem like mere unbiased reporters of what is newsworthy but it's becoming apparent that they can and do push certain viewpoints on behalf of their 'clientele' which may include political parties.

by seaorg 5y ago

ManuelKiessling 5y ago

I could easily find a lot of reporting on the "CNN leak", even in German online media, and from my understanding, we cannot, at this point in time, be sure that this leak is legit. Right now, it's simply a news story that is very difficult to confirm. In any case, my recommendation would be to apply "I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now." here, too. Everything else would be a bit inconsistent.

taeric 5y ago

If you think the news is bad, you should consider the hot takes that online posters come up with. :)

forgingahead 5y ago
If the news is fake, imagine history.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  I used to think "winners write the history books" was pithy and false. Then I realized that in the moment we can barely come to a consensus reality on even the most obvious and well-evidenced topics and that every historical account I had ever read was completely devoid of the debate over what was true. History is mostly propaganda. I'm sure if you get deep enough in the academic discipline you will find honest attempts to reconstruct the past in all its messiness, instead of just explain a preferred conclusion. Don't know that I have ever read a thing like that though, and certainly never read it in a book or seen it on tv. So yes, if the news is fake, imagine history.
  - Tainnor 5y ago
    Then... you have never engaged with actual history? Historians are extremely aware of the difficulty of determining what is true, and they certainly have no problem engaging with the messiness of it all.
    - bananabiscuit 5y ago
      Can you blame him? Throughout all my schooling at least, history was always presented as “this is what happened”. Never once in any history class I took was there ever any doubt presented about historic events. It was never “well, a lot of evidence shows that this probably happened for that reason, but theres also potential that it might have happened for this other reason.” I’m sure real actual historians in universities have these sort of discussions, but history class as it’s used in schooling is pure propaganda.
      - Tainnor 5y ago
        Do you have any specific examples? I'm fairly certain I was taught about conflicting evidence and, even more importantly, differing interpretation of events in school, for example we discussed the role of the US and the Soviet Union in the cold war quite extensively and controversially.

im3w1l 5y ago

> I have never researched a topic deeply and found that the media had been covering that topic accurately, ever. Maybe that's because of the stories you select for checking. Did you ever deeply research something non-sensational? Like a feature about new-years celebrations in Nepal?

seaorg 5y ago
And where is this news outlet that specializes in non-sensational things?
lmm 5y ago
I've looked at coverage of things I was personally familiar with - particular subcultures, the rural area I grew up in, the field I work in - and seen a similar pattern. The inaccuracies didn't seem to be ideologically driven (indeed they sometimes went against what I think of as particular outlets' biases) but they were very much there.
mypalmike 5y ago
Anecdotally, whenever I've had insider knowledge of a news story, it's always been the case that some of the basic facts are reported wrong. Even small local newspapers twist the truth slightly in order to present a more easily digested narrative.
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  Maybe they did not have insider access to info and were wrong? You don’t have all day to do research on news, you have to rush it out i guess?
faeyanpiraat 5y ago
That does not matter, it is just an aesthetical thing. It’s like when they report that some pandas got offspring in captivity in zoo X. Even if they lied about it, even if they invent a new country where there are celebrations, it makes no difference. It is useful to consume and fact check news on what could have an effect on your life. It also brings about the bias you are talking about. Because the newly born panda might matter to the local veterinarian. Well my train of thought certainly took a 180 degree turn there..

xwolfi 5y ago

To be fair I learned that at 7 in civic education class in Normandy... The media is a counter power but a power nonetheless. Just like you cant trust the president to judge a criminal, you shouldn't trust the media to judge the president. Just let everyone speak, make your soup yourself and split responsibilities: the executive lead the police and military, the judiciary protects criminals as much as society , the media warns of big and small events and they each compete and drag the carpet to themselves. This is healthy. The alternative is hanging liars and people with difficult truths rather than letting them both speak. Or: detecting lies from truth is only possible by opposing several (and not just two or the border is skewed towards the most sensational) views. CNN will say there a radioactive event south of China, China will say there s absolutely nothing wrong, the minority owner of the plant will say it s worrying but the problems lies in China moving the red line regulation, experienced people will say this probably warrant waiting, panicked people will say it must shut down now, ecologists will say any nuclear plant is too risky for the cost, and the truth is somewhere in the merging of all these but you can only have a gradually improving view of the event as pawns position themselves over time.

laurent92 5y ago
> the media is a counter-power Is it? Is it not the main power? What politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media? Can any politician decide something different than what is broadcasted by the media, for example if all media say we should lock down for Covid, despite population disapproval, can any politician resist? Media is probably the power, and the 3 other heads (executive, legislative, judiciary) are basically following, at our current point, in 2021. At least, if they want to stay relevant. Corollary: The definition of democracy should include the 4 powers. Media should be free, and due to Loi Avia in France, and due to the state of emergency, media is not currently free to say what it deems correct.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Lots of politicians and wealthy people control some media. Also, "what politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media?" -> isn't Trump a strong countexample?

narrator 5y ago

>I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. I used to subscribe to The Economist. I then realized, after they kept getting a lot of things wrong over the years, that in my humble opinion, a lot of their headlines should be read prepending the phrase "We would like you to believe that..." A lot of "movements" these days are completely astroturfed. There's a few foundations that sponsor thousands of institutions all with the same mission statement to make things look like they're a grassroots movement, but nobody really wanted any of it. That's what disconnecting from the media gets you. All that astroturfing flooding in from everywhere stops infecting one's understanding of the world with useless B.S. I've given up almost all mainstream media for podcasts because they can be produced for nothing and spend a long-time looking deeply into issues. They cost nothing to produce and host, so it's really hard to cancel them as well. It's not like video. Hosting audio costs very little. Listening to random podcasts I find from guest appearances on other people's podcasts and on and on almost feels like eavesdropping on real people talking instead of the same simple message broadcast over and over again via every notable news outlet.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshJn7lgVsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshJn7lgVsY

rolleiflex 5y ago
As a subscriber to the Economist myself, would you be able to give examples as to what you found wrong and in bad faith? I have found errors in the past, especially in subjects that I am more of an expert on, but none (so far) in bad faith. If you know of some, I’d very much like to know so as to reassess who my trust lies with.
- narrator 5y ago
  For one, regularly since the early 1990s, they've been predicting a Japan style credit crisis in China. That credit crisis never comes. They have had article after article talking about huge debt levels in the banks, etc. Nothing ever happens.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Good, their economic prediction concerning China was wrong. So far. I don't see any substantial error or bad faith in that.

ddxxdd 5y ago

I recommend reading Axios. It feels like they're trying their best to stick to the facts and avoid editorializing. I will happily listen to other recommendations.

dillondoyle 5y ago
Axios is also rolling out local newsletters! (? daily email but also available online as stories) they have a lot of cities check it out! Can't go wrong with PBS either. I love a Frontline deep dive

vecinu 5y ago

> the leaked recordings of the CNN technical director basically admitting what everyone pretty much already knew. Could you link this out please?

seaorg 5y ago
https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw “There’s no such thing as unbiased news” — high level CNN employee
- hef19898 5y ago
  Yeah, and that's true. Because people are biased. Not saying CNN is the benchmark so. But deriving that all news is bad because of that is going too far.
  - seaorg 5y ago
    Don’t mix up intrinsic human bias with deliberate misinformation (which in the context of big media companies is informally called “bias”). I haven’t derived anything.
  - nverno 5y ago
    There's a difference between news that is trying to enlighten vs. trying to convince. When I start to feel like the news is doing the latter, I would call it biased.
- bawolff 5y ago
  There's no such thing as pure anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards the ideal. Or to put another way, just because nobody is 100% a saint all the time, doesn't make being an asshole ok.
  - bildung 5y ago
    Yes. But news should strive for thruth, not for objectivity. For example, if the president says something that is evidently false, the press IMO has the responsibility to say so, even if this is clearly biased towards the interests of the opposition.

greendude29 5y ago

This sounds like a pretty childish take to be honest. Of course there is no such thing as objective news, but that's because reality isn't that simple either. CNN and most mainstream news are indeed trash (more like entertainment), but there is very good news out there. You have to find the right news source for the right topic. For American foreign policy, read The Intercept; for American domestic issues - Propublica, for middle eastern news - Al Jazeera English, and so on and so forth. News is never "objective facts" and neither should it be. Good journalists put news in the context of reality.

WanderPanda 5y ago
I was surprised when I found that Al Jazeera was the most neutral source of news (on non-middle eastern topics) I have seen in a while
naturalauction 5y ago
I’d be skeptical of Al Jazeera’s Middle East coverage. They are pretty much a Qatari state outlet and Qatar isn’t friendly with a lot of countries in the region. It certainly was an issue in the past https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cabl...
- fakedang 5y ago
  I (and a lot many other residents and citizens of ME countries) find Al Jazeera English to be pretty okay. They give very neutral reporting, and when they do shit on someone, it's usually against someone with a vested interest against Muslims (such as Netanyahu or Narendra Modi), which is to be expected from a Mideast media outlet. Now Al Jazeera Arabic though, that is one steaming hot pile of bullshit, that is still so popular in the Arab World that they call it the "people's news". Saudis and Emiratis alike used to watch it, likely because of their strongly biased reporting against their respective governments, as well as their pro-Muslim position on all matters. And interestingly, they were mostly allowed to broadcast in those countries up until recently.

HanShotFirst 5y ago

Without having watched all of the CNN "leak" linked below, I'd like to point out two things that will color my viewing of it: 1 - Project Veritas has a history of misleading / baiting subjects into saying things that sound bad, and of taking pieces of conversation out of context. 2 - A "technical director" in television isn't an editorial role, nor is it very high ranking. The job of a technical director is to physically operate things like the video switcher to choose which camera is on screen or to put up a lower third; their job typically would not be to decide who to interview, what to ask in an interview, direct the on screen talent, etc. I am sure CNN, like most workplaces, has employees with varied opinions and political views. Seeing any one of those employees statements as evidence of the overall views of the company is kind of ridiculous.

mistermann 5y ago
And therefore, is it true that what he says is not true?
ewmiller 5y ago
Project Veritas is great at getting low-level scoops and inflating their importance for views. Almost like the mainstream news sources they transparently claim to be "above." During the 2016 presidential race they promised to drop a big discovery about the Hillary campaign's corruption, and it literally turned out that it was something to do with canvassers dressed as ducks who got into some kind of minor altercation. It was the cringiest non-story of all time.

Layke1123 5y ago

A disease kills more Americans, and you question why there was a death counter? I hope that every here reading this sees through the very thing he is trying to use to spin your mind against reality. It's damm effective too, but you can't unsee the death this disease caused first hand. You can't trick me.

271828182846 5y ago

It's also interesting to check who owns a media outlet and what companies are its largest customers by placing ads. I find Russell Brand's YT Channel frankly speaking surprisingly illuminating on many subjects like deep state*, corona, environmentalism, data protection. According to him most of the largest news papers in the States are basically controlled by pharmaceutical companies. Guess who they will be catering to. *: I know this is a trigger word and I don't use it exactly in the sense of AJ or reptiloids. But it has its merit as a concise term refering to invisible power structures in the government.

andy_ppp 5y ago
I find it crazy that Russell is one of a very few people providing analysis of how power works. He’s extremely well informed and has gone away and educated himself. He also never gives out conspiracy theories, all of the things he says are based on experiences, for example being asked to leave Richard Brandson’s island because he suggested people in the British Virgin Islands pay their tax…
- 271828182846 5y ago
  I respect him for his ability to think for himself and express his thoughts pretty eloquently. He's no doubt very intelligent. Having said - I find him absolutely not funny ... his humor leaves me completely cold.

camillomiller 5y ago

I don’t know how you learned about how media worked, but when I was taught about it in elementary school in Italy, I clearly remember my teacher explaining the concept of Agenda and News Cycle. Maybe I just had an amazing teacher (she is, indeed). That said, this is not a new development. Mainstream media today are doing this in subtler ways because they are forced to transparency by the rise of the Internet. As long as media organization need to turn a profit, this will always be the case. By having a rich media landscape, with different point of views, we were always able to keep a general balance despite the singular imbalances. The radicalization of opinions and the outrage economy, along with the Internet, have disrupted that general balance, with mostly right-wing leaning medias seizing that unethical advantage, and liberal left-leaning media trying to decry it, while having a hard time swiping their own conflicts of interest under the rug. Surprisingly enough, this is mostly true for generalist media, though. I’m lucky enough to be a tech journalist, and despite having to deal with a lot of companies and a lot of products that they want to ultimately sell, I feel that our conflicts of interest are way easier to navigate, and easier to address. Picking your news from carefully selected sector-specific publications, and putting together your own media diet, is the equivalent of eating organic and cooking your own meals vs eating out at McDonald’s every night. The equivalence, sadly, is true also for the level of education and income (and time) you need to have to do that, though.

concordDance 5y ago
"Balanced"? There's far more to the world than politically exciting topics. News media is entertainment, it's optimizing for engagement, not producing accurate impressions in the viewer's mind. Following multiple sources of news just means you are being focused on lots of things of questionable relevance and importance. An example that comes to mind is the various investigative interviews being conducted in the UK about the covid response last year. The news media focuses on gossip rather than the structural issues, institutional biases and lessons. Though even covid itself is probably not the most important issue today, it'll probably be something obscure like the reverse Flynn effect in Europe.
- makomk 5y ago

dougmwne 5y ago

Basically every single story was either placed by an interested party or hits our emotions in a way to keep us clicking. Lots of companies, political campaigns and advocacy organizations have highly skilled media relations departments that know exactly how to get a story printed on any topic. I have been on that side and basically have seen our talking points published word for word without being challenged or examined, which was the goal. For awhile last year I felt like I needed the news to keep my family safe. After a while stewing in the fear factory, I realized that that the reporting didn't bare much relation to the actual scientific studies it claimed to be based on when I bothered to actually go and read them. I unplugged and only check niche interest news now. I was becoming a worse citizen and person for reading the news, not a better one.

nickstinemates 5y ago

> I have never researched a topic deeply and found that the media had been covering that topic accurately, ever. This applies to a lot more than just media, including important to mundane issues inside of an organization. Path of least resistance (aka bullshit) and all that.

re-al 5y ago

I think that news stories are more about the 'story' than the 'news'. They are about framing some perhaps genuine facts (but perhaps not) in a specific way, in such a way that a genuinely independent assessment is impossible for anyone taking their information from these sources. I think when the stories and angles are so detached from reality, it is fair to wonder what is going on. You can call it conspiracy, or companies working together in a co-ordinated way for their best interests, fascism (with corporations and governments working in tandem), etc but its hard to dispute that there is an agenda to prevent the general population from receiving information that would allow them to make straightforward judgements.

lazyeye 5y ago

The internet destroyed the business model for old-school media. So now they just generate a never-ending stream of fake controversy to sell eyeballs to advertisers.

cousin_it 5y ago

I think "the technical director" and "very senior" bits are misleading. You can google "cnn" "technical director" site:linkedin.com and find lots of people with that job title, some as "senior technical director" and so on. It's like "vice presidents" at banks.

dalbasal 5y ago

It's not bias that bothers me. Attempts at neutrality can create their own bias-ish issues. Variety and independence is the best help here, IMO. Independence of outlets from one another. Independence of journalistic voices within outlets, etc. What does bother me is quality, effort even. The majority of high visibility reporting is mostly commentary. Factual accuracy isn't even applicable. They don't do the work. I very rarely encounter articles that feel like a journalist has poured over documents, spent hours with experts, etc. A good example is the latest G7 meet. Every summary of the underlying tax problems I read was substandard. The speculation about what G7 decisions would mean was substandard. No one actually understood what they were writing about. They dig just far enough to strike emotional or partisan content: "Apple paid just %X tax, because tax havens, cheating & stuff." Tax is all about details. You have t The average engaged reader who has read dozens of articles on the topic has not learned anything, besides good guys, bad guys and moral outrages. I don't think the journalists do either. If you want to actually know something about the topic, you need to go to wikipedia or hunt down a good blog article.

bnralt 5y ago
> They don't do the work. I very rarely encounter articles that feel like a journalist has poured over documents, spent hours with experts, etc. Indeed. Many times when I look at the original sources for news articles, the sources either include major pieces of information omitted from the article, or even information that contradicts the article. There's talk about how people on Hacker News/Reddit/Twitter/etc. comment without reading an article, but it looks like most reporting is the same - writing an article without looking at the source. When you see that neither the reporters nor the consumers of the news seem to care about this, it's clear that the purpose is to entertain and not inform.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  I don't even blame them, really. Depth isn't all that compelling. A well researched article doesn't get more views. The incentives to do a quick write up are strong. Spend 100 hrs researching a topic, for no gain... or spend 1hr writing an article with just enough content to draw agreement or disagreement.

oezi 5y ago

Counterpoint (as someone married to a journalist): most news outlets do not have the time, resources and intent to further any special interest agenda except for their front page and op-eds. To achieve Murdoch-level disinformation is hard work. It requires so much work, that most news outlets cannot compete. There just isn't enough time and money in the news business. Remember this isn't science where there is time for research. Many news outlets have individual journalists contribute 3 to 5 articles per day. Do you think this allows for a lot of spinning an agenda? No, the reality is different. Lots of news is just repeating what others report (news agencies to online news to news papers) because there aren't that many original sources anyway. I believe what you think is (malicious?) agenda, is really just news outlets trying to survive. Murdoch/Springer/FoxNews to the contrary, but these are easy to avoid.

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
I think the argument here is more about what journalists know that they can cover, what goes onto the front page and in headings, rather than journalists themselves writing with a hidden agenda. Also who is promoted, Greenwald wrote about a particularly bad example: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-b... In addition, no news outlet seemed to be in enough of a survival mode to report on the Hunter Biden story for example.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> Remember this isn't science where there is time for research. Many news outlets have individual journalists contribute 3 to 5 articles per day. Do you think this allows for a lot of spinning an agenda? I always thought of this as exact the problem. There isn’t time for a journalist to do their research (and the bar is low enough), so instead of reporting the truth, you get what they already thought and already wanted to say, sprinkled with a tiny bit of new info. Maybe agenda is the wrong word, but it’s close.

fumar 5y ago

You used CNN as an example but these tactics apply to most media outlets. Isn’t this the thesis of Manufacturing Consent? Crafted mass messages to sway public opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

pwagland 5y ago

And this is why state sponsored, but _not_ controlled media is what you want. In most countries that have these institutions, these media outlets are consistently rated, by both sides of the local spectrums, as being the most balanced. Note, that this is _not_ the same as saying that they cannot be biased, since at the end of the day every decision is the result of some bias or another, but their mandate is to serve the greater public, and so they don't try to carve out and to chase a specific demographic.

miltondts 5y ago

Find news that are published independently. For example if you want (mostly) Australian news that are funny, see https://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia https://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia

krapp 5y ago
Being published independently doesn't guarantee honesty or the lack of an agenda or bias, it only guarantees any agenda or bias isn't being dictated by a third party, rather than the company itself. Also, The Juice Media appear to be satirists, not journalists. While this and other satirical sources like the Daily Show may seem more truthful than mainstream news because they provide an emotional catharsis, they can actually be far more distorted than the mainstream media in terms of fact. Because while satire can express the truth, being honest isn't its purpose, so much as being funny.
- miltondts 5y ago
  I agree with your first sentence. The Juice Media are satirical journalists, but as far as I can tell all the satire is contained to the presentation, not the facts. The Daily Show is not independent, so putting them in the same bag as The Juice Media doesn't seem fair.

mrfusion 5y ago

> I can’t help but see some kind of special interest or agenda whenever I hear a news story now. You have to ask why they chose to report this, why they slant things one way or another with their choice of wording and emphasis. What is the aspect of this story that is too politically incorrect or unfashionable to be included? You say this like it’s a bad thing. That’s exactly what everyone needs to be doing.

IncRnd 5y ago

> I think the very final nail in the coffin was the leaked recordings of the CNN technical director basically admitting what everyone pretty much already knew. That they spread misinformation deliberately, only give interviews to subject experts who they know will say what CNN prefers them to say and ultimately design everything they put on the screen to get hooks inside your limbic system and keep your eyes glued. For anyone who may not be aware of the contents of the actual recordings, here are some quotes. Trump was — his hand was shaking, he was losing it. He’s unfit. We were creating a story there. I think that’s propaganda. [Trump's] hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to tell a story that was all speculation -- that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it. He's unfit to - you know, whatever. We had nothing else to run with at that time. We were like, just taking shots off a bow, just hoping something would hit, you know? We were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about. That's what - I think that's propaganda Look what we did, we got Trump out. I am 100 percent going to say it, and I 100 percent believe that if it wasn't for CNN, I don't know that Trump would have got voted out. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that's what it was, right? So, our next thing is going to be climate change awareness.

season2episode3 5y ago
I found this claim really intriguing and rabbit holed on researching it for a bit... but upon further research I am skeptical. It strikes me that I'm basically only seeing articles out of News Corp outlets and random blogs which appear to be rehashing the same content. News Corp outlets definitely dominate here. But let's agree that CNN's agenda was obviously anti-Trump because it was a major driver of their traffic... here's what really made me skeptical: > our next thing is going to be climate change awareness This line is really telling. The CNN tech director, ostensibly caught in an unguarded moment, draws a line directly from Trump's fake news/voter fraud claim all the way to climate science. This is really, really fishy. It is a _moral imperative_ for humanity to live in greater harmony with the planet, which includes reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. This is not politics, it's an informed take based on science that aligns with an understanding of physics, a long record of paleoclimatological data, and things I can literally see with my eyes (I enjoy mountain climbing and have seen glacial retreat firsthand over years). I don't believe it's a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the News Corp outlets, has enormous fossil fuel holdings and would be negatively affected by this inconvenient moral imperative. I hadn't heard of Project Veritas, the originators of this claim, but a little research into their past history also makes me want to take their presentation with more than a little skepticism. Again, I don't have any _direct_ evidence to claim that the quote is fabricated. I do believe that there are significant ulterior motives here in the reporting of this claim, and the claims are reported by outlets that themselves have a spotty record of journalistic integrity.

batushka3 5y ago

One vise man told years ago "The facts are true, the news are fake" - and was ridiculed. And look where we came to with media.

gofreddygo 5y ago

Why can't you just report facts and be done with it? Something I always wondered, why journalists, news and journalism is always about the "story", the narrative, the emotion ? That would take away a lot of scope for manipulation, harder to misinterpret and easier to spot the culprits. Till few years ago, it was brought to my attention, they, like all surviving orgs, adapt and simply give what "the people" want.

onetimeusename 5y ago

I think of them as PR firms now. Unfortunately, journalism has probably been like that for a long time since special interests can pitch stories to journalists. They've put a lot of effort into making themselves seem like mere unbiased reporters of what is newsworthy but it's becoming apparent that they can and do push certain viewpoints on behalf of their 'clientele' which may include political parties.