The Real "Fake News"
By now most of you are aware of the established media’s crusade to rid the internet of ‘fake new’. Institutions such as CNN, the Washington Post, Facebook and Google have gallantly declared war on ‘fake news’ in recent weeks. Some of you may have heard of a ‘list’ put together by an organization called PropOrNot which I assume means ‘propaganda or not propaganda’. This ‘list’ identifies many alternative/independent news sources as disseminating Russian propaganda and spreading it across social media.
As you can see, the list includes Alex Jones, the Corbett Report, the AntiMedia, the Activist Post, the Drudge report, Counterpunch and more. Most of the sites named on this list vehemently dispute these claims.
Others have taken a different approach and have almost embraced the designation. With humour and grace James reviews the Corbett Report’s high ranking by the seemingly obscure PropOrNot organization. I encourage truth seekers to visit the corbettreport.com and decide for yourself. James does not make wild claims, in fact he dutifully qualifies what he says and consistently provides links to all of his sources.
Just how PropOrNot has become the final word on what IS and what IS NOT propaganda itself remains a mystery. More importantly how ever is how exactly are, so called, Russian propaganda providers identified? What is the criteria?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda
Via the New Yorker:
The most striking issue is the overly broad criteria used to identify which outlets spread propaganda. According to PropOrNot’s recounting of its methodology, the third step it uses is to check if a site has a history of “generally echoing the Russian propaganda ‘line’,” which includes praise for Putin, Trump, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Iran, China, and “radical political parties in the US and Europe.” When not praising, Russian propaganda includes criticism of the United States, Barack Obama, Clinton, the European Union, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, “Jewish people,” U.S. allies, the mainstream media, Democrats, and “the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes.”
http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html
According to these vague sets of criteria, anyone or any organization could be considered a propagandist. Any criticism of the of the government or agreeing with a Russian perspective is grounds enough to be labelled propaganda.
So what do the protectors of truth at PropOrNot recommend as credible and reliably honest content providers? The NYT, WaPo, CNN…etc. and local newspapers. Perhaps, these establishments are true defenders of truth, justice and liberty. According to PropOrNot they are beyond, bias, and manipulation.
Or are they?
In the West, PR is the sanitized version of propaganda. The country is full of Public Relations firms whose goal is to create/manufacture an acceptable and appropriate public image. This is done through carefully crafted advertising campaigns and by associating products and companies with ideals that the general public holds in high esteem. It is known that advertising uses highly sophisticated psychological techniques to create the desire for consumer products within the mind.
In his book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky describes the ways in which people are manipulated by the elite media (mainstream media).
The elite media (msm) are institutions such as the: NYT, Washington Post, television networks like NBC, CNN, FOX, etc. These institutions determine, select, shape, control, and restrict the public discourse. Moreover, they serve the interests of the dominant elite groups. Just as the MSM determines the news it also limits the discourse through what it chooses to omit.
Over time, media conglomerates have emerged swallowing up smaller entities which has impoverished media diversity.
In 1980, 50 companies owned and controlled 90% of the media, by 2012 6 media conglomerates dominated the landscape and recently giant mergers threaten to constrict media diversity even further.
Official Sources
Towards the end of the election the whistleblower website Wikileaks released the now infamous Podesta emails. This exposed the extent of the corrupt and criminal enterprise within the Democratic Party became clear.
Among other things, the emails highlighted the unmistakable coordination and collusion between the DNC and MSM reporters.
Wikileaks list of 65 reporters who attended private dinners with Hillary and Podesta included prominent journalists from Politico, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and many more.
Since the daily releases beginning in early October, the MSM has been trying to stop the flow of unfiltered information by attacking the messenger (Wikileaks) by portraying the publisher as a pawn of Russia. CNN went as far as saying that reading the Podesta emails “is illegal” and that the general public should only trust CNN to present the information to them in “full disclosure”.
Apparently, CNN viewers are not capable of thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. Instead, CNN would prefer to determine what is acceptable for the public to know and read.
CNN has been in the business of fake news for many years. Here is another classic moment in CNN fakery.
(This production is so blatantly fabricated…I don’t know what to say.)
Just look at these guys.
Furthermore, there are literally hundreds more examples of correspondences between msm journalists and DNC political operatives in the Podesta emails.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/8/mainstream-media-maligned-10-examples-blatant-bias/
Are we to quickly forgive and forget instances such as CNN contributor Donna Brazile passing on debate questions to HRC’s campaign?
It may seem innocent enough to leak a question or two but the fact remains that it is ILLEGAL and a subversion of the democratic process. These are not free and fair elections.
The NYT Editorial Pseudo Apology
The NYT is venerated as the embodiment of objective journalism and for being ‘the newspaper of record’ in the US. And it is through the NYT that the elite set the tone and set the parameters for public discourse. Their framing guides the general public (as well as other media) towards determining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in our society.
After relentlessly beating the drums for a war in Iraq on flimsy, and now admittedly fabricated, evidence the NYT finally accepted (partially acknowledged) the role they played in deceiving the public in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html?_r=0
In light of this, how are these institutions to be trusted?
If they will play an active role in promoting the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent civilians and the almost complete destruction of an entire nation, what else are they capable of?
Does this mean we can trust no one, no institutions/news sources as reliable? No, what it means is these institutions have been promoting official government propaganda. They are uncritical of power because they temselves are part of the system. Effectively, they are no longer journalist rather they have become stenographers.
So who can we trust?
I will not tell you what media is truth and what is fake. But by examining the record of the establishment media they may not qualify as Russian propagandists but they certainly qualify as fraudsters. I will suggest to you that alternative media organizations that are independently funded, funded by the viewer and subscriber donations and not beholden to corporate advertising dollars would certainly seem to be less biased in their reporting. Therefore, they are in a better position to maintain a more critical view of important events.
But institutions that have been proven to have lied and deceived the public do not get to dictate what is real and what is fake. Fabricated corporate news cannot point the finger at others and claim fake news.
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
https://steemit.com/news/@skeptic/obama-sends-plane-loads-of-fbi-agents-to-censor-truth