Posted on 07/18/2006 4:58:28 AM PDT by Paul Coletti
Title Can the internet ever produce a purity of consent? A case study of Rathergate.
Introduction On September 8th 2004, memos by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian purporting to show that a subordinate of his, one George W. Bush, had a less than perfect war record during the Vietnam conflict, were aired by CBS show 60 Minutes II.
I believe no academic study on this topic exists. A search of the Proquest dissertations database reveals no existing work. There are several books extant which subjectively cover the episode from various points of view. I will utilise these as secondary data sources in my research.
Research Objectives This study will analyse a specific event in recent US journalistic history within the context of four of the five propaganda filters first identified by Herman . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at futuremediastars.com ...
I've just registered for Free Republic. I've done so for a very specific reason.
I'm a masters degree student of journalism at the London College of Communication (http://www.lcc.arts.ac.uk/) and I'm writing a dissertation on internet consent and I'm using Rathergate as a case study . . . yes Rathergate. So I've come to the place where it all began (the above is a n excerpt from my project)
I'm hoping for people to to visit my masters project URL
http://www.futuremediastars.com/rathergate
And I plan to FreepMail those involved in the Blogswarm in late '04.
Note, I twice emailed FR to ask permission for this post and received no reply so I'm assuming this kind of solicitation is ok. I sincerely hope I haven't busted any FR netiquette.
Folks, if you look at my profile on freerepublic.com you'll see I've included a full set of details about myself and my home page is below.
I hope all Freepers can give the above link a tiny bit of attention and thank you for your time,
Paul Coletti
ping
FYI
This phrase accepts the premise that me memos were genuine. If you are going to "study" this sordid event in attempted lynching by media, you'll have to be much, much more careful in how you phrase your questions. Unless, of course, there is a different agenda.
To put it bluntly, Rather et al decided to violate the heck out of "chain of custody", to accept blatant forgeries as genuine (contradicting their own experts), and to attempt to steal a presidential election. The only investigative study warrated here would be the exposure of everyone involved (beyond the Mapes/Rather figureheads), or for criminal prosection.
JMO.
It looks like an interesting project. I wish you well.
Paul Coletti
Since Jul 8, 2006
Welcome Paul and God save the Queen.
pur·port (pr-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. pur·port·ed, pur·port·ing, pur·ports
1. To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending; profess:
selfish behavior that purports to be altruistic.
2. To have the intention of doing; purpose.
Remember FR Rule 30 "Don't look stupid in front of furriners"
And if Rule 30 doesn't exist it should.
My issue is the statement of their origin, not their content. A little critical reading practice may help you understand such intricasies, FRiend.
Good luck. By the way, in what sense are you using the word 'consent'?
Memose? We don't need no stinking memose!
Stupid fingers - They can't spell! ;-P
Good Morning and welcome Paul.
backhoe, do you have an archive of Memogate etc... related threads?
Speak for yourself. I find the mixture of champagne and orange juice to be quite refreshing. :p
Well Sloth,
without getting into the dull theory, consent as defined by Chomsky (I'm sure I don't have to tell Freepers who he is) is 'bad' when it it manufactured, i.e. if consent is generated via a press that is affected by coporate ownership or the power of advertising (and a couple of other things) then it is manufactured.
I'm trying to find out whether consent on web is affected in these same ways or is it, to coin a phrase, 'pure' and 'unfiltered' and free from these influences.
In other words: did those who contributed to the Blogswarm in 04 have MSM/advertiser backing?
Paul
The story here is the media acting as a campaign mechanism for one of the political parties in the US. Go back to when John Kery won the nomination. He held a meeting with several media big wigs in New York.
The story really boils down to media operatives generating fake documents against Bush, while John Kerry skated through the election without releasing his Service Record. MORE BLATANT PROOF OF BIAS CANNOT BE FOUND.
Not if you are talking about the people at FR. We do this stuff for the pure enjoyment of it :) It will be interesting to see what you uncover. Good luck.
Anyone else having trouble with the link?
No problems here...
Looking forward to your input on this thread.
Howlin's thread was the anchor of the rebuttal of the CBS slanders.
Will you post your finished dissertation on the net?
Here's what I have:
60 Minutes to Infamy- those forged memos and The Shot Heard Round the World
various FR links | 09-10-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211904/posts
Thank you!
The link at Post #22 by backhoe whould provide you with a few moments of reading enjoyment. :)
The link below is a thread where Bill Sammon recogizes Buckhead, Texasforever, NYCVirago, and Howlin for what they did that night after Rather/Mapes did their drive by shooting of President Bush.
This was via his book "Strategy". So you need to buy that book as well as searching Free Republic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598940/posts
(Vanity)"Strategery" by Bill Sammon recognizes FreeRepublic and Freepers
2006 | Bill Sammon
Posted on 03/18/2006 6:36:55 PM PST by Danae
Kudos again to FR, Buckhead, Howlin, Texasforever, NYCVirago, and of course Jim for having this site to begin with.
"Chapter 9 "We're Toast" pg 143 - 145 directly credits Freepers above with uncovering the "missing Documents" out of President Bush's National Guard Service that were distinctly unflattering to the President, and also flat forgeries.
I am reading the book at the moment, and I wanted to pause and give credit where credit is due. I thank all those who helped bring to light these roaches that considered themselves so important as to try to influence a Presidential Election. I thank all of you personally who were influential in finally getting to call the MSM on the carpet, SUCCESSFULY! Bill Sammon has immortalized you in print, you are all immortal in my heart, you were the tipping point in an election. I am eternally grateful! You have done this Nation a service that can not be quantified.
Danae
One of the research tools on Free Republic is its keyword search machine.
Go to the bottom of your post and click these keywords one at a time: DANRATHER; MARYMAPES; RATHERGATE; TANG;
I'm sure that there are other key words listed in the various threads that will show up, and you can list them on this thread to help keep you organized.
MARYMAPES has threads dealing with Mapes getting sacked by CBS and her book which CBS basically said was full of lies.
The documented responses by CBS to those who interviewed her, when Mapes tried to sell her miserable book of lies were very strong against her. Those responses CBS were a round about way of saying that the Freepers who exposed her lies in the attempted electronic coup were correct.
A little example of the humor on Free Republic.
You use a lot of jargon. You will do better if you stick to plane English. Words like "consent" have no meaning in the real world. Just say what you mean.
As for the question of backing: I was active on the original Rathergate thread. I participated because I was familiar with printing technology in the 70s. I was among the few people who had direct contact with the IBM Composer -- the only desktop instrument physically capable of the typesetting features in the memos.
Definitely....
...if I get enough respondents in my research.
Thanks to all the helpful posts so far. The FR search tool is a massive help.
...but I really need to contact people via mail if I'm gonna get a good grade ;)
One of the first three quotes below is partially paraphrased. Before you attempt to embark on your project it would be well for you to identify exactly which quote that is and what the actual quote would be.
If after you have successfully completed the above simple exercise you must then present what you allege to be truthful and accurate evidence and credible sources; not garbage that could and did end a long journalism career with a major media organization and get your butt fired after attempting to unethically inserting poorly researched and deliberately fabricated political propaganda disquised as official miltary documents into what the American public has been told is "news" and not a conspiracy to change the results of an American Presidential election by a jackass and his idiot co-conspirators in the press, Kohn & Ko., and the DNC.
#1 -  #2 -  #3 -  - the below font style is modified Arial Bold 17/7/2006 -  |
Paul, I am sending you FReepmail with my email. I'd like to communicate with you.
Welcome, Paul.FR as a "media" is dirt poor. In order to avoid lawsuits over copyright, FR does not have any advertising revenue, nor does it charge fees for acess, nor does it charge for posting priviledges, as you will have noticed.If the people whose response you seek are principals like Buckhead, that is one thing. If all you are looking for is some information from FReepers who were active when Rathergate went down, you should make that plain.
But I do agree with MortMan that we are discussing discussing documents which purport to be memos by Killian rather than "memos by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian purporting" to show something. If in fact they were by Killian, those documents would have cast then-Lieutenant Bush in a bad light.
And others have pointed out that evidence of bad faith on the part of CBS News abounds in this case, and that what is wanted is not scrutiny of FR in general and Buckhead in particular but some court trials and (for my part) some tough administrative repercussions. And if I do not mistake, the actual intent of your proposal is to test FR and FReepers according to communists' criteria to see if it is possible to discredit us. Is that not what this boils down to?
Rather than questioning whether FReepers are "biased" or whether we have subjected poor, harmless CBS to an anticommunist witch hunt, you would if your purpose be truth-seeking be better advised to understand that FR is openly conservative. And American conservatism is strongly and unapologetically anticommunist.
If you would understand how those filters are perceived here, consider the following:
- Media ownership: ". . . the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant massmedia firms"
Not applicable, as noted above.
- Funding sources: "advertising as the primary income source of the mass media"
FR relies on open source material exclusively. Those who make claims of authority here are immediately charged to provide links to their sources.
- Sourcing of stories: "the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power"
We are all volunteers in a strictly amateur operation - amateur as in, "for the love of it." In consequence if, Heaven forfend, the government were effectively pressuring us we would stop loving it - and would simply fold up.
- Flak: "'flak' as a means of disciplining the media"
So much for the applicability of the commie filters to FR. Now let's critique those filters against the reality of American mass media. The reality of American free, commercial, mass-market journalism is a topic I have interested myself in since before the typical graduate student was born. And since I am a quick learner I have actually doped out a few points in that time.In sum, your "filters" are nothing but an effort to rationalize the idea that "the masses" are being trodden underfoot by capitalists. Whereas in fact, hypercritical agitators wish to promote themselves at the expense of their betters, who take actual responsibility of committing time, effort, and resources to getting things done. And who are mercilessly second guessed by the complaining class.
- Print journalism is unregulated (by the government); that means that it is free to please itself. Pleasing itself means making money, and pleasing itself means being influential. What forwards those objectives you should expect journalism to do; what does not forward those objectives you should not expect journalism to do.
- Journalism makes money by advertising, and certainly in principle advertisers buy influence when they pay for advertising.
- However, advertising revenue critically depends on the ability to attract attention. No circulation, no revenue. If pleasing an advertiser compromises the ability to attract public attention, pleasing an advertiser may not be the most important consideration - assuming multiple possibilities for advertising revenue.
- And, toadying to advertisers conflicts with the objective of being influential and feeling yourself to be influential. Which is variously styled, "making a difference," and "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable."
- The imperative to attract attention for fun and profit means that journalism is nonfiction entertainment.
- "If it bleeds it leads" because negativity attracts attention.
- "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" because journalists must have something new to say today in order to attract attention today. That means that journalism is ineluctably superficial.
- "Man Bites Dog" is a good headline, "Dog Bites Man" is a boring one -
- Sex sells.
- The claim of journalism to significance implies the desire to be seen as objective. That serves both to enhance influence and to attract audience.
- But superficiality, negativity, and unrepresentativeness - in which journalism engage for self-interested reasons - do not constitute wisdom, objectivity, or any other classical virtue.
- The claim of journalism to objectivity is supported by no evidence and is utterly fatuous, but it is widely believed because of journalism's "eleventh commandment." Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" was, "Thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican." Journalism's eleventh commandment - and what makes journalism cohere as an entity and what makes it the establishment in America - is, "No real journalist questions the objectivity of another real journalist."
- Journalism is, therefore, an entity which promotes itself and all its fellow complaining professions at the expense of everyone who does things rather than merely talking about how they could have been done better. The complaining professions include labor leaders, plaintiff lawyers, and liberal politicians. People who get actual things done include police and military and companies which advertise.
Your filters are irrelevant. All five of them. And to the extent that you even take the trouble to test them, you are over-committing to them. At the end of the day you will have nothing but a tautology on your hands, and a paper to write on it.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. Theory of Moral Sentiments - Adam SmithFR is an excellent venue for promoting Smith's "incredulity."
great!
Very well said, with a depth of analysis well beyond my simple screening. I always appreciate learning something new!
MM
Dear Conservative_IS_compassion,
First off a big thanks for reading my proposal.
Second, I am under no illusions about the nature of FR and its political stance.
Third - ok, you all got me on the placing of the word 'purported' . . . guess I shoulda known better to transpose a word on the one site that knows more than any other about type, fonts and document examination.
I take issue with your final point:
'the actual intent of your proposal is to test FR and FReepers according to communists' criteria to see if it is possible to discredit us. Is that not what this boils down to?'
This is putting a bad spin on it to say the least. I am not here to defend these filters nor disparage them and I am CERTAINLY not here to discredit the people who kickstarted a new type of journalism and caused me to go to media school.
The fact is these 'commie filters' are in fact widely used in media schools across the globe and for better or worse Chomsky is massively studied in media schools. . . believe me, he is. Using his theory as a framework for a project is par for the course in media schools. . again I'm not saying that's good...I'm staying objective.
According to him the MSM is hopelessly biased...He tries to prove this in a well-known book of 1987 where he gives examples of how these filters skew opinion in the US. I'm not defending his opinions at all .. . I just want to know how they play out in the blogosphere...are they still relevant...do they matter?
And I'm not just after the prinicpals. I'm hoping to glean info from everyone who posted about Rathergate from Post #47 8:59pm on Sep 8th until a few days later when the MSM finally picked up the story. It's that crucial period when the net ran with the story that I'm after.
Once again, the torrent of info I've gotten from FR is amazing. I thank you.
P
Sticking by a Fraudulent Hit Piece
“Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people,including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They allege that the documents are fake....
The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of the evidence, including documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources....
If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none.”
— CBS Evening News, September 10, 2004, two days after his 60 Minutes reporting alleging President George W. Bush failed to fulfill his National Guard service.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp
Dan Rather still doesn't know the frequency - Kenneth!
Why then, those filters have to be valid, or else the course of study you are committed to is claptrap. And neither you nor your professors would like to conclude that! I apologize for assaying to confuse you with facts after your mind was made up.Seriously, I don't like to be negative but the closer I look at the plan the more it appears to be as I describe it to be. You come across as a generally reasonable person, and yet you are committed to what I see as a fool's errand.
When I pointed out that FR is openly conservative, I had no thought that that had escaped your notice. But it does have consequences. That fifth filter, of course, is dead on - we consider communists or even socialists to be a mixture of charlatans and suckers; in that I feel utterly vindicated by the Reagan/Thatcher success.
And the other four simply have nothing to do with FR. No plutocratic owner (indeed the big money in politics goes to the Democrats, and lots of modest money goes to Republicans. The ranking of the richest senators would confirm that). No advertising revenue at all. No government sources to manipulate us. And most of all, FR was founded to oppose and expose the administration of the day, to tell the truth without fear or favor when the administration was astonishingly venal and corrupt.
I point out the obvious fact that FR is openly conservative, to contrast that openness with the implicit or explicit claim of objectivity which is IMHO a planted axiom inherent in leftism. We have a tradition of televised debates between Republican and Democrat presidential candidates, but the curious feature of them is the interlocutor. The planted axiom of the existence of that position is that the "moderator" is objective.
Yet how would one ever assay to prove such a claim??? IMHO the absence of "bias" would be an unprovable negative, if true. But the fact that it couldn't be proven even if it were true certainly does not imply, as seems to be the theory, that since no proof is forthcoming it must indeed be true. The truth is that that sort of Alice-in-Wonderland logic is supported by a vast propaganda campaign which was old when I was born. And nothing else.
So the upshot is that the moderator is allowed to oh-so-neutrally steer the discussion exactly where it will put pressure on the Republican, and away from where it would put pressure on the Democrat. A one-on-one debate between an American conservative and a socialist is simply not in the cards, because facts and logic simply are not socialists' strong suit and they know it. Socialists simply must have a stacked deck, and they are able to obtain it because journalism - for the reasons I outlined above - is in the socialist's corner.
Incidentally, you may have noticed an anomaly in the way socialists are referred to here. Elsewhere, "socialism" was a successful brand name but here it was seen through relatively well. The use of the term "social" to refer only to "government" is a leftist trick; leftists deliberately conflate "society" and "government." But the difference between "society" and "government" is freedom. If there is no difference between the two, as the "socialist" advocates, then there is no freedom. If you substitute the word "government" where the socialist says "social," then "social"ism comes out with its proper name - governmentism. And "governmentism" is obviously tyranny.
Since "socialism" failed as a brand name in America, the complaining classes substituted another for it. Indeed, they took the existing word "liberalism," popular in America, and inverted its meaning. So while everywhere else "liberalism" refers to people sympathetic to my perspective, here a "liberal" is my ideological opponent. And that simply couldn't have happened if journalism had not been in on it.
Bookmark
Why, thank you- but my tagline says it all...
conservatism_IS_compassion,
My mind is far from made up. I think you're using your inside knowledge to win over me here. I am an outsider who looks at Rathergate and wonders what made it tick.
You say of the 'filters' in my chosen framework: "And the other four simply have nothing to do with FR. "
Well, that may well be the casefor yourself ... I wanna know how that plays for those Freepers, LGFers, Powerliners et al who created this momentous moment. . . . and no, I don't come at this with a pre-conceived notion that these filters are valid . . . they could well be claptrap, especially when applied to the net/blogosphere/web...I'm hoping to shed light on that, that's the core of the study.
Of course It's clear where you stand on the filters and how they apply to you, and furthermore it may well be the case that this Mass. intellectual's (Chomsky) assessment of the state of US journalism is rubbish when applied to the net as a whole. But I'm going to try and gather data on it anyway.
It may be a fool's errand but if it proves whether or not the net can at least on the odd occasion foster a majority (but not necessarily unanimous) consent that is 'pure' and 'unfiltered' then it's surely gotta be worth trying...?
P
For obvious reasons this [fifth] filter no longer applies and several have suggested replacements for it. For the purposes of this study I propose to ignore the fifth filter although, in light of my findings, suggesting a possible new candidates could well form the basis for a section entitled 'Areas for further research'.
Daddy Warbucks is a cartoon character, and Warren Buffet is not politically conservative by the modern definition of favoring low taxes "on the rich." Although Jon Corzine recently opted out of his term as a senator from New Jersey in order to take the more substantial role of Governor of New Jersey, you will if you research it find that wealth does not correlate with conservative politics in the Senate, and you will if you research it also learn that the average contribution to the Democratic Party is higher than the average contribution to the Republican Party. Not only so, but the red/blue map of the US by county shows that it is not only the "inner city" but also the toney suburbs near the city which vote majority Democrat.Therefore the first of the claimed filters is highly suspect. I interpret such data to mean that the rich can afford to politically agree with the poor, as a way of separating themselves from the middle class. A politically correct form of conspicuous consumption.
And I am a little put out about that fifth filter. Here is a radical who advocates communist ideology - and after he proposes all forms of financial self-interest, just to make sure he ensnares everyone and defines himself as being correct, he comes out with that gem! Anticommunist ideology. Hmm, let's see, does that mean it is a "bias" if anyone has the unmitigated gall to disagree with him!! Why yes, I think that is exactly what that means. There is no arrogance is his family; he got it ALL!!
Some on FR will tell you that they once were liberals but they have seen the light; I however have been a conservative for as long as I have known what conservatives and liberals were. Long before you say these "filters" were proposed.
I wonder that you do not propose any sort of "control" group of people who did not recognize the truth about the fraudulent CBS "TANG memos." Would they prove to be richer, or more dependent on advertising, or more subject to government pressure than FReepers are? It's not too late; it's not as if you couldn't find flat-earthers even yet who think that Mary Mapes is right that fax noise makes monospaced typing look exactly like proportional-spaced font!
Good post.
Cracks me up that anyone would think we are put up to things like debunking Rather's pitiful effort to swing an election. I logged on to FR around midnight that September night two years ago in search of a thread on the 60 Minutes II piece, which I had not been able to see. Buckhead's post hit me in the face. It rang true, as I'd had some corporate publishing experience in the early 70's and was familiar with IBM equipment of that period. I spent most of the night on the issue. To me, the FReedom to ferret out the facts ourselves and rapidly communicate with others online is what is ultimately going to save us.
I didn't happen to see the 'Buckhead' thread as it happened, glad you did.
Rathergate: an academic study: BIG MEDIA versus INTERNET OPINION - 4 easy questions.
Noam Chomsky reckons big media output in the US is distorted by a number of effects: corporate ownership, funding via advertising, reliance on the government for stories and fear of harsh criticism. . . . . I'm trying to find out how these 'filters' play out in the blogosphere and I'm using Rathergate as a case study.
If you're interested in reading my whole project proposal click here.
If you want know exactly what this study is and more importantly what it isn't, read this robust discussion between myself and the guys who started it all - the Freepers - click here.
If you'd like to contact me about this then my phone is +447770820056 or just click paul@coletti.co.uk
There are only 4 super quick questions. Confidence and anonymity is guaranteed (I don't ask for names and I am not logging IP addresses). I thank you greatly for your
Naom Chomsky----Oh really..... Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW). He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of the United States politics.
Well, that may well be the case for yourself ... I wanna know how that plays for those Freepers, LGFers, Powerliners et al who created this momentous moment.So as an institution, FR does not fit those four putative sources of tendentiousness at all. I stipulate that the fifth "source of tendentiousness" fits perfectly - but you have implied that even those who teach the other four are embarrassed at the fifth one.
- FR was founded by Jim Robinson, and its software is the work of his son John. All due respect to them, financially they are not traveling in the company of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
- FR as an institution would be shut down by the courts if it took advertising or charged a subscription fee.
- FR operates on open sources, and sometimes on first-hand reports. Since it operates essentially as a charity but does not get so much as charitable deductibility on its donors' income tax (as churches do here), it has no dependence on government for source material to keep it alive. It survives (thrives) on the support of philosophers (people who love wisdom but, at least as a rule, do not argue from the assumption that they are wise) known as FReepers.
- FR was founded to oppose the administration which then existed, and certainly never expected anything but criticism from the government in return.
and no, I don't come at this with a pre-conceived notion that these filters are valid . . . they could well be claptrap, especially when applied to the net/blogosphere/web...I'm hoping to shed light on that, that's the core of the study.I confess to enough parochialism that I haven't spent significant time on the other sites you mention; FR is known as "the stickiest site on the web" because so many interesting articles from other sources are posted and linked here that a conservative feels "up to speed" if he has read FR. But the same factors of volunteer-ism and amateurism almost certainly prevail there, if not to the same extent.
- Well, I hope I am solidly middle class, tho with the possibility of inflation ever present as a destroyer of wealth, one does not finally know. So I would project that the great "bias" of FReepers is fear of feckless government, foreign as well as domestic. A feckless president was certainly the reason JimRob started the site, and it would only be natural if those attracted to the site had similar motivations as its founder.
- What reason is there to suppose that individual FReepers, posting anonymously, modify their postings to suit the desires of some advertiser??
- What reason is there to suppose that individual FReepers are getting government leaks of information to enable them to anonymously post wonderful stories to attract more people to read a site that pays them nothing??
- What reason is there to suppose that individual FReepers are motivated by fear of government intimidation to FReep??
- Again, stipulated that anyone who admitted not being anticommunist would not be accepted as a normal FReeper. People who are not conservative can certainly post to the site, but people who cynically attack conservative ideas are styled "trolls" and do not last long. That is the way FR is edited to appeal to its target audience, other conservatives.
Well I do approach the issue with a preconceived notion that the first four filters are not valid, and that the fifth demonstrates the "bias" not of FR but of the composer of the five "filters." The four are not valid because they all are mere flattery of procommunist journalists as "underdogs." Those poor, downtrodden journalists have to deal with pressures from the government and from fat cat advertisers and owners. (</sarcasm>)Back in the Vietnam War era, it was common for college students to "bravely" condemn "the establishment," which they used to condemn business, the police, and the military. But when we saw those "brave" rants on TV, we were seeing the actual establishment - "objective" journalism - in action. There was no courage involved, since the journalists knew that they suffered no actual legal risk for broadcasting those rants, and their "fat cat bosses" were fully behind them in promoting the conceit that journalism was "speaking truth to power."
It was a case of the medium belying the message. If you publicly shout, "I am being censored! Censored, do you hear me! CENSORED!" you are either crazy or you are a liar. If you do not get arrested or disappeared, then you were not crazy and you simply are a liar.
IOW, if you search the public record of prewar Iraq you are unlikely to find a lot of discussion of the fact that you were not allowed to speak ill of Saddam Hussein. Not nearly as much as you will find in the public record of the US, comparing Bush to Hitler. Why? Because saying you were not allowed to speak ill of Saddam Hussein would imply that someone might actually want to do it - and implying that could get you tossed into the plastic shredder feet first. OTOH there are plenty of cases of people publicly comparing Bush to Hitler, for the simple reason that it is not remotely true.
The same would apply to the "indisputable fact" that Senator Joe McCarthy intimidated journalism. Research of the era would yield far too much public complaint by journalists that they were being intimidated to allow anyone not terminally naive to infer anything other that Senator McCarthy, and not so much journalism, was the one under attack. And that calumny extends posthumously, even unto the present day.
Your "four filters" amount to one big lie. Journalism, not manufacturing and not the police and not the military, is the establishment in America. Journalism acts as a single entity through the mechanism of the eleventh commandment, which eliminates ideological competition in "straight news."
Story selection is the issue that puts the lie to the theory that journalism can be assumed to be objective. If something good happens somewhere, journalists by unanimous consent can agree that it "isn't news" because "If it bleeds, it leads" dictates that. Fine - but that is not an issue of wisdom but of cunning. The paper will sell better if that "good news" story is not featured - but that is not proof that it was not the most important thing that happened yesterday. Simple accuracy is not enough to prove objectivity, because story selection matters just as much.
My bottom line is that your whole experimental design is formed around the assumption that journalism is a weak, fractured institution and that business and government are a single strong, united institution. Devise a strong experimental test of that hypothesis, and you will have a doctoral thesis. Or, when the results come in, be drummed out of school . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.