Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials
The American Dream ^ | 7/25/2012 | N/A

Posted on 07/26/2012 2:55:37 PM PDT by Mozilla

The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials

In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories. For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for "quote approval" before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as "on message" as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost. But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, "quote approval" has become "commonplace throughout Washington". In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that "the free and independent media" in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

The following quote comes from the recent article in the New York Times mentioned above and it is absolutely jaw dropping....

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

This is an article that everyone needs to read. If you have not read it yet, you can find it right here.

What all of this means is that both the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign essentially have "veto power" over any quotes from those campaigns that we see in the newspapers.

According to the New York Times, virtually every major news organization has agreed to submit their quotes for "quote approval"....

It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.

This is absolutely disgusting, and it goes against everything that our media is supposed to stand for.

The following is what Joseph Farah had to say when he learned about this story....

All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.

It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.

Keep in mind that Joseph Farah has been working in the world of journalism for decades. He is deeply saddened to see what is happening to a profession that he deeply loves.

But he is not the only one.

Just check out what Dan Rather had to say during a speech back in 2009....

“At my age and stage I've finally reached the point where I don't have to kiss up to anybody,” he said. “What a wonderful feeling it is.”

Even so, his talk emphasized what he believes is the erosion of quality journalism, because of the corporatization, politicization, and “trivialization” of news. Those three factors, Rather argued, have fueled the “dumbing down and sleezing up of news” and the decline of “great American journalism.”

Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.

And Dan Rather is right. The control over the media in the United States is more tightly concentrated than ever before.

Back in the early 1980s, approximately 50 corporations essentially had nearly total control of the media in the United States.

Today, just six monolithic media corporations dominate virtually everything you watch, hear and read.

These six gigantic corporations own television networks, publishing houses, movie studios, newspapers, radio stations, music labels and video game companies. Most Americans are absolutely addicted to information and entertainment, and those six massive corporations supply the vast majority of the information and entertainment that Americans take in.

The amount of control that those six corporate giants have is absolutely incredible. For example, the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. If you can beam 153 hours of "programming" into someone's head each month, that gives you an awesome amount of influence over that person.

The six monolithic corporations mentioned above are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.

There are some areas of the media that are not completely dominated by those corporations, but even control over those areas is becoming more highly concentrated than ever.

For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. The power that Clear Channel has over the radio industry in America is absolutely staggering.

Even control over the Internet is becoming much more concentrated. Giant corporations such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly controlling what we see and hear online.

But it really is the "big six" that dominate most of what we see, hear and read on a daily basis.

In a previous article, I detailed a portion of the vast media holdings of these gigantic corporations....

--------------------------------------------------

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner

Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine

Walt Disney

ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books

Viacom

Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1

News Corporation

Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan

CBS Corporation

CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network

NBC Universal

Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

----------------------------------------------------------

Please keep in mind that the list above is not exhaustive. It only contains a sampling of the companies that those six corporate giants own.

So are you starting to get an idea of how powerful they are?

If you ever wondered why the version of "the news" that you get is so similar no matter where you turn, it is because control of the news is concentrated in just a very few hands.

So who controls the "big six" media corporations?

Would it surprise you to know that the boards of directors of those big media corporations have a tremendous amount of overlap with the boards of directors of large banks, large oil companies and large pharmaceutical companies?

The following is from the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting website....

Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

You can find a list that shows how these boards of directors overlap and interlock right here.

The giant media corporations are not going to criticize the establishment because they are the establishment.

The messages that these media behemoths pound into our heads are going to be the messages that the establishment wants pounded into our heads.

Anyone that believes that the mainstream media is "independent" and that it does not have "an agenda" is being delusional.

Of course it is also worth mentioning that much of what we get from the mainstream media is also often directly controlled by the federal government.

Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) has discovered that hundreds of American journalists have worked directly for the CIA.

Not that the federal government and the establishment are opposed to one another. The truth is that they very much work together hand in hand. But sometimes the federal government has slightly different priorities than the corporate establishment does.

In any event, the key point to take away from all this is that the news and entertainment that we all enjoy on a daily basis if very highly censored and very highly controlled.

It is imperative that we understand that those that own and control the media are trying to shape society in a certain way. They want to impose their values and their vision of the future on all the rest of us.

You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the "Big Brother" police state control grid that is going in all around us.

Instead, they insist that all of this added "security" will keep us safe even as our liberties and freedoms are being badly eroded.

You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the population control agenda of the global elite.

Instead, they insist that more "family planning" will help the environment and make the world a more prosperous place for all of us.

You will notice that none of the major news organizations speak out against the Federal Reserve and none of them are warning us about the financial collapse that is rapidly approaching.

Instead, they tell us to keep having faith in the system and they promise us that everything is going to be okay.

Well, you can mindlessly believe the corporate media if you want, but I believe that in this day and age it is absolutely imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves.

Don't be a mindless robot for anyone.

Think for yourself and make your own decisions.

The truth is out there and you can find it if you are willing to go search for it.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012electionbias; bigbrother; bigmedia; censorship; cultureofcorruption; fff; government; journolist; mediamediacontrol; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; orwelliannightmare; stalinisttactics
Freedom of the press is basically dead in America except for the internet. Explosive Stuff.
1 posted on 07/26/2012 2:55:51 PM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories.

It seems to me that they are just admitting what we all knew.

2 posted on 07/26/2012 3:00:37 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Pity the poor blogs who snag these bastardized “news” stories
and then try to re-write them in hope of getting hits.

They peddle twice-warmed-over bullshit.


3 posted on 07/26/2012 3:03:16 PM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo, being wily, pities the fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials

No, the New York Times and every other major news organization willfully and enthusiastically censors the news ONLY when a Marxist/Communist/Socialist POS Demonrat administration has infested the White House.


4 posted on 07/26/2012 3:06:36 PM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Does anyone believe Bill Eee-go-reilly did NOT get his questions approved before hand?


5 posted on 07/26/2012 3:11:32 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To kin and former friends: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for “quote approval” before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. “

It is very frightening that the MSM would protect the Obama Campaign from ill-advised quotes or other information that might put a bad light on the president.

We must get our media to cease granting such editorial control to Democrat campaigns and Democratic presidents.


6 posted on 07/26/2012 3:17:09 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

We need to split them up.


7 posted on 07/26/2012 3:17:28 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Think carefully about what’s happening though. People who will only use material from these censored sources (folks like Rush Limbaugh and most “conservative” pundits) are automatically self-censoring as well, because the only people who CAN give them the unfiltered stuff are people who don’t care to be “government approved”.

Blogs are where you can get new information that’s not censored. Unfortunately, because anybody can have a blog there is little way for people to know who is trustworthy and who not. That means if you run a blog and want to be considered credible you have to document everything. Which is good, but it also bogs down the issues in minutiae. If the reporters at NYT, for instance, had to show copies of every document that supports what they say, give the names and copies of all communications with the sources they rely on, etc.... who would ever talk to them, and who would ever slog through their reports?

And yet that’s what blog authors have to do. It’s almost a no-win situation because if you document everything it’s so tedious you lose your readers, and if you don’t document everything you’re not credible.

That’s where we’re at though. It’s not going to change anytime soon either.


8 posted on 07/26/2012 3:20:05 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

So, which White House or Obama campaign gatekeeper signed off on “You Didn’t Build That” once it finally made it to mainstream outlets?


9 posted on 07/26/2012 3:21:40 PM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

The reporter admitted what we knew about the NY Times. He cannot speak for others.The Times is a left wing rag. Consider the source.


10 posted on 07/26/2012 3:25:22 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for "quote approval" before they will be published.

Let me guess how this works.

Articles submitted back for review

BO: 713
MR: 2

11 posted on 07/26/2012 3:30:02 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Hell can’t be made too hot for this fifth-column traitorous press.


12 posted on 07/26/2012 3:33:28 PM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head

ping


13 posted on 07/26/2012 3:35:08 PM PDT by Marie Antoinette (:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I haven’t trusted the press for a long time and that includes fox. I do not bother with it. These folks are completely out of touch with what is happening in this country ad throughout the world. They seem like rabid clueless dogs. The only thing they are good for is an argument based on hate and ignorance.


14 posted on 07/26/2012 3:35:16 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

That is why I never even bother to watch any MSM. And you know they are allowed to make all kinds of mistakes and miss quotes against the Tea Party and Conservatives.


15 posted on 07/26/2012 3:51:20 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

And these are the presstitutes that will get to moderate the presidential debates.

A rigged debate is worse than a rigged gameshow.

This is an Orwellian Nightmare.


16 posted on 07/26/2012 3:54:53 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Eric Holder's NAACP rally against the voter ID laws required the press to bring govt issue photo ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The MSM are card carrying members of the RINO/DINO club. That is why when they want to report what Conservatives think, they ask John McCain.


17 posted on 07/26/2012 3:55:12 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thouworm; LucyT; MestaMachine; onyx; SE Mom

Got a feeling we’ll need to refer to this article in the future...Are there cracks appearing in the wall?


18 posted on 07/26/2012 3:58:58 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

” . . . except for the internet.”

Kinda reminds me, though, of the times when threads are pulled on various conservative sites.


19 posted on 07/26/2012 3:59:37 PM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Some wealthy conservative should buy them up, close them down and open modern conservative news services


20 posted on 07/26/2012 4:06:10 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Bump


21 posted on 07/26/2012 6:12:04 PM PDT by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Are we headed into the pattern of the Nazi Germany?


 

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

~Pastor Martin Niemöller

Community and individuality are not opposites. People cannot survive on their own. When the odds are stacked against you, you must rally with the oppressed and hated.

When a growing oppressive regime is taking hold, you must act, otherwise you will soon face your enemy alone and hopeless.

Strength of community is a strength as much as individualism, as long you are willing to face weaknesses in your own community. Ignoring slacking values will mean that you will be rallied against by those you oppress.

Niemöller affirms we must rally against unhealthy organized regimes. We must also stay vigilant with those that appear to be good natured, as all organisation attracts corruption. Niemöller also warns us that if it is you who are corrupt, then you will face a stronger combined force of foe!

~Vexen Crabtree


22 posted on 07/26/2012 6:15:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

It certainly explains why any stories regarding Obama’s eligibility vanish down the memory hole within hours of their appearance.


23 posted on 07/26/2012 7:04:19 PM PDT by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Wow. Not surprising- but still...it somehow shocks me. Not about the NYT and some others- but the extent to which this is done is giving a very frightening picture.

Mind control is the ultimate weapon.

Thanks for the ping.


24 posted on 07/26/2012 7:04:37 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

This of course, was the main reason that Bush I was forced onto the Reagan-Bush ticket. And the reason for all successive presidents.

Either they’re one of them or a Puppet Spammer.
Hillary Romney is one of them, and the Coffee Server is a Puppet Spammer.

Look a step farther and see who are the main equity holders of those same banks. And see why Extortion-Care was rammed down full panic.


25 posted on 07/26/2012 7:51:42 PM PDT by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
” . . . except for the internet.”
Kinda reminds me, though, of the times when threads are pulled on various conservative sites.
Every publication is edited for a target audience. When you post on FR, it is Jim Robinson who is exercising his freedom of the press, and he and his moderators do the editing by pulling comments or whole threads as they deem appropriate to their target audience.
It’s not necessary for you to submit to that “censorship,” of course - you can just make your own web site. And try to draw an audience to it . . .

26 posted on 07/27/2012 1:50:38 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Oh, I’m well aware of that nifty little argument, but exactly the same thing can apply to the entire media, old and new. It’s hypocrisy to point out the mote in the other fellow’s eye etc, but please do carry on!


27 posted on 07/27/2012 9:28:43 PM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux; abb; PGalt
Kinda reminds me, though, of the times when threads are pulled on various conservative sites.
Every publication is edited for a target audience. When you post on FR, it is Jim Robinson who is exercising his freedom of the press, and he and his moderators do the editing by pulling comments or whole threads as they deem appropriate to their target audience. It’s not necessary for you to submit to that “censorship,” of course - you can just make your own web site. And try to draw an audience to it . . .
exactly the same thing can apply to the entire media, old and new.
. . . with the very minor difference that in the case of the “old media” - that is, pseudo objective journalism, in whatever medium - there is a monopoly (the AP) involved. Actually, in the case of broadcast journalism, there is the matter of outright government licensing of the press involved as well.
It is true that there is some “competition” in the delivery of news to journalism outlets by other wire services, but the critical point is that in principle wire services homogenize journalism, no matter how many wire services there may be.

Before the advent of the telegraph and the AP, newspapers were mostly weeklies, and got their news largely the same way the general public did - from other newspapers, and by word of mouth. Consequently newspapers were very much about their individual printers’ viewpoints - in the mold of the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Newspapers were notoriously partisan, and didn’t agree on much of anything.

Then came the telegraph, and the Associated Press. If you wanted to operate a telegraph, you needed two things:
  1. money, and
  2. a right of way to string your line.
Once you had your financing, the next thing you did was to offer free command, control, and communication services to a railroad - and the railroad would give you rights to string your cable next to the track. But how do you get the money? The AP will give you a lucrative contract to send AP news over your line. That contract gives you your baseline of funding which enables you to get up and running. If you can sell private messaging too, you will even make money. But as far as competitive news services, forget it - you have contracted to send AP news exclusively.

That’s the way the AP monopolized wire service. On the other end, the AP was the only game in town if you wanted to have a major newspaper. You paid the big bucks, and in exchange you had a cornucopia of news stories gushing out of the wire. People would consider themselves ignorant if they had not seen your newspaper today. But, what were those reports? Who even wrote them? The editor of your newspaper doesn’t even know these guys, let alone employ them. How can your readers trust that stuff?

Ah, my friend, that is the easy part. You have to tell your readers that all reporters are objective. And if anyone questions you, you just say that the AP is a group of newspapers, and everyone knows that newspapers don’t agree about anything. So the AP is objective - and if anyone tells you different, why, they themselves are not journalists, not objective.
Of course everyone who thinks about it knows that the only way to even try to be objective is to be open and honest about all the reasons you can think of that you might not be objective. And that when you are saying you actually are objective you are avoiding that first step in actually trying to be objective. If you know yourself to be objective, you cannot give “both sides of the story” without patronizing the side with which you do not agree. After all, you are objective, and they are not, right?

But that’s OK - hey, you are a grownup; you know the score. You know the people are like sheep, they’ll believe anything you tell them. Just sign here, and you are part of the objective crowd. If you stay out of it - hey, everyone will know that you aren’t objective. We’ll see to that. And remember, stick with the program - I’m objective, you are objective, everyone on the inside is objective - and nobody who thinks any different is anybody at all. You go along and get along - or else you are out of business. Just sign here - and don’t forget to pay your dues.

Whatever barriers you perceive to entry into the field of web opinionating pale into insignificance compared with the barriers to entry into print journalism - say nothing of the barriers to entry into broadcasting. Hey, we all think our own opinions are important. But “a man’s gotta know his limitations.”

Journalism and Objectivity


28 posted on 07/28/2012 7:16:55 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/city_council_passes_resolution.html
New Orleans City Council passes resolution urging the Times-Picayune to remain a daily


29 posted on 07/28/2012 7:33:42 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson