Report: Iraq Coverage Wasn't Biased

[merwin]

Report- Iraq Coverage Wasn't Biased
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK - A study of news coverage of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) fails to support a conclusion that events were portrayed either negatively or positively most of the time.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism looked at nearly 2,200 stories on television, newspapers and Web sites and found that most of them couldn't be categorized either way.

Twenty-five percent of the stories were negative and 20 percent were positive, according to the study, released Sunday by the Washington-based think tank.

Despite the exhaustive look, the study likely won't change the minds of war supporters who considered the media hostile to the Bush administration, or opponents who think reporters weren't questioning enough, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.

"There was enough of both to annoy both camps," he said. "But the majority of stories were just news."
...

----------

All i can say is
:wtf:

[EFerrari]

1. Pretty blatant, even for Authorized Propaganda.

Have you noticed the new trend -- just publish the conclusion for the sheeple to absorb?

The Iraq "coverage" was biased as hell, thank you so very much, DAVID, and no matter how many reprints this gets, it don't change the facts.

/typo

[merwin]

2. My favorite part is

"The Project for Excellence in Journalism looked at nearly 2,200 stories on television, newspapers and Web sites and found that most of them couldn't be categorized either way"

which then goes on to say there were more negative news on Iraq than positive news.

In my opinion, omission is a very big factor in the news reports, such as downplaying the loss of civilian life and iraqi troops. How many pictures of the aftermath of Fallujah did you see printed, or even mentioned?

[EFerrari]

4. Exactly. I learned about Fallujah because I read warblogging,

an excellent blog.

Most people don't know we are spreading "democracy" via napalm and depleted uranium. Maybe when their grandchildren are born with deformities, they'll begin to get the picture.

A very dangerous moment, this is. I am encouraged a little by the bit of scrutiny the death of our press is getting.

/typos again

[kevinmc]

3. DAVID BAUDER........

The Fatherland thanks you. Hail Jeebus

[cornermouse]

5. Investment goes to packaging information instead of gathering it.

Sounds like bias to me...

"Yet the project found that much of the investment in the news business goes to packaging information instead of gathering it. More than half of people at Web news organizations surveyed by Pew said they had seen cutbacks in their newsrooms over the past three years."

and then the morning laugh paragraph

"The notion that Americans are headed toward a more partisan form of news consumption isn't borne out by research, Rosenstiel said. With the exception of Republican cable news viewers who prefer Fox, most media consumption mirrors the population in general."

Basically these two paragraphs contradict their original premise that coverage isn't biased.

[EFerrari]

6. I did 45 seconds of research

on the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

It's run through the Columbia Journalism Grad School, and its directors are all middle guns from the corporate media.

This is precisely like the Pentagon investigating itself or better, like my Gropenator investigating himself.

You just have to laugh or your head will explode.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Bingo. Good work!

[Roland99]

45. Could you post the fruits of your research, please?

:)

[EFerrari]

50. Here's a link to their site:

http://www.journalism.org/who/faq/default.asp

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Right.

During the initial invasion, CNN was a 24 hour-a-day infomercial for American defense contractors, and that's not the sort of thing I say lightly.

But come on. They literally had little spinning 3D models of various combat vehicles with all of their relevant death-dealing statistics listed in a bad-ass military typeface.

Is that considered neither positive nor negative? Methinks they would get a different reaction if they showed the medical procedures necessary to remove shrapnel from the abdomen. Maybe they could show us some fancy 3D models of that.

Edit: clarification.

[EFerrari]

8. You are so right. That's when I stopped watching CNN

for anything more than chuckles. It was outrageous and disgusting.

And, come to think of it, that's when Mr.sfexpat and I started writing jokes about Cr@p Not News and Mendacity Supplied Nightly By Crackpots. We now have a whole 45 minutes set on the media and it kills, everywhere, because people HATE, hate, hate being lied to. And these guys aren't even trying to look fair or truthful any more.

[leftchick]

9. and shock and awe like it was a frigging video game.....

and people cheering their TVs while the poor people of Iraq were being blown to bits. Yep, no bias there.

[jmcgowanjm]

37. 2+2=5

I noticed that when the US controlled
the situation the "Baghdad to the Horizon"
TV shots stopped.

And that when the US controlled the situation
Baghdad lost it's electricity which
hasn't come back yet.

The Battle of Baghdad

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told
the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late
on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight,
and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be
brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple
to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of
the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military
following the 1991 war.  Article from March 24,
2003,

http://www.eces.org/articles/000060.php).

Now go ahead and check the official numbers for the three-
day battle

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uscasualties2.html 

The Bush media admits a total of thirteen deaths for in
the period of April 5-7, 2003, when the young American
soldiers and Marines fought and died in the Battle of
Baghdad. 

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/September/8%20o/Battle%20of%20Baghdad,%20April%205-7,%202003,%20Part%20II%20An%20Update%20By%20Eric%20H.%20May.htm

[LynnTheDem]

10. Oops what BULLSHIT.

FAIR; In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views

More than two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.)-- expressed skepticism or opposition to the war.

Of all official sources, only 14 percent (43 of 297) represented a position skeptical or opposed to the U.S. war policy.

Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy-- ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration's war plans.

http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html

Study; Support for War Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source

The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml

Study: Misperceptions About Iraq War Contributed to Support For It

Released jointly by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks in early October, the report revealed those who use Fox as their primary news source were "more likely than average to have misperceptions."

One misperception the report focused on included the belief that there was solid evidence demonstrating an Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The report also focused on the mistaken beliefs many Americans had that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that the majority of the world supported Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. A staggering 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these misperceptions, and 45 percent believed all three.

On the other end of the spectrum, it was discovered that those who use PBS and NPR as their main news source were the least likely to believe these misperceptions. Only 23 percent believed one, and a barely noticeable 4 percent believed in all three.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1003-08.htm

Journalists on the Controlled, Censored and Biased Media Coverage

Mark Steel: The minute it's made up, you'll hear about it (Independent.co.uk, 3 April 2003)

“You expect lies, but usually they're found out once a war is over. But in this war the lying is so inept that it gets rumbled the next day. So the news starts 'Oh, apparently that uprising we yelled about all through yesterday didn't happen' or 'Ah, yes, that chemical weapons factory turned out to be an all-night petrol garage'. The military briefings must be given by one of those pathological liars you get in pubs.

Patrick Martin: Media bosses admit pro-war bias in coverage of Iraq (wsws.org, 2 May 2003)

“Two leading media bosses have admitted what has been increasingly evident throughout the month-long war in Iraq: the American broadcast media systematically distorted the news of the war and functioned as an electronic arm of the Pentagon and the Bush administration.

In separate speeches April 24 in London and San Francisco, BBC Director General Greg Dyke and Ted Turner, founder of CNN, discussed the performance of the media during the war.

More at link:

http://www.cryingvoice.com/media1.html

The BBC And Iraq: Myth and Reality

In his latest column, John Pilger highlight’s the recent criticism of American television reporting of Iraq by BBC Director-General Greg Dyke. The US networks’ coverage of the invasion, said Dyke, was "cheerleading for government." But what of the BBC’s own coverage of Iraq?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger3.html

Media Coverage of Iraq Called “Shameful” By Peers.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ghi23cS4niAJ:www.americanfreepress.net/04_06_04/Media_Coverage/media_coverage.html+media+coverage+pro-war+Iraq&hl=en

Common Myths in Iraq Coverage (November 27, 2002)

Several factual errors circulate with alarming frequency in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Iraq crisis. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) presents the most common myths and sets the record straight.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1127myths.htm

The Papers that Cried Wolf (December 16, 2002)

Brian Whitaker looks at how articles in the US media are giving currency to false or questionable claims made by US intelligence officials and others. He argues that this is part of an effort to “soften up public attitudes to war with Iraq.” (Guardian)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1216wolf.htm

How the Press Downplayed the Protests (January 24, 2003)

Wayne Madsen discusses the media’s deliberate failure to accurately report the number of participants during the anti-war protests in Washington DC on January 18. The voices of the people opposing war were not heard because the Bush administration (and others) have attempted to “marginalize the protestors.” (Counter Punch)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0124howpress.htm

American Television Channels on a War Footing (January 31, 2003)

The US military are not the only ones preparing for a war. Major US television networks ranging from Fox to CNN are devoting great amounts of resources in an attempt to establish themselves as the main source of information during a war with Iraq. (Le Monde)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0131americtel.htm

How the News Will Be Censored in This War (February 25, 2003)

CNN has developed a system of approval that requires all reports to be submitted to anonymous officials in Atlanta to ensure the script is “suitably sanitized.” (Independent)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0225howthe.htm

Do Media Know That War Kills? (March 14, 2003)

The mainstream media in the US avoids reporting that people are killed in a war and the civilian infrastructure will be destroyed along with consequences for public health for a long time after the war is over. (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0314domedia.htm

Fog of Coverage Paved the Way for War (March 27, 2003)

Even some members of the mainstream US media are beginning to suggest that they were used by the Pentagon in the lead-up to a war against Iraq to promote the argument that the war would be, in the words of one US official, "a cakewalk." (Toronto Star)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0327fog.htm

Making Up News (March, 2003)

This article in Le Monde Diplomatique provides examples of US media bias in conflicts and how coverage has become one-sided and strongly patriotic in recent years.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/03makingup.htm

The US Vs. The UK (April 11, 2003)

There is a difference between US and UK media reporting of the war. For example, Fox News presents an exciting story with a narrow focus and the BBC informs the viewer and offers an opportunity to ask tough questions. (Nation)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0411usvsuk.htm

Hawks Turned Media into Parrots (June 12, 2003)

The Bush administration and the Pentagon did an excellent job of using the US media as tool of propaganda for the war against Iraq. A recent study shows that Pentagon and US administration officials along with other proponents of war dominated the US media, marginalizing any dissident voices. (Toronto Star)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0612censorship.htm

All the News That's Fudged to Print (June 6, 2003)

Harper’s magazine publisher John R. MacArthur accuses the New York Times of publishing scare stories on Iraq to promote Washington’s war. He especially condemns writer Judith Miller for her “falsified” stories around the time of the US Congress sessions authorizing the war. (Globe and Mail)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0606fudged.htm

Reality Clouded by Fog of War (June 1, 2003)

The credibility of media reporting during and after the war in Iraq raises serious questions. The dubious reports range from the fabrication of Private Lynch story to the search for weapons of mass destruction, and have so far yielded scant evidence and comical findings such as a cache of vacuum cleaners. (New Zealand Herald)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2003/0601reality.htm

BBC News Chief Attacks US Media War Coverage
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/871

WHOSE FAULT is it that 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein did 911, while no other nation on the planet ever believed this? WHOSE FAULT is it, that Americans think the world supported the invasion of Iraq while the rest of the world knew that wasn't true?

“There must have been two wars in Iraq. There was the war I saw and wrote about as a print journalist embedded with a tank company of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized). Then there was the war that many Americans saw, or wanted to see, on TV.” - Ron Martz

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1886508

Dozens more links to articles on the fact and disgrace of the totally pro-war biased US media

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/invasion_coverage.html

[skeeters]

33. If Only

What a pleasure to read all the comments. And if only we could get Lynn The Dem to replace Joe "Kiss Bush's Ass" Biden.

The reporters in this war are embedded, they can't go anywhere without a military escort, and that includes Hillary.

Most major news organizations are owned by defense contractors and need war coverage for ratings.

If there was negative coverage, it is only because for now they can't hide 1,500 killed in a war based on lies.

Why are the Dems so afraid to say this? Follow the money.

[LynnTheDem]

47. What "Dems"? There are only a handful of real ones.

The rest are all Lites.

You're right...follow the money.

[rooboy]

11. The news broadcasts may have been unbiased, but commentary wasn't n/t

[YankeyMCC]

12. No bias on Iraq, media study finds

I find this incredibly hard to believ.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/03/14/no_bias_on_iraq_media_study_finds/

Has anyone seen the actual report or know more about "The Project for Excellence in Journalism" ?

[still_one]

13. obviously they were excluding the U.S. press in this report

[LynnTheDem]

14. Hard to believe because in fact it's pure & utter bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1310141

[rodeodance]

15. these numbers on the campaign coverage seem backward to me

.....The three network evening newscasts tended to be more negative than positive, while the opposite was true of morning shows, the study said. Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, unlike the more neutral CNN and MSNBC, the study said.

A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared with 12 percent for Democrat John F. Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush and 30 percent for Kerry, according to findings of the project, which examined about 250 stories for tone. ''I don't know whether this was because was the incumbent or because a lot of the coverage of the campaign was filtered through events in Iraq," Rosenstiel said. ''It's probably a little of both."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is affiliated with the Columbia University School of Journalism. The study was financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Printer Friendly

[LynnTheDem]

22. 100% backwards when it's Faux Moos

Networks Praise Kerry, Fox News Buries Him
Study finds election news tilts both ways

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksPraiseKerry.htm

ABC was seen as the most centered; Faux of course as the most partisan & biased.

[Califooyah Operative]

16. BS nt

[Gin]

17. There are no more Reporters......all we have now are "Repeaters'.

They all say the exact same thing with their own little twist to make it sound original. Pathetic puppets.

[fasttense]

18. Not to mention those stories on how Iraqi women would be freed by

by the war. You know those stories of how the war would let women out of the house and allow them to drive, vote and smoke. Turns out all those nice stories of how Iraqi women would get their rights back were prepackaged propaganda provided by the b*sh administration and given to the media for airing. The media didn't research it or anything. They just edited out the parts about it being provided by the b*sh administration and made it look as if it were their own story. Yeah, right, no bias in the media. They just play the b*sh propaganda as if it's news.

[democracyindanger]

19. Flawed from the get-go

Going from what Rosenstiel says, apparently the news media is supposed to strive to present equal parts good and bad news. With that reasoning, if your mother was murdered, the news media should present as many good stories about your mom being killed as bad ones. Or take the Holocaust. "Excellence" in journalism, apparently, means that for all the stories about mass murder, there should have been an equal number of reports about, I dunno, the Nazi's efficiency and the sturdiness of the boxcars.

Iraq coverage SHOULD'VE been biased. The truth isn't neutral.

[bpilgrim]

20. it's all in our heads, eh?

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[xchrom]

21. goldilocks and the three bears.

what can you say?
it's a fairy tale.

[leesa]

23. Right. Then how come there were no pictures. How come no stories

about Iraqis and their toll? Liar.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. What a pile of crap. Wonder who funds this group?

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. "the majority of stories were just news" aha - "stories" there's the key

.
.
.

"Stories" being the key word

They looked at 2200 stories

It's the ten thousand stories that they DIDN'T cover

or should that be 100,000 and counting

if they did a story on every murdered Iraqi that is . . .

No one but a Bush-voting Murikkkan will believe THIS Story/Report on bias/non-bias anyhoo

well,

maybe a few brain deficient Canuks here and there . . .

:eyes:

[LeftHander]

27. Report: Report on Iraq Converage bias wasn't biased

nothing to see here....the report says so...

"These are not the droids you are looking for..."

[Mnemosyne]

28. Propaganda about propaganda, how typical. Thanks merwin! n/t

[plasticsundance]

29. Ah ... Propaganda on the Propaganda ... What next?

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

The Source of the Trouble
Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3057

CBS also ran a piece that day on "The Early Show," raising the possibility that Iraq might go nuclear within months. However, that piece included an interview with a former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who said it was "ridiculous" to claim the tubes were evidence of a nuclear program. "That tubing has to go into a factory. That factory needs to be operational," he said. "And if it's operational, it would be detected. So rather than talk about the tubes, let's talk about the factory. Where is the factory?"

That seems to have been the first news report to question the significance of the tubes. But doubts were raised in various quarters throughout the following week, and on Friday, September 13, Miller and Gordon published a follow-up story that included some of those doubts. It quoted senior officials as saying the doubters were a minority within the intelligence community.


On April 21, Miller published a story that seemed to get Bush off the hook, at least partially. Of all her stories, this one has drawn the fiercest criticism. She was traveling at the time with a unit called Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha. She wrote that an Iraqi scientist (not named but said to be wearing "nondescript clothes and a baseball cap") had told MET Alpha that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological warfare agents "only days before the war began."

... Meanwhile, other reporters in Iraq were not corroborating Miller's story. In fact, during April and May, they seemed to be contradicting it. The Washington Post's Barton Gellman published articles describing the frustration of various weapons-hunting teams as all of their hot leads turned cold. On one occasion, he wrote, a team had confiscated an unidentified powder (possibly anthrax?) along with a suspicious-looking document, handwritten in Arabic. But the powder turned out, after testing, to be harmless, and the document turned out to be some kid's high school science project.

[Griffy]

42. its good, they know we are on to them! so they use more PROPAGANNON!

keep up the focus, spread the word, talk to friends.... we will expose this and set the truth free!

[mbperrin]

30. Whew! What a relief! The media is on the march!!

Say, is goosestepping supposed to be THAT high?

[durutti]

31. Facially absurd.

Hopefully FAIR and/or Media Matters respond.

[jmcgowanjm]

34. Danny Schechter responds

Over the course of the conference, the only time I heard the
word “Iraq” was when I noted, that in case they hadn’t
noticed, we are at war and that maybe we should discuss
what we were going to do about it. I was met with blank
stares. Apart from a few recent grassroots efforts,
the mainstream left has largely ignored the growing
insurgency
in Iraq.

Anthony Lappe of Guerrilla News Network.

http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/

Once you let the lie of 911 go by
then you can more easily accept the rest.

Americans know, unconsciously, this is a global war
to maintain our $40 trillion debt laden
standard of living.
1-Crowds have their own way of thinking. They cannot think
the truth, because they cannot know it any better than we can.
But crowds lack patience with irony, nuance, complexity.
Ideas need to be dumbed down and vulgarized so they can
be taken up by the masses. They end up as dumb as
campaign slogans or war jingos… that is, little more than
stupid lies.
2-Never in the history of man had people been able to get
rich by spending money.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_03/bonner011303.html

[jmcgowanjm]

32. Two years ago today

Russian military intel report: update on the situation in Iraq

According to Col. Gen. Korabelnikov beginning at 1200 on
Friday March 14 US forces operate in the high combat
readiness state and are capable of initiating combat
operations 3-4 hours after they receive orders to such effect.
All necessary combat orders have been delivered to all levels
of command structure down to the battalion level
commanders.

The GRU chief reported that due to the current
international situation it is unlikely that the US will seek a vote
in the UN Security Council on the new Iraq resolution. Doing
so will inevitably lead to a failure to gain necessary
support, which is most undesirable for the US. Therefore,
the Bush administration will prefer to act using the previous
UN resolution as an excuse for starting the
war.

It seems likely that the combat operations will begin on 19-22
of March at around 2-4 am local time.

Ramzaj

meanwhile at the official level on 14 March 2003 :

Mr Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spain's
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar will meet in the Azores in
the Atlantic Ocean on Sunday, White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer said.
The meeting was aimed at a "final pursuit" of a UN resolution,
Mr Fleischer said.
"We are still pursuing the vote next week. We have not said
what date," he said.

[Hissyspit]

35. Here's Editor and Publisher's coverage of the "study"

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511


There is, at least, this in there...

"There are clear differences between Fox versus its cable rivals, the study found. Fox News stories contain more sources and reveal more about them than those of its competitors, but its stories are also more one-sided and are more opinionated.

Indeed, Fox journalists offer their own opinion in seven out of ten stories on the news channel, versus less than one in ten stories on CNN and one in four on MSNBC."

[Hissyspit]

36. Ohmagawd! (best Valley Girl voice) They are like so kidding, right?

Before the war...
NO COVERAGE of possible rise of the insurgency.
NO INTERVIEWS with Will Pitt (that I know of...)
NO COVERAGE of potential Gulf-War Syndrome-like hazards (except one NPR story)
NO QUESTIONING of whether Saddam Hussein actually did many of the things he has been accused of doing.

They're kidding, right...?

[bullimiami]

38. Bwa HA HA HA HA!!!!!! The Montgomery Burns Award for

Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence goes to......

[Sapphire Blue]

39. The Pew Charitable Trusts

Grant Details



Venture Fund
(Venture Fund Initiated)

Project Name: Project for Excellence in Journalism
Legal Name: Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
New York, NY
$4,300,000.00 over 3 yrs.
Grant was approved June 2003

Purpose:

To enhance journalistic standards through high-quality research and outreach to newsrooms.

Contact:

Mr. Tom Rosenstiel
Director
202-293-7394
[e-mail]

Web site: Project for Excellence in Journalism

http://www.pewtrusts.com/grants/grants_item.cfm?grant_id=5197&program_area_id=16

[Sapphire Blue]

40. The Pew Research Center

The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

http://people-press.org/about/

[TankLV]

41. Que music, logos, graphics - regularly scheduled.

Just like the soaps or a made-for-TV movie.

Do they think we are all brain dead?!?!?!!!!

I'll never forget all those pre-made graphics complete with music BEFORE the war:

America's March To War!
Saddam's Capture
etc. etc.

What about all the "nifty" prepackaged programs they developed just like video games or a television special?

Fucking idiots.

[YankeyMCC]

43. A bit of sanity

From American Progress Fund - It's not directly related to the bogus study but this ought to provide a bit of balance to the idea that the Media hasn't been biased in favour of BushCo

MEDIA
The White House Fakes It

Continued violence in Iraq, a struggling economy, an unpopular plan to privatize Social Security, homeland security left underfunded while the rich get giant tax cuts … what's a White House to do when the news about its policies isn't favorable? Fake it. An explosive, front-page New York Times story this weekend exposes President Bush's vast manipulation of the media and White House attempts to manipulate public opinion. Over the past four years, it turns out at least 20 different federal agencies have been involved in producing hundreds – yes, hundreds – of fake TV news segments, many of which were "subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production." In fact, since President Bush took office, the White House has spent at least $254 million on these fake segments and other public relations ploys to spread positive propaganda about his policies. President Bush has paid lip service to the concept of a free press, saying in January 2005, "there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." He also claimed "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Here's what happens when it can't:

LOSE YOUR IDENTITY: One of the largest concerns about these fake news segments is that they obscure the fact that they are paid for using taxpayer money and contain a one-sided, purely positive take on administration policy. In a now-infamous segment by the Department of Health and Human Services, a PR official named Karen Ryan posed as a reporter interviewing then-Secretary Tommy Thompson. (Her role in the well-rehearsed spot was to give Thompson "better, snappier answers" to her pre-approved questions.) The Government Accountability Office found the agency "designed and executed" her segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations."

OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."

IGNORE THE GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan branch of Congress that investigates government fraud. The GAO criticized the administration's role in creating phony news three separate times in the past year, saying unless viewers are aware that what they're watching is government produced, it constitutes "covert propaganda." The GAO also forbade federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." The administration's response? The New York Times reports that on Friday, "the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings."

IGNORE FEDERAL LAW: These fake news spots are produced with taxpayer money by outside public relations firms. Federal law warns federal agencies away from doing exactly that; the U.S. Code states "appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." However, the GAO, which monitors the law, has no enforcement power. That responsibility lies with Congress and the White House. U.S. federal law also contains the Smith Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the spread of government propaganda in the United States (although it allows groups like Voice of America to broadcast it to foreign audiences.) According to the NY Times, State Department officials claim that provision doesn't apply to them.


Full progress report at: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124597

[tom_paine]

44. Looks like the Project for Excellence in Jounralism has joined

Operation Mockingbird.

I wonder how many PsyOps and other Busheviks are assigned to work the copiers at that place.

In either case, this organization has in rapid fire produced two of the most odious propaganda "studies" since the 1978 Soviet Agriculture Report.

The other, which can be found in LBN, states that Corporate TV Pravda coverage of the 2004 "election" was harder on Bush than it was on Kerry.

Orwell was correct, and soon there will come a day when ALL things will Mockingbird for the Emperor and the PARTY, and as we are accustyomed to now, the truth won't even leak out on pA27 or in the Palookaville Press even for one day.

We are rapidly approaching the Full Sovietization of Amerika.

And the "project for Excellence in Journalism" is now entusiastically and Soviet-like endorsing the Orwellian Opposite of it's name.

Just like any other Bushevik organization.

[zara]

46. You see, the War is Wrong viewpoint was not worth reporting,

So there was no bias in excluding that "point of view".

[XemaSab]

48. 45% of News Stories Showed Major Bias, Report Finds

That's what the headline should be.

Whatever happened to news being "unbiased"?????

[Hissyspit]

49. O.K., if not biased, how 'bout incompetent or uninformed? nt