L.A. Times National Security Reporter Cleared Stories With CIA Before Publishing 188
New submitter Prune (557140) writes with a link to a story at The Intercept which might influence the way you look at media coverage of the kind of government activity that deserves rigorous press scrutiny. According to the story, "Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times." Another telling excerpt: On Friday April 27, 2012, he emailed the press office a draft story that he and a colleague, David Cloud, were preparing. The subject line was “this is where we are headed,” and he asked if “you guys want to push back on any of this.” It appears the agency did push back. On May 2, 2012, he emailed the CIA a new opening to the story with a subject line that asked, “does this look better?”
The piece ran on May 16, and while it bore similarities to the earlier versions, it had been significantly softened.
A little scary (Score:4, Insightful)
A little scary when press cozies up to a law-enforcement branch of government, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. What else did people think would happen when the government reversed the law that previously made government-sponsored propaganda illegal?
For those of you that aren't aware, they repeated it last July. Conveniently not too long after the Snowden leaks. What a coincidence!
Re: (Score:2)
When did reporters actually report news regardless of politics? I'm 60, and I sure don't remember any such time. I remember times when they were better at masking it, though.
When I was in China (Score:5, Interesting)
I came from China
I ran away from China during the Cultural Revolution. During that time, the so-called "Press" in China are but mouthpiece of the CCP - every piece of "news" from them are of the excellence of Chairman Mao and the Communist Party, and how the people must defeat the ugly filthy enemy of the revolutionaries
I ran away from China because I couldn't stand such thing. I ended up in the United States of America because back then the U. S. of A. was the epitome of liberty, freedom and democracy (at least to a Chinese refugee)
Nowadays America, my adopted country, has turned into something that I ran away from, where the "Press" no longer collaborate with the authority, where the "Media" willingly becomes the mouthpiece of the power that be
Many of my fellow Chinese from China - especially the older generation - know how bad such system can be, and the sufferings of the people under that kind of depressive government
On the other hand, many of my fellow Americans do not understand the situation they are in - for them, as long as they get to kick back with their girlfriend in a cabin on Saturday night, life is good
All I can say is that I am sad, very sad
Re: (Score:2)
"Nowadays America, my adopted country, has turned into something that I ran away from, where the "Press" no longer collaborate with the authority, where the "Media" willingly becomes the mouthpiece of the power that be"
America has been at war and over throwing others since it's founding, you do know that right? Only someone naive would believe this. America has always been the way you are seeing it, you, like most of the ignorant masses of mankind don't do well to become historically literate.
Re: (Score:2)
Every place looks like the epitome of good things to a newcomer, since they haven't been around long enough to catch a glimpse of the grinning skull behind the happy smile. US marketed itself as beacon of freedom but was willing to use morally bankrupt tactics in its fight with the Soviet Union; it was inevitable that the national security apparatus b
Re: (Score:2)
I was a refugee back then (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when I arrived in America I had no passport. I was a refugee from a Communist Country, yearning for freedom, liberty and democracy, a place where I can think freely, without being told how to think or what to think
When I reached America, to me, at least, it was paradise - I felt that "freedom" that I never got to enjoy when I was in China
Of course I did not know anything about "Operation Mocking Bird", or anything similar - but even if I did know, at that time, America was still "free-ier" than the China that I ran away from
Today, however, if I were to be truthful to myself, I could no longer say the same thing
Sure, China is still a repressive country, but the America that I loved so much has slowly creeping towards the authoritarian style of government
And the worse part is, many of my fellow Americans are supporting that change --- for they want the government to make the "hate things"(like "hate speech") illegal, and they want the government to take away all the firearms (for safety), and they want to government to take away their liberty so that the government could "protect them"
That is the America of today, very different from the America when I first arrive in, some decades ago
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of your story is great, but saying most Americans are pushing to give up guns is facking stupid and not true.
I said "many", not "most"
And the worse part is, many of my fellow Americans are supporting that change --- for they want the government to make the "hate things"(like "hate speech") illegal, and they want the government to take away all the firearms (for safety), and they want to government to take away their liberty so that the government could "protect them"
Re: (Score:3)
If you said something along the lines of someone kicking back in front of the TV watching American Idol or some other shit, then sure I'd be with you. But your example of the degradation of America being demonstrated by someone being at bliss because they're with someone they live and are enjoy life because of it, seems extremely silly. Isn't having fun and sharing life with others the pinnacle of being human? I hardly see anything wrong with the example you presented.
Life is full of difficulties. I agree that the US is sliding into the abyss, but having a go at those who are trying to enjoy life while they can is rather cruel. Are you not capable of enjoying things anymore? Have you lost so much humanity that you can't see the error in your post?
I think what he is saying is that most Americans have their priorities screwed up in that they are completely fine with having their liberties stripped as long as they get to be otherwise comfortable and get to do things like fornication which certain governments condemn like the Chinese government so consequently Americans tend to measure their "freedom" by their standard of living and what mundane things they get to do rather than important things such as; freedom of speech, right to peaceably assemble, f
What is humanity if we have no future? (Score:3, Interesting)
Glad to read your reply, very thought provoking, even when you post it under an AC
Thanks !
Isn't having fun and sharing life with others the pinnacle of being human? I hardly see anything wrong with the example you presented
Technically you are correct, Sir
There is nothing wrong with having fun and sharing a good time with someone you love
But what I am talking about is not that fun-saturday-night-in-a-cabin-with-girlfriend
The gist of my point is on the "life-is-good" part. Too many of my fellow Americans only care about that part and never pay any attention to what the government is doing
The "good life" that my fellow Americans are having
Re: (Score:2)
no one should ever report something if they have talked to said person/group without stating so
Re: (Score:2)
Just another example of why newsclowns are worthless and make themselves enemies of the people.
It's the same with D.C. If they don't print positive things or at least cover up the bullshit, they won't get any more stories from the ruling sector.
Don't expect to actually get news, truth, valuable information or anything useful from THE NEWS. It is phonier than "The Osbornes" and only barely hints at actual events.
Even local newsclowns are satisfied with spewing out their versions of local stories. Most of the
Re: (Score:2)
Cozying up to your sources is part of the game.... But becoming a propaganda tool is unfortunately where we are at in the American free press. The friendly press even get offices in the government buildings of the agencies they are supposed to be covering. Becoming little more than an extension of the PR department. Cozy indeed. More like Stockholm Syndrome.
Snowden had to go to the British Press to report on the US government because the US press has a track record of killing unfavorable stories about t
Journalists got the memo you missed... (Score:2)
Unbeknown to most members of the public, among the first Executive Orders signed by President Obama upon taking office was the one, declaring Dissent is no longer patriotic [dailykos.com].
So, whereas it was glamorous and noble to dissent against RethugliKKKan election-thieves of the past, you better get all your stories pre-approved by the loving and caring government officials as long as a Nobel Peace laureate is in office.
Re: (Score:1)
All big newspapers have reduced their credibility to such a level that you'd better consider them tabliots rather than newspapers.
Please don't compare "big newspapers" to the tabloids. It's very insulting... to the tabloids.
Re:A little scary (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as people do want to believe slogans like "Fox News - Fair and Balanced", it won't get any better.
The story is about a reporter at the LA Times, it is not a story about "Fox News." As long as some people (like you) keep obsessing over Fox News instead of the sorry state of the media in general things are likely to get worse.
I'll repeat: this story is about an LA Times reporter, not about Fox News. If the mainstream media would simply report the facts fairly instead of spin them to try to "change the world" like they were taught in journalism school there would be less market need for Fox News.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as people do want to believe slogans like "Fox News - Fair and Balanced", it won't get any better.
The story is about a reporter at the LA Times, it is not a story about "Fox News."
Yep. In fact, this story is about a big supporter of the currently ruling party, collaborating with the executive branch held by that ruling party. This is the New York Times obeying Obama's CIA.
Both of which, BTW, want you to hate Fox News, which you are dutifully doing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Both of which, BTW, want you to hate Fox News, which you are dutifully doing."
Just because the CIA does something doesn't mean it is necessarily bad or irrational, it's in the governments interest to decrease political extremism where fox foments it if we're honest with ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
You mention failures but neglect to see your own. Fox news has something going that all the other news chanels do not- even if it is only in appearance alone. Griping about Fox existing and being popular sort of ignores the falts in the other chanels that make them unpopular with most.
Stickler for details (Score:4, Interesting)
This is change we can believe in. That was the plan right?
Viva OBAMA!
To be fair, this is not change we can believe in, but rather change we can believe. Except it might not be change. How would we know? And it might even be something that was done in the interests of publishing information about the government, a trade of a milder tone for more information. Again, how would we know?
Given that the linked story is incredibly one-sided against the reporter yet their worst example is the rewording of a story to the same story with the same information, I'm guessing this is nothing more than the age-old observation that if you want people to talk to you you don't go and twist everything they say in the worst possible light.
He did go against his paper's ethics guidelines though, and while on an individual case I wouldn't have a problem with what he did, if government officials got used to talking to people who allowed them to review the story before publication, then they'd be less inclined to other reporters who don't offer them such favors. Therefore he should be punished for the greater good, and for violating his paper's ethics rules. Sometimes meaning well or having good results simply does not justify something.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
What's Obama's involvement in this? Is he putting pressure on the CIA to squash news stories?
Re:A little scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Well considering the still-on-going corruption at the IRS where they targeted groups that "didn't fit the political narrative." I'd hazard that to be a yes, after all there's something like 25-30 people now who all worked on it, around it, and have "had their emails mysteriously disappear." The most recent case was another group of 5 employees emails [legalinsurrection.com] who just suddenly had theirs disappear as well. So, at this point I wouldn't even be surprised.
People already know about the corruption at the BLS, people have seen it with the EPA. Do you really think there aren't people who'd be willing to engage in it from the CIA. Hell I'm not even american, but canadian and I can see this stuff from across the border clear as day.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS also targeted groups that did "fit the political narrative", and it looks to me like the groups targeted were likely attempts to make political groups tax-exempt. I'm not real comfortable about groups like the EFF being tax-deductible (although I do deduct my contributions) in any case.
As far as the emails go, they didn't suddenly disappear. The email backup system at the IRS retained emails for only six months*, which was probably a bad idea, and therefore any storage was on local disks by peo
Re:A little scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Then what was in the "lost" emails? Something doesn't smell right.
Re:A little scary (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, very illegal stuff happened. It wasn't just 'extra scrutiny' and delays, although that happened too. The IRS illegally released donor lists [propublica.org]. If you want to understand why that is a problem, it helps to remember that the supreme court affirmed that such donor lists should not be released in the 50s when southern states tried to get the donor lists for the NAACP. Think of what problems that could have caused.
In any case, your own article shows that there was inappropriate political targeting going on at the IRS. the only question remaining is whether the targeting was biased to one side or the other. From the emails it is clear that some of the agents (Lois Lerner) strongly opposed Republicans. Do you think that bias affected her work? Maybe the lost emails would tell us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Demanding membership lists is definitely beyond the pale.
Not really. Pretty sure the IRS reasoning is "if you are bad at tax, then probably so are some of your trading partners".
Re:A little scary (Score:5, Insightful)
No, systematic harrassment of political lobbying groups posing as charitable 501 c(3) organizations. They should have registered as c(4)s, and no one would have given a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons. The rest seems pretty standard IT ineptitude. Plus there's the reality that the difference between a political lobbying group and a charitable organization is something that's almost impossible to legally define. It's kinda like porn that way: you and I both know which one is which, but in a court of law, you'll ne
Re:A little scary (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons.
Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not a coverup because the coverup didn't start until people started asking questions?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the suggestion is that there is a difference between asking questions and "telling" questions.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up.
Come on man, take your head out of the sand. There are recovered tweets and [dailycaller.com] emails [youtube.com] showing that Learner directly targeted the groups, there's even a possible link that Dick Durbin was involved as well. And of course we can't miss the part where she targeted a senator either. [sharylattkisson.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the IRS was looking at it from a partisan point of view and I doubt the president's administration had anything to do with it. When a group vociferously decries taxes and names themselves after an anti-tax insurrection, it only makes sense that the IRS would scrutinize them. It's no different than if the ATF were to scrutinize the NRA. I'm sure the NRA would love it, just as the Tea Party loves the IRS "scandal." It gives them an excuse to play the victim card and make a lot of noise in the pr
Re: (Score:3)
No, it does not make sense. There are constitutional amendments protecting speech and unreasonable search and seizure. The government (when it's law abiding) doesn't get to target people just because they don't like what they are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
The government (when it's law abiding) doesn't get to target people just because they don't like what they are saying.
1) I argued the exact opposite of this. The Tea Party people made themselves targets by what they said, yes, but that's not unreasonable. If you started a group called "The Timothy McVeigh Foundation" it wouldn't be unreasonable for the FBI to investigate this group.
2) Neither the First nor Fourth Amendment rights of the Tea Party organization were violated by the IRS. They scrutinized a group that warranted scrutiny. They didn't kick in any doors or censor anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
They are free to say whatever they want.
But, applying for tax exempt status gets you scrutinized. When all your free speech is about the evils of taxation, and you want the government to waive your obligation to pay taxes, you're blissfully naive if you think they won't take a long, hard look at your dealings.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. And you started this thread with a post about deflection.
1) Both liberal and conservative groups were scrutinized
2) The only group to actually be denied was a liberal one
3) IRS was headed by a Bush appointee
But that's the standard issue stuff that's been known about for years. But there's one more, and to borrow that line about man and god,
4) If Obama hadn't come into an office with Teabaggers, he would have had to create them
FFS, the guy tried to
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised how very little power the President actually has. It's the people in the background that turn the keys and press our buttons.
Re:A little scary (Score:5, Insightful)
The point here is that you don't seems to bat an eye that the most popular news network in the US is essentially a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. But if one LA Times reporter checks his stories with a CIA PR flack, then it's a sign of.... dunno, some sort of impending doom.
Show me that Obama (or any President) ordered this kind of behavior from the press and the CIA, and we can talk. In the meantime, this is little more than the usual "Bad Stuff is Happening Under Obama! He Is Therefore The Evil!"
Hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the problem (and yes, it's endemic to both parties) - you're a fucking hypocrite.
This kind of story essentially acts as a rorshach test - the typical assessment goes something like this:
1) Something BAD() has been done;
2) Check if the BAD() thing was done by the opposing party;
3) If "Yes", conjure up maximum moral outrage;
4) If "No", downplay the size, scope, or severity of the BAD() thing.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Hell, you speak disparagingly of "the most popular news network" as a mouthpiece of the GOP, but gloss over the fact that the rest of the media is just as much a mouthpiece for the Democrat party! And you don't bat an eye at that!
Fuck all of you party partisans and your silly "rah-rah" team rationalizations. The issue here isn't about parties - the issue here is about the press being in cahoots with our large, powerful, ever expanding, ever intrusive, and fucked up government, under *any* party.
Re: (Score:3)
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Feel free to show me where I did anything of that sort. What, you can't? Then STFU with your assumptions about how I think.
I have a bit more of a history with some of the posters on this site than you (courtesy of multiple IDs since the days that 3-digit UIDs were run of the mill). So I'm aware of their posting history, much more than you are aware of their or mine.
Furthermore, in your rage at perceived hypocrisy, you completely gloss over the fact that people apparently think that Obama personally calls up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ministry of truth (Score:5, Interesting)
Big Media == The Ministry of Truth [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Big Media == The Ministry of Truth [wikipedia.org]
The middle easterners laugh at you naive americans when you you get mad at them for killing "reporters" and "photographers". They've always known there that they're just de facto employees of any government working for the police; the so called journalists in the U.S. aren't any different.
The worst are the newsheet propagandistas supporting the incompetence and cover-ups of the local cop shops; the ones that embrace the philosophy of cowards: the conflicting mentality of being anti-militia & a cop-k
Independant Press (Score:5, Informative)
Lets also remember, that the media industry are some of the biggest backers of the government, and pay for quite a few seats in congress on their own right. There are few truely independant news sources.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They're here [propublica.org].
Independant Press in America (Score:2)
As late as the 1980's there were still true independent press in America
Yes, there were the "fringe", but at the very least, they were around
Nowadays? The so called indie-press are no longer truly independence - they either belong to the extreme-left-wing, or extreme-right-wing, subscribing to either the view of the ultra-liberal, or those of the ultra-conservative
Re:Independant Press in America (Score:4, Interesting)
That's patently untrue. Unless you're looking hard for it, there really isn't much in the way of extreme-left-wing news out there. Unless you're counting those bearded men handing out poorly xeroxed socialist newsletters. The vast majority of the media is centrist or right wing.
Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?
Re:Independant Press in America (Score:4, Informative)
Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?
I assume you're talking about this study [stateofthemedia.org], with further commentary here [pewresearch.org]? This story was then reported by some outlets as saying that MSNBC was most "opinionated" by far (e.g., here [forbes.com]).
If so, your use of the word "opinionated" is very misleading, and the study did not even address issues of who is "more biased."
Read the study. It's basically about the difference between type of programming. The cable news networks used to present much more of the traditional anchor looking into the camera and saying, "And now, for our next story..." -- that's "factual reporting," according to Pew.
What this study found was that cable news networks have increasingly moved to "opinion" or commentary-driven shows, with pundits talking or debating, rather than just "reading the news." MSNBC has a LOT of these shows, and much more than CNN or Fox. But that doesn't mean they are more "opinionated" or "biased" -- it just means that they have more commentary-focused shows (probably because it's cheaper to get some idiots to talk ABOUT the news than it is to put actual reporters out into the field and do research).
In any case, this says nothing about bias. It's possible for an "opinion" show to be relatively balanced, for example if guests are invited from across the ideological spectrum and treated with respect. It is also very possible for "factual reporting" to be incredibly biased -- for example, imagine a network that reported every single negative story it could find about a Democratic politician and every positive story about a Republican, but never reported the positive Dem stories or the negative Rep stories. (Or the reverse...) All of the reporting could be "factual" here, but the selection of stories could lead to a much greater overarching bias.
(I haven't really watched either one of these networks in years, so I don't have a personal stake in these arguments. But aside from a different Pew study [journalism.org] that found a somewhat greater bias in presentation of candidates in 2012 on MSNBC than Fox, I'm not familiar with any Pew studies that have actually found greater OVERALL "bias" on liberal vs. conservative issues on MSNBC.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MSNBC tells zingers that support the democratic party. That is all. CNN doesn't tell zingers but they are still extremely biased on how they tell stories.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays the 1st Amendment is an illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
With the climate nowadays 1st Amendment does not offer any real protection of free speech anymore
You can be accused of "hate speech", you can be prosecuted under whatever trumped up charge they can cook up, and they can silence you with their "national security" privileges - and the unknown number of secretive laws there are (so secret that we may not know the extent of those laws) can be used at any given time to shut anybody and everybody up, by any mean
Re: (Score:2)
Without it, the government could overtly censor anything it didnt' like, so no, it's still better that we have it than not. You expect the government to regulate the media into telling the truth? hahaha
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd Amendment is still a somewhat sturdy foundation for a failing 1st, though it's begun to show some hairline cracks that need to be shored up posthaste.
Follow the money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Follow the money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalists practically worship 'access'. This behavior is adaptive, since it's hard to get stories written without information; but it comes with the nontrivial downside that the people the stories are about are in the best position to provide information. The competent ones have learned to take advantage of this by cultivating a relationship with the press: any really juicy story has a comparatively safe penumbra of tidbits, unattributed statements, unofficially sanctioned leaks, and so on. If a journalist is a nice, cooperative, team player, (like the quisling in TFA), they'll be well placed for a steady supply of such things.
By contrast, the uncooperative journalist might, on occasion, get a really nice scoop on where the bodies are buried(sometimes literally); but whenever that isn't available he'll be regurgitating press releases and stale news.
Re:Follow the money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Let me see if I get your argument:
Their business model is failing, so it's understandable that they are shirking their Constitutionally specified duty, despite the legal privileges they enjoy in furtherance of that obligation.
I mean, I see what you're saying -- a dying animal bites its master -- but that's when you get out the dart gun full of tranquilizer and address the problem. You don't just shake your head and tsk-tsk, wrap your bloody arm in a t-shirt, and go get a rabies shot.
Re: (Score:3)
... they are shirking their Constitutionally specified duty, despite the legal privileges they enjoy in furtherance of that obligation.
What?!? I don't know which constitution you're referring to, but the Constitution of the United States of America certainly doesn't specify duties or obligations for citizens.
While I would agree that this kind of behavior is undesirable, to imply that it is unconstitutional is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
What?!? I don't know which constitution you're referring to, but the Constitution of the United States of America certainly doesn't specify duties or obligations for citizens.
The LA Times is not a citizen. You can tell because it doesn't have nipples. It is the press. See the first amendment to the Constitution. For more info on why that specific industry gets special constitutional treatment, see fourth estate [wikipedia.org].
Re:Follow the money... (Score:4)
But seriously, "that specific industry" has no "special constitutional treatment." See Freedom of the press in the United States [wikipedia.org]. All rights are inherent to individuals and when individuals organize, as in the formation of the LA Times, these rights are not lost. As such, it appears that the LA Times has rights, but these are simply the rights of the individuals it is composed of. Furthermore, the Constitution does not place limits upon citizens, it places limits on the government.
So, while we are clearly in agreement that an impartial fourth estate is essential to a healthy society, I still find your insistence that the Constitution mandates impartiality from the press laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
See Freedom of the press in the United States [wikipedia.org].
That entry starts with a long exposition on the fact that corporations do not have more freedom of the press than citizens. I do not disagree with that. I think corporations should be treated more skeptically regarding their invocation of freedom of the press than should individual citizens.
All rights are inherent to individuals and when individuals organize, as in the formation of the LA Times, these rights are not lost.
No, the individuals do not lose their rig
Re: (Score:3)
Many will likely go 'cluck, cluck...they are the independent press and shouldn't do that' and, of course, they are right. But the 'independent press' is rapidly disappearing because there is no longer any money to be made in being part of the 'independent press.' Newspapers (such as the LA Times) have a plummeting circulation of mostly older subscribers and a shrinking advertising base. Most of them are losing money hand over fist or, at best, barely breaking even. Television news (network and local) is seeing its viewer base plummeting and consequently, its advertising revenues are declining rapidly, leaving it fortunate to still be on the air. Internet media gets lots of hits but not much revenue.
Da. Their 20th business model doesn't work anymore. Rather than adapt to the world changing technological advancements of the last 30 years they just bitch and moan lamenting over people no longer wanting their news spoon feed using 20th century technology. But of course none of that is the news disseminating organizations fault. It's technologies fault or their customers fault or anyone elses fault.
The LA Times reporter was likely grateful for any scraps of information that his CIA friends would give him because he would never have any way of getting that information otherwise. He is probably lucky if the LA Times will pay him car mileage to drive over to meet with a source. You get what you pay for. Follow the money. What do you pay for news?
You're arguments make no sense. No one pays directly for news nor have they for the last century. The cost of
And CNN is PR for the Pentagon (Score:5, Informative)
Tell us something we don't know. [nytimes.com]
how nice (Score:3)
So how is this different, functionally, from state owned media like the soviet union's pravda? I mean, at least with that publication, everyone KNEW what it was, and who wrote its copy. I"m sure a lot of publications are/were doing this, esp the big ones. These days I would not assume anything I'm told is anything but lies by omission doused in extra potent koolaid. News is flavored, now, to the prevalent mindsets created by the propaganda.
It's a sad state of affairs for supposed bastions of liberty and democracy like the USA. How can free nations be governed by the people when the people have no real information on what the government is doing?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.. at least it was honest in that regard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. corps do government a favor, toss the puck over the side (or through the revolving door at the top of the pyramid), and government throws them a bone.
On Par For All Publishers With "Connections" (Score:2, Insightful)
No news here. The "story" is rather dated and has nothing new.
Just think a minute about Valerie Plame and the debacle about "Yellow Cake" and the "Story" the Bush WH was so trying to sell to the UN and other places to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country Iraq in order to get Bush re-elected.
Ta ta
No suprise (Score:2)
No surprise in this. This is the New York Times. They've done far worse. Snowden intentionally didn't go to them because their collusion with the government was well known, even publicly. The NYT trades integrity for access, that's what they do.
Not that you shouldn't be outraged. You should be, and you should never buy their paper or visit their site. Propaganda journalism should not be tolerated.
Re:No suprise (Score:4, Informative)
No, it is the Los Angeles Times. There are many Times in the world, the summary should reflect that.
Any evidence of when this started? (Score:2)
All of the dates I could find were all post Obama dates.
You have to wonder if the media would have "ran a story by the CIA" before there was a president in the oval office they liked. There were e a lot of CIA leaks published under Bush...
This is exactly why you should not elect a candidate the press favors, because collusion is only natural.
Any evidence of when this started? (Score:2)
Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies."...
"The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign
Oh dear (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't try to put the blame on anyone else. When the men in black come to your house, take you to a police station's basement, and put a couple bullets in your skull, remember that you earned every single bullet, comrade, for speaking ill about the government and the press. Unlike you, I feel that President Obama is the greatest president to have ever served in the Oval Office. I hope they torture you for weeks before they finally end you, comrade.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, it's 'Dear Leader'. Please report to the ministry of truth for 'processing'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise here (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets see... Judith Miller of the NY Times... and don't forget the NY Times also delayed publishing the story of ATT illegal wiretaps until after the 2008 elections. So many more....
The days of Watergate are over. Now media is a manipulative source claiming to be guardians of freedom.
Epic Fail
Re: (Score:2)
At least now, we have variety at our fingertips if we wi
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that you imagine this kind of behavior to be a new thing. As someone previously stated, this is what some reporters stoop to in order to get "access" that they hope other reporters won't have. It looks like Dilanian did it the wrong way, allowing the CIA to become his editors.
And if a news organization uses information from the government sources carefully, it can occasionally get information that you might not otherwise hear. Certainly what the CIA says about something that the CIA prob
Only a surprise if... (Score:4, Informative)
...you haven't been paying attention. (Tried to put that all on the headline, but wouldn't fit.)
Simply put, as many here already know, if you compare foreign news coverage on domestic affairs to our own domestic coverage, the gaps become obvious and huge: The Guardian et al on Snowden vs the play-down or even silence from domestic sources is just one of MANY examples. Art Bell commented on this years ago (15-20 years ago when I heard it) that he was amazed the coverage of America from the BBC was better than any American news outlet, so this isn't new at all.
The entire point of the 1st Amendment's Press Freedom was to prevent this from happening; so much for that.
It all makes me wonder how much longer before the rest of the conspiracy theorists' predictions come true...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess even Art Bell isn't always wrong.
But there's far more than just the government keeping you from getting useful news out of US news sources. They focus on what's cheap to produce and give you a steaming pile of it: sports "news", uninteresting "human interest" stories, commercials disguised as news, etc.
If we are not willing to pay .... (Score:2)
USSR (Score:4, Insightful)
At least the folks in the Soviet bloc knew the media was state controlled and was lying to them.
Not something new (Score:2)
Why does anyone listen to these morons? (Score:3)
Any reporter who has the words "National Security" or "Counterterrorism" in their title and who isn't actively investigating the wrongdoings of the national security apparatus, is in bed with the spooks. There's no way the security apparatchicks will grant someone looking into their interests a solid middle ground - you're either with them or against them. To think otherwise is foolish.
Any news organization that has one of these reporters are simply letting a snake into their newsroom. Dina Temple-Raston with NPR should be fired for her breathless and unquestioning reporting on high-tech gadgetry and "inside analysis" that's generated for her daily by the CIA, military intelligence, and the NSA. Fuck, from David Martin of CBS to Martha Raddatz of ABC to this print-press idiot, these people are worthless as reporters.
LA Times (Score:2)
Actually, Putin does more for Russia ... (Score:2, Funny)
... than Obama does for America
No matter how you hate Putin, that fella at least did something for *HIS* country ... unlike that guy in the White House, the one with "no strategy"
Re: Actually, Putin does more for Russia ... (Score:2)
Call me naive, but I had no idea that the increasingly weird, anti-government, pro-corporate rhetoric on this site was coming from the top.
Maybe I'll need to reconsider my visits here.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing someone to take full editorial control of your output does not equate to "Research". Try reading the article again, this time slowly.
Ok, let me try:
Dilanian has done some strong work and has at times been highly critical of the CIA. For example, in July 2012 he wrote a piece about sexual harassment at the agency that angered the press office. In reply to an email from a spokesperson, Dilanian said that complaints about his story were “especially astonishing given that CIA hides the details of these complaints behind a wall of secrecy.”
Hrm. Sorry, not seeing the "full editorial control" bit.