Cynthia Dyer-Bennet (cdb) Fri 30 Jun 06 11:24
Project Censored Director Peter Phillips is a busy man. During the past decade he's published ten editions of "Censored: Media Democracy in Action." As a professor at Sonoma State University, he teaches classes on the sociology of power, of politics, of media, as well as courses on media censorship. He writes op-ed pieces for independent media nationwide. Peter's socio-political expertise has led him to be a guest on numerous radio and television talk shows, including Talk of the Nation, Air America and the Jim Hightower Show. His latest book, "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney," is due for release this fall. Leading the discussion with Peter is Steve Rhodes. Steve is a San Francisco- based journalist and former online editor at the San Francisco Bay Guardian who covers media, culture, politics, and technology. His writing has appeared in Extra!, MediaFile, Wired, the Christian Science Monitor, and various alternative weeklies. One of his pieces for the Guardian, "Banned by the NAB," received an honorable mention from Project Censored. Welcome to Inkwell.vue, Peter and Steve! We're very happy to have you joining us today!
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Mon 3 Jul 06 14:28
I am happy to participate. Below is a recent statment that I wrote as an opening for discussion. peter Inflated Terrorism Propaganda Lies The Bush administration is paltering to the American public with exaggerated misconceptions of worldwide terrorism to frighten us into supporting a global police state. With seven hundred military bases and a budget bigger than the rest of the world combined, the US military has become the new supreme-power force repressing terrorism everywhere. Vice President Dick Cheneys keynote address at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference March 7, 2006 is a telling example of neo-conservative global dominance thought in the current administration. Here are his exact words, Israel, and the United States, and all civilized nations will win the war on terror. To prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the enemy. as America experienced on September 11th, 2001, the terrorist enemy is brutal and heartless. This enemy wears no uniform, has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality .The terrorists want to end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal in that region is to seize control of a country, so they have a base from which to launch attacks and wage war against governments that do not meet their demands ultimately to establish a totalitarian empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way around to Indonesia." Cheney claims that evil terrorists everywhere are plotting for the ruin of civilized nations. In order to stop them we must militarily control all the regions they are threatening in a permanent global war. Cheneys military empire, set to prevail over the totalitarian terrorists, will inevitably expand global resistance to US domination. Large coalitions of freedom fighters, fundamentalists, patriots, religious zealots, nationalists, and ideologues of various beliefs will emerge from within the regions the US occupies. Widespread resistance is exactly what is happening in Iraq. Le Monde Diplomatique on May 2, 2006 described the Iraq insurgents terrorists to Cheney as armed opposition often divided into a set of wholly independent categories which apparently do not have much in common. The categories include the patriotic former army officers, the foreign terrorists, the Sunni Arabs determined to regain power, the Muslims opposed to any kind of foreign occupation, the tribal factions pursuing their own specific vendettas, the die-hard Ba'athists - and the "pissed-off" Iraqis (in coalition soldier jargon, POIs) who are simply sick of the foreign forces occupying their country. For Cheney and other global dominance neo-conservatives, the terrorist label is so broad that it can be applied to any individual, group, or nation that resists US military occupations, US threats, or US corporate interests anywhere in the world. In reality, the US military is the worlds foremost totalitarian force. Three years ago I met a Dutch journalist, Willem Oltman, at the International Campaign Against US Aggression on Iraq in Cairo, Egypt. Oltman described his teen years during World War II in the Dutch resistance movement. The Nazis called us terrorists, he exclaimed. Now as the US invades and occupies other countries you do the same thing, he added. Maintaining an US military global police force enriches defense contractors and enflames resistance. There is no worldwide terrorism threat other than the one we create when we make war on other peoples. Addressing world poverty, sickness, and environmental issues will go much further in preventing single acts of terrorism inside the United States than any military actions we can muster. It is time to challenge the neo-conservative global dominance agenda and stand up for human rights and the traditional American values of grass-roots democracy, due process, governmental transparency, and individual freedoms for ourselves and the rest of the world.
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Mon 3 Jul 06 19:15
Peter, welcome and thanks for posting that. I'm sure there will be a lot to discuss in the issues you raise as well as the work Project Censored does. The site is http://www.projectcensored.org There is a pdf of their spring newsletter which gives some history and a list of the top stories since the project started in 1976. The latest list is at http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm Project Censored also publishes a book each year with even more information. The latest is Censored 2006. There are lists from 1996 and 1999 - 2005 at http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/index.htm
Cynthia Dyer-Bennet (cdb) Wed 5 Jul 06 10:04
(Note: offsite readers with questions or comments may send them to <firstname.lastname@example.org> to have them added to the conversation)
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Wed 5 Jul 06 10:39
Peter, a couple of questions to start things off. What do you think Project Censored has been able to accomplish over the past 30 years? What impact has the internet had in helping to get stories recognized by Project Censored wider exposure? And I'll come back to your opening statement soon.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Wed 5 Jul 06 13:31
Number one: we have trained over 1,500 students in critical news analysis. Number two: we have documented the historical patterns of corporate media's failure to cover important news stories. Number three: we have chronicled the consolidation of media into ten major corporations from 50 when we started 30 years ago and presented case after case of media bias and the ignoring of powerful people in both public and private bureaucracies who are the undemocratic decision makers in our society and the world. Number four: we have helped expand the media democracy movement worldwide through the release of our annual list of censored news stories that makes millions of people aware of the continuing abuses of truth by the corporate media. The internet has expaned our ability to reach millions people worldwide with the stories not covered. We have approximately 30,000 hits a day on our website. the news stories are translated into a dozen languages and posted in countries all over the world. In the past ten years we have been able to increasingly directly link our stories to the original sources directly on-line giving people immediate access to important news stories.
Gail Williams (gail) Wed 5 Jul 06 13:54
Only ten corporations do most of the news!? In the US I presume and not the whole world? Either way, wow. What are they?
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Wed 5 Jul 06 14:33
There is a great video on this topic: Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent.
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Wed 5 Jul 06 15:44
Yeah, Manufacturing Consent is still one of the best films about media. When the first edition of Ben Bagdikian's the Media Monopoly came out in 1983, he wrote that 50 companies controlled half or more of the media business in the US. This was an early update from 1987 when the second edition came out http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1498 Media companies have become more global over the years. The seventh edition came out in 2004. There is more at http://www.benbagdikian.com and this site http://www.corporations.org/media/ CJR has a site on ownership http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ This is a chart from 2001 http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml The Nation also just published a 10 year follow-up to their National Entertainment State special issue http://www.thenation.com/issue/20060703 Peter, that is impressive work. It does seem that since Project Censored started, people have become more aware of media issues. What have some of the students who've been trained by Project Censored gone on to do?
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Wed 5 Jul 06 18:05
Our link on media consolidation on our website. http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/C2006_chap6.pdf Our students go on after graduatation to do eveything regular student do, but some are working in independent media. One of our former students won an award in last years book.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Wed 5 Jul 06 18:08
I highly recommend Manufacturng Consent", it is still a very relevent movie. I wrote this piece just about a year ago. Incomplete News Undermines US Values By Peter Phillips Dozens were kidnapped by roving gangs off the streets of their hometowns, disappeared from families, hooded, chained, repeatedly interrogated, incarcerated for years in military prisons, and then told it was all a mistake. Did this happen in Stalinist Russia, some South American military dictatorship, Apartheid South Africa? No, the gangs were special forces of the US Government operating with approval from the highest levels of the Pentagon, the victims Afghan civilians recently released from the Guantanamo military prison camp in Cuba. The New York Times published an article April 20 reporting how 17 innocent Afghans were recently freed from Guantanamo prison after three and half years. "Several of the Afghans said in interviews that they had been told by American officers that they were being freed because they were innocent of any crime," the article reported. "The men would be given new clothes, turbans and travel money and allowed to go home," the paper disclosed. Prior to the release of the Guantanamo prisoners last Fall, Seymour Hersh fully exposed the US's worldwide abuse of power and violation of human right in articles published in the Guardian and New Yorker. Hersh documented that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, with approval from the White House, had authorized a special-access program (SAP) to go on global manhunts for terrorists. It was deemed OK to kidnap suspected terrorists and take them to countries that would get tough (torture) them during interrogations. Several hundred people captured wholesale in Afghanistan and transported to Cuba were deemed enemy non-combatants without rights of due process or coverage under the Geneva Convention. The New York Times' story covers the release of the internees without Hersh's historical context of high level official approval. Additionally, the NY Times story fails to address coverage of how, in a country that supports due process and human rights, our military could take such tragic action violating the rights of these men and their families. Instead the story implies that the kidnapping of these Afghans was justified in that undoubtedly some of the prisoners were guilty. This is like rounding up the church choir because the minister was caught in bed with the organist. Failure to publish the full truth regarding the release of the Afghan prisoners is a strong indication that the New York Times and corporate media groups in general are unable and unwilling to fully address human right violations by our own government. The broad publication of stories about the breach of human rights by our national security forces is inconsistent with corporate media's continuing desire to have 24 hour access to sources of news inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department. This failure of nerve to support the public's right to know and insure a transparent governmental process is undoubtedly giving America a black eye in the world community. Increasingly America is seen as an uncontrolled empire of power and abuse. For many in the world we are the Darth Vaders of the planet pure evil incorporated. Non-Americans know that the people in the US do not approve of these practices. We must, however, openly share their outrage and demand that America hold to our values of due process and human rights. To do this we must support media that address these issues. We need a media that post and recognize the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in every newsroom. Anything less cuts at the very soul of the American people. Comments welcome
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Thu 6 Jul 06 12:07
It seems this was reflected even in the coverage of the recent Supreme Court decision. I see that was published in the Project Censored Newsletter and on Common Dreams which is an interesting site which has been around since 1997 and hasn't gotten as much media attention as some of the progressive blogs http://www.commondreams.org There has been a related flashpoint over issues of censorship. First there was the holding (or self-censorship) of the NSA spying story by the New York Times for over a year. And the more recent attacks by the administration and many conservatives for the publication of the banking records story or even the NYT piece that mentioned the vacation homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. There was a segment on this on the PBS Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec06/nytimes_07-05.html What is your reaction to this?
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Thu 6 Jul 06 14:38
Also, can you tell us about how you became interested in media issues and how you became involved with Project Censored?
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Fri 7 Jul 06 13:45
The NY Times sitting on the NSA spying story for close to a year is a classic case of internal censorship in corporate media. The US public had every right to know that all electronic communications are being monitored. This is a complete abdication of the NY Times' responsibility to the First Amendment. Project Censored covered the spying story in our Censored 2006 book as story #4 see: http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm#4 The NY Times' coverage about international banking transactions being monitored isn't about privacy rights of individuals but rather a the realization the by monitoring international business transactions the US Government has full awareness of corporate fiscal activities, which could be use for business advangages of selected US firms. There are cases on record of the CIA spying on behalf of US military contactors regarding major non-US government weapons buying programs.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Sat 8 Jul 06 13:46
Other Issues to think about and discuss: National Impeachment Movement Ignored by Corporate Media If a national movement calling for the impeachment of the President is rapidly emerging and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the President? Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the U.S. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos, and impeachment. David Anderson in McMinnville, Oregon pens to the Oregonian, Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current presidents actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions? William Dwyers letter in the Charleston Gazette says, Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people. City councils, boards of supervisors, and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. Arcata, California voted for impeachment on January 6. The City and County of San Francisco, voted Yes on February 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee (CA) voted for Impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March. The New Mexico State Democrat party convention rallied on March 18 for the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office. The national Green Party called for impeachment on January 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, Detroit Free Press, and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/25/06) The Nation (1/30/06) and Harpers (3/06) published cover articles calling for impeachment. As of March 16, thirty-two US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bushs impeachment. Polls show that nearly a majority of Americans favor impeachment. In October of 2005, Public Affairs Research found that 50% of Americans said that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. A Zogby International poll from early November 2005 found that 53% of Americans say, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42% of Americans favored impeaching Bush. Despite all this advocacy and sentiment for impeachment, corporate media have yet to cover this emerging mass movement. The Bangor Daily News simply reported on March 17 that former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has set up the website Votetoimpeach.org and that other groups are using the internet to push impeachment. The Wall Street Journal, on March 16, editorialized about how it is just the loony left seeking impeachment, but perhaps some Democrats in Congress will join in feeding on the bile of the censure/impeachment brigades. The corporate media are ignoring the broadening call for impeachment wishing perhaps it will just go away. Television news and talk shows have mentioned impeachment over 100 times in march 2006, mostly however in the context of Senator Russ Feingolds censure bill and the lack of broad Democrat support for censure or impeachment. Nothing on television news gives the impression that millions of Americans are calling for the impeachment of Bush and his cohorts. The Bush Administration lied about Iraq, illegally spied on US citizens, and continues war crimes in the Middle East. Despite corporate medias inability to hear the demands for impeachment, the groundswell of outrage continues to expand.
Don Mussell (dmsml) Sat 8 Jul 06 17:28
I'm outraged, and have been for years now. But my local paper won't print my letters. And when I try to call to talk radio, the screeners won't let me past them. So I don't watch TV anymore, and barely listen to the radio. Maybe that is the desired effect?
Steve Bjerklie (stevebj) Sun 9 Jul 06 11:06
Why do you think the "corporate media" is ignoring this supposedly groundswelling call for impeachment? Why would it wish "perhaps it will go away"?
Steve Rhodes (srhodes) Sun 9 Jul 06 12:47
I know it can be tempting to tune out the media, but it is important to keep looking at it critically. And not there are more ways to respond than a letter to the editor. A blog post on a story may be seen by more people and have more of an impact than a letter ever did. There's an article in today's NYT that suggests there are other programs which haven't been revealed. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html Besides impeachment, what are some other current stories you think should be getting more attention?
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Mon 10 Jul 06 19:42
And I'd be interested to know if you have an opinion about NPR's 'On The Media'. I find it is one of the few radio programs I listen to pretty faithfully, catching it on the archives if I missed the broadcast.
Gail Williams (gail) Tue 11 Jul 06 11:41
I'm curious as to how you feel advertisers fit into the decisions to not run certain news. Since I work for The WELL, part of Salon.com but not part of editorial operations, I have gotten an interesting semi-outside perspective on these matters. For example, the following section took hundreds of hours of labor, continues to take bandwidth, and no advertiser wants leaderboard banners or pageturners or other such bill-payers on it. This lack of reventue was anticipated from the outset, and there was no barrier to taking on the large project based on not being able to pay for it, but how often can entities do that when they are ad or even sponsor/donor supported? >The Abu Ghraib files: >http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/ >279 photographs and 19 videos from the Army's internal investigation Is there a way to organize to effectively pressure or reward companies for advertising unpopular content, or does that inevitiably pull the culture-wars ad retaliation gambit that already happens now and then into a more mainstream role, and make newsrooms more timid?
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 11:43
I have been on NPR's On the Media two times and both times found them to be professional, and very analytical regarding media issues in the US. They tend to be corporate media oriented without a deep understanding of mainstream independent media .
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 11:45
#17 The three biggest stories not being covered by the corporate media are questions on 9/11 espicially Building 7, Voter Fraud in 2004,(eight million votes were changed in the voting machines in 13 states) and peak oil.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 11:49
#19 Advertising pressure have been with media ever since we went commercial after the civil war. Noetheless some media have been better at resisting advertiser pressures than other. Consoikdation of media and consolidation of corporate advertisers have worked against freedom of the press and the first amendment's public's right to know. Additionally Homeland Security has added to the pressure. Corporate Media and Homeland Security Move towards Total Information Control By Peter Phillips Freedom of information in American society is in danger because corporate media needs to maintain access to official sources of news. Consolidation of media has brought the total news sources for most Americans to less than a handful and these news groups have an ever-increasing dependency on pre-arranged content. The 24-hour news shows on MSNBC, Fox and CNN are closely interconnected with various governmental and corporate sources of news. Maintenance of continuous news shows requires a constant feed and an ever-entertaining supply of stimulating events and breaking news bites. Advertisement for mass consumption drives the system and pre-packaged sources of news are vital within this global news process. Ratings demand continued cooperation from multiple-sources for on-going weather reports, war stories, sports scores, business news, and regional headlines. Print, radio and TV news also engages in this constant interchange with news sources. The preparation for and following of ongoing wars and terrorism fits well into the visual kaleidoscope of pre-planned news. Government public relations specialists and media experts from private commercial interests provide on going news feeds to the national media distributions systems. The result is an emerging macro-symbiotic relationship between news dispensers and news suppliers. Perfect examples of this relationship are the press pools organized by the Pentagon both in the Middle-East and in Washington D.C., which give pre-scheduled reports on the war in Iraq to selected groups of news collectors (journalists) for distribution through their individual media organizations. Embedded reporters (news collectors) working directly with military units in the field must maintain cooperative working relationships with unit commanders as they feed breaking news back to the U.S. public. Cooperative reporting is vital to continued access to government news sources. Therefore, rows of news story reviewers back at corporate media headquarters rewrite, soften or spike news stories from the field that threaten the symbiotics of global news management. Journalists who fail to recognize their role as cooperative news collectors will be disciplined in the field or barred from reporting as in the recent celebrity cases of Geraldo Rivera and Peter Arnett. Journalists working outside of this mass media system face ever-increasing dangers from accidents of war and corporate-media dismissal of their news reports. Massive civilian casualties caused by U.S. troops, extensive damage to private homes and businesses, and reports that contradict the official public relations line were downplayed, deleted, or ignored by corporate media, while content were analyzed by experts (retired generals and other approved collaborators) from within the symbiotic global news structure. Symbiotic global news distribution is a conscious and deliberate attempt by the powerful to control news and information in society. The Homeland Security Act Title II Section 201(d)(5) specifically asks the directorate to develop a comprehensive plan for securing the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States including information technology and telecommunications systems (including satellites) emergency preparedness communications systems. Corporate media today is perhaps too vast to enforce complete control over all content 24 hours a day. However, the government's goal is the operationalization of total information control and the continuing consolidation of media makes this process easier to achieve. Freedom of information and citizen access to objective news is rapidly fading in the United States and the world. In its place is a complex entertainment-oriented news system, which protects its own bottom-line by servicing the most powerful military-industrial complex in the world. For the majority of Americans who depend on corporate media for their daily news, this monolithic news structure creates intellectual celibacy, inaction and fear. The result is a docile population, whose principal function within society is to simply shut-up and go shopping. The powerful would like us quiet and consumptive and the corporate media is delivering that message on a daily basis.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 12:05
#15 Don, There are lots of independent alternative press groups forming all around the country. You can post your letter at www.Indymedia.org any tme you want. I recommend finding the closest webbased news site to your home and posting letters and op-eds there.
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 12:49
#16 Steve, Corporate Media is ignoring the impeachment issue because of dependency on the State Dept. Pentagon and White House for regular news feeds. After that corporate media is interconnected with the Global Dominance Group who are pushing a pro-military agenda of US forward deployment for total police state control of the world. The leadership class in the US is now dominated by a neo-conservative group of some 200 people who have the shared goal of asserting US military power worldwide. This Global Dominance Group, in cooperation with major military contractors, has become a powerful force in military unilateralism and US political processes. A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a dominant ruling class in the US, which sets policy and determines national political priorities. C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book on the power elite, documented how World War II solidified a trinity of power in the US that comprised corporate, military and government elites in a centralized power structure working in unison through "higher circles" of contact and agreement. Neo-conservatives promoting the US Military control of the world are now in dominant policy positions within these higher circles of the US. Adbusters magazine summed up neo-conservatism as: "The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression Such nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it must be manufactured." In 1992, during Bush the First's administration, Dick Cheney supported Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz in producing the Defense Planning Guidance report, which advocated US military dominance around the globe in a "new order." The report called for the United States to grow in military superiority and to prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world stage. At the end of Clinton's administration, global dominance advocates founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Among the PNAC founders were eight people affiliated with the number-one defense contractor Lockheed-Martin, and seven others associated with the number-three defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Of the twenty-five founders of PNAC twelve were later appointed to high level positions in the George W. Bush administration. In September 2000, PNAC produced a 76-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. The report, similar to the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance report, called for the protection of the American Homeland, the ability to wage simultaneous theater wars, perform global constabulary roles, and the control of space and cyberspace. It claimed that the 1990s were a decade of defense neglect and that the US must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership as the world's superpower. The report also recognized that: "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor." The events of September 11, 2001 presented exactly the catastrophe that the authors of Rebuilding America' Defenses theorized were needed to accelerate a global dominance agenda. The resulting permanent war on terror has led to massive government defense spending, the invasions of two countries, and the threatening of three others, and the rapid acceleration of the neo-conservative plans for military control of the world. The US now spends as much for defense as the rest of the world combined. The Pentagon's budget for buying new weapons rose from $61 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion in 2004. Lockheed Martin's sales rose by over 30% at the same time, with tens of billions of dollars on the books for future purchases. From 2000 to 2004, Lockheed Martins stock value rose 300%. Northrup-Grumann saw similar growth with DoD contracts rising from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $11.1 billion in 2004. Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as former CEO, had defense contracts totaling $427 million in 2001. By 2003, they had $4.3 billion in defense contracts, of which approximately a third were sole source agreements. At the beginning of 2006 the Global Dominance Group's agenda is well established within higher circle policy councils and cunningly operationalized inside the US Government. They work hand in hand with defense contractors promoting deployment of US forces in over 700 bases worldwide. There is an important difference between self-defense from external threats, and the belief in the total military control of the world. When asked, most working people in the US have serious doubts about the moral and practical acceptability of financing world domination. A more in-depth review of the global dominance group's agenda and a list of the 200 advocates see: http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf
Peter Phillips (peterphillips) Tue 11 Jul 06 12:52
California Television Stations Caught in Fake News Study By Peter Phillips, Caitlin Lampert, and Ned Patterson Channel 40 news in Sacramento and Santa Barbara KEYT-3 channel 5 both aired fake news stories according to a recent study from PR Watch. Fox news Channel 40 in Sacramento aired a news story on June 10, 2005 about a new dental technique that would check saliva samples to determine possible diseases. The story was aired as Fox news, but was actually a video news release made MultiVu, a PR Newswire Company, who were paid by the American Dental Association. Fox news repackaged the video by replacing the voice from MultiVu and using the same images to present their story without telling their audience that the source was from a pre-packaged video news release (VNR) paid for by the American Dental Association. A report by the Center for Media Democracy (PR Watch) was released April 6, 2006. The study was compiled by Diane Faresetta and Daniel Price over ten months in 2005. The research shows how fake news stories are making their way into the American mainstream corporate news programs. Fake news stories, VNRs, are created by public relations firms on behalf of corporate clients and released to news sources for broadcast. Traditional journalism ethics have always demanded that reporters cite their sources and give objective honest accounts of news stories. The American public tends to believe news on television as unbiased, balanced and accurate. Santa Barbara KEYT-3 channel 5 news, airs high tech stories by Robin Raskin, former editor of Family PC Magazine. Raskin does on-going news updates about personal computers and new technologies without telling the audience that she is being paid by Panasonic, Namco, and Techno Sources. Similarly KOKH-25 in Okalahoma City shares stories on the latest technology advancements. On January 3, 2006 KOKH aired a feature story on the latest advancements in internet cable television. The technology featured in the report was limited to the Viiv media network platform from Intel. The entire story was taken from a VNR video created by D S Simon Productions and funded by Intel. In Shreveport, LA, KSLA -12, channel 7 aired a two minute unedited VNR that discussed the vast changes in auto sales since General Motors launched the first online sales web site in 1996. Unfortunately, General Motors was not the first to have an automobile web site. The news reporters did not conduct independent research to fact check GM claims. According to PR Watch the number of media formats and outlets has exploded in recent years, television remains the dominant news source in the United States. More than three-quarters of U.S. adults rely on local TV news, and more than 70 percent turn to network TV or cable news on a daily or near-daily basis, according to a January 2006 Harris Poll. The quality and integrity of television reporting thus significantly impacts the public's ability to evaluate everything from consumer products to medical services to government policies. VNR use is widespread. Pr Watch found 69 TV stations that aired at least one VNR from June 2005 to March 2006 covering over half the population in the US. For more information see: http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/findings/vnrs Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research organization, Caitlin Lampert is an undergraduate sociology major at SSU and Ned Patterson is a graduating senior in sociology.
Members: Enter the conference to participate