Proof! Establishment media controlled – A Commentary by Joseph Farah
Joseph Farah is
founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or
co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea
Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America
Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the
former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times
last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every
American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s
ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely
indeed.
The admission came in
the form of a story by
Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been
waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and
exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.
What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the
kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine
– underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called
“mainstream press.”
It shows that most – not some – members of the print
media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to
government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches
the American people!
Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m
exaggerating:
- “The quotations come back
redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything
even mildly provocative.”
- “They are sent by e-mail from
the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed
campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto
power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
- “Most reporters, desperate to
pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree.
After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders
and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the
campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on
script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”
- “Now, with a millisecond
Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture,
politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters
allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”
- “Quote approval is standard
practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost
all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone
other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies
even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the
campaign trail.”
- “Many journalists spoke about
the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”
- “From Capitol Hill to the
Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have
become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of
school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud
even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting
they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
- “Those [reporters] who did
speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s
not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that
says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a
correspondent for The National Journal.”
- “It was difficult to find a
news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly.
Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters
and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”
I could go on and on. I urge you to read the entire story. This
may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years.
What it means is this: When Americans read these reports –
whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really
reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press
releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not
labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.
That’s how low the national press establishment has descended.
And, when you read the story in its full context, you will understand that the
concerns expressed about this practice by those submitting themselves to it are
not ethical concerns. They are not concerns for the truth. They are concerns
about their own convenience and for the loss of “color” in their stories.
Let me state what I hope is obvious to all reading this column:
This sort of willing capitulation to government censorship was not the norm
five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This is a new
phenomenon – chilling and alarming to an old-timer like me who would never
agree to submit his copy for approval to politicians.
These so-called journalists are selling their ethical and moral
souls for access to politicians. And this practice raises expectations by
politicians that they can routinely manipulate the press to their advantage.
That makes the job of real journalists – independent reporters faithful to
their craft – even more difficult, because they will be shut out from access.
It reminds me of the fact that, just last week, WND was denied
credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention. Why do you suppose
what has become one of the largest and most influential news agencies in the
country would be denied access to the convention floor? Simply because the
Democrats know we won’t play by their rules of control like the members of the
establishment press club.
All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues”
is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating
themselves and a vital institution for any free society.
It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free
and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission
of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.
No comments:
Post a Comment