Mainstream 'reporters' prove they are really just establishment stenographers

[kylebisme]

The news just broke on this happening the other day:

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he 'can't stand' Israeli premier. Obama: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

But as far as I'm concerned, this is important part of the story:

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that reporters present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the subject of the embarrassing comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."

He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

I hope this will help others realize how our mainstream media are spineless lapdogs to the establishment rather than the forth estate which they should be.

 

[IronWing]

Yep. Back in the 80s the CBC was trying to figure out why American media coverage of the war in Nicaragua was usually so bad. So they sent a crew to follow the three American network crews as they reported stories. What they found was that the reporters from the networks got together and agreed on a common storyline before uploading their stories. In the particular case covered, the Contra mercenaries had attacked a village and massacred a bunch of civilians. The CBC crew arrived before the Americans. Then the American crews arrived and then the Nicaraguan army troops arrived last. The villagers, interviewed before the army arrived, all stated that the attack was carried out by the Contra mercenaries. All three American crews (ABC, NBC, and CBS) reported the story as "civilians killed in cross-fire between Contras and army troops".

 

[Slick5150]

Well, I understand your point, but how exactly is this "news" anyway? Seems more gossip than anything else. Sarkozy and Obama think Netenyahu is an ass. Ok? Who cares?

 

[Doppel]

Well, I understand your point, but how exactly is this "news" anyway? Seems more gossip than anything else. Sarkozy and Obama think Netenyahu is an ass. Ok? Who cares?

Seriously? This is actually quite newsworthy as far as day to day stuff goes.

 

[Slick5150]

Seriously? This is actually quite newsworthy as far as day to day stuff goes.

How so? They didn't say anyhting about Israeli polices, they simply stated opinions that they both find Netenyahu difficult to deal with. Whether or not he is or isn't, what difference does that knowledge being public make?

 

[a777pilot]

The real story is the MSM doing their best to kill the story so their man, Bobo, the Post Turtle, wouldn't have to suffer any embarrassment or bad press.

That's the real story. They failed. LOL!

 

[monovillage]

I am shocked, shocked to find out that the mainstream media conceal information from the public.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

How so? They didn't say anyhting about Israeli polices, they simply stated opinions that they both find Netenyahu difficult to deal with. Whether or not he is or isn't, what difference does that knowledge being public make?

People only care about what emotionally excites them. Meaningful discussion is "boring", but if the president is slinging some mud zomg! news!

 

[Throckmorton]

Suddenly I feel like voting for Obama again.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I think the OP is a fool and the media won't report on that either. Go figure.

 

[Double Trouble]

Uh, any link to a site more reputable than "ynetnews" for this information? If indeed such statements were made by Obama and Sarkozy, it would be a big story and a big embarrassment for both of them. I'll believe it when I see it reported by a reputable site though.

 

[Doppel]

How so? They didn't say anyhting about Israeli polices, they simply stated opinions that they both find Netenyahu difficult to deal with. Whether or not he is or isn't, what difference does that knowledge being public make?

Well you got me there. I guess if you don't intuitively know I cannot think of how to fashion it in a way you'll understand. Here is what the BBC article says, though: "The remarks indicate a breakdown of trust with the Israeli leader which could have wider implications for the Middle East peace process, our correspondent says."

Uh, any link to a site more reputable than "ynetnews" for this information? If indeed such statements were made by Obama and Sarkozy, it would be a big story and a big embarrassment for both of them. I'll believe it when I see it reported by a reputable site though.

That was a fair criticism. It's now on BBC, though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15635476

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Did they catch the part where they said Netenyahu dressed like a total a slut too? How dare they not report such groundbreaking news.

I think it actually reflects really well on Obama if that's the worst he said in a private candid conversation. If Obama had said something really nasty I expect it would have been all over he news.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

Yeah, media has taken a dive since media conglomerates started to gobble up small media companies. They want news that is entertaining, is cheap to produce(report?), and wouldn't offend any power elites.

Believe it or not, it is often done in the name of journalistic professionalism, where journalists try to be as objective as possible by just reporting verbatim what "reputable sources" tell them. I can see how some reporters will be horrified at the prospect of being "cut off" when your reporting relies almost exclusively on such sources (which often turn out to be just PR campaign handfed to gullible reporters and the public). The problem is, a huge segment of the public still believe such reports to be objective, when quite frankly, they can't be due to the interests involved, and due to the nature of reporting - even something seemingly simple, such as selecting which topic to cover, quickly reveals just how subjective reporting really is.

Till early~mid 1900's, there were literally thousands of newspapers in the US, each of which represented the interests of particular parties, ethnic groups, or business interests. They were often biased as hell, but perhaps it wasn't as bad as today, when we have this veiled subjectivity and implicit censoring done by the media themselves with little prodding. Back then, people at least had more choices without all the information coming from one source like the AP.

 

[kylebisme]

How so? They didn't say anyhting about Israeli polices, they simply stated opinions that they both find Netenyahu difficult to deal with. Whether or not he is or isn't, what difference does that knowledge being public make?

I'll give you a hint: if it didn't make any difference, they wouldn't have tried to suppress it.

Yep. Back in the 80s the CBC was trying to figure out why American media coverage of the war in Nicaragua was usually so bad.

Yeah, that started before I was born and ended before I was a teenager, but learning about it later was one of my first cues to the fact that the press isn't nearly our media is less than honest. I'd actually forgotten about that particular example though, and thank you for for reminding me.

Uh, any link to a site more reputable than "ynetnews" for this information?

Uh, plenty of links now. However, last night Ynet was one of the few breaking the story, and as the online arm of Yedioth Ahronoth, everything I've seen of them sugggests they've been been building a solid reputation for accurate reporting since 1939. On what grounds are you suggesting otherwise?

Did they catch the part where they said Netenyahu dressed like a total a slut too? How dare they not report such groundbreaking news.

I think it actually reflects really well on Obama if that's the worst he said in a private candid conversation. If Obama had said something really nasty I expect it would have been all over he news.

Did you not catch the part where they tried to hide Obama and Sarkozy's comments by getting the journalists that heard them to agree to not report them, with the comments being leaked to the public a few days later? Or how do you figure journalists would agree to suppress comments that "actually reflects really well on Obama" but not ones that don't.

The problem is, a huge segment of the public still believe such reports to be objective, when quite frankly, they can't be due to the interests involved, and due to the nature of reporting - even something seemingly simple, such as selecting which topic to cover, quickly reveals just how subjective reporting really is.

Yeah, and it's disturbing to see here how some people continue to try to cling to that fantasy in the face of proof to the contrary.

 

[hal2kilo]

The news just broke on this happening the other day:



But as far as I'm concerned, this is important part of the story:


I hope this will help others realize how our mainstream media are spineless lapdogs to the establishment rather than the forth estate which they should be.

OP should change title from establiment to corporatists.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Did you not catch the part where they tried to hide Obama and Sarkozy's comments by getting the journalists that heard them to agree to not report them, with the comments being leaked to the public a few days later? Or how do you figure journalists would agree to suppress comments that "actually reflects really well on Obama" but not ones that don't.

Journalists agreed to sit on this because it's largely a non-story. If Obama had called Netenyahu a lying dirty cross dressing Jew I suspect no such agreement would have been made.

I'm not defending our news media, this is just a really weak issue to try and call them out on.

 

[Texashiker]

Main stream media has been useless for decades.

The last big political story that I remember having an effect was watergate. Even all that stuff with bill clinton did not have an effect.

Torture signed off by bush jr., no effect because those people were terrorist.

The wife of Randy Weaver shot and killed, nothing ever happened.

Main stream media will barely touch the tough stories and then they will not ask the serious questions.

It is against federal law to sell firearms to criminals, but the ATF approved the sales. Who is going to go to prison over that? Probably nobody. But if someone sold a gun to a criminal, that person would probably go to jail.

Our government and especially our news media has turned into a laughing joke.

 

[Munky]

The funniest part is that people argue and defend the "popular opinion" and "the official story", but then act like they're not surprised when the official MSM story is proven false.

Before: We are in Lybia for the people, it's not about the oil!
After: Big deal, we're in it for the oil, what else is new?

Before: Obama can't make progress because of Republican obstructionism!
After: Obama is just like any politician, what did you expect?

 

[momeNt]

Michael Jackson's doctor receives his guilty verdict and we are talking about about 2 politicians banter about Israel?

what is wrong with america?

 

[woolfe9999]

Let me see if I understand this story.

First, Obama and Sarkozy are having a private conversation, not meant for anyone's ears but theres, and in that conversation, they make disaparaging remarks about another head of state.

Second, they realize that their comments have been overheard, and journalists are asked to sign an agreement to keep it confidential. Good for them. Had I been a member of Obama or Sarkozy's staff, I would have asked for that as well. It would be incompetent of them to not at least *ask* for the journalists to not let these rather undiplomatic but nonetheless private remarks out. They were not meant for the public's ear, and they have the potential to damage international relations. Based on comments coming from the Israeli government, it seems they already have.

Third, there is no evidence the reporters signed any such agreement. They certainly were not compelled to. It was a request, not an order. Rather, they apparently agreed amongst themselves that they would not release the information as a matter of journalistic ethics.

Fourth, in spite of this informal agreement, one or more of them leaked the information anyway, and now it is all over the MSM.

"Establishment stenographers" my ass.

- wolf

 

[momeNt]

Let me see if I understand this story.

First, Obama and Sarkozy are having a private conversation, not meant for anyone's ears but theres, and in that conversation, they make disaparaging remarks about another head of state.

Second, they realize that their comments have been overheard, and journalists are asked to sign an agreement to keep it confidential. Good for them. Had I been a member of Obama or Sarkozy's staff, I would have asked for that as well. It would be incompetent of them to not at least *ask* for the journalists to not let these rather undiplomatic but nonetheless private remarks out. They were not meant for the public's ear, and they have the potential to damage international relations. Based on comments coming from the Israeli government, it seems they already have.

Third, there is no evidence the reporters signed any such agreement. They certainly were not compelled to. It was a request, not an order. Rather, they apparently agreed amongst themselves that they would not release the information as a matter of journalistic ethics.

Fourth, in spite of this informal agreement, one or more of them leaked the information anyway, and now it is all over the MSM.

"Establishment stenographers" my ass.

- wolf

Liargate.

Almost as bad as Lebron-James-getting-dunked-on-gate.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry but this has already been posted.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2204301

You know, it would be nice if this place was policed a little more for fucking retarded titles. A properly titled thread was just closed for being a repost but how was that OP to be blamed? This thread has a completely uninformative title. Is he supposed to look in every partisan hack thread and double-check that its not some snarky reference to a real story?

 

[boochi]

You know, it would be nice if this place was policed a little more for fucking retarded titles. A properly titled thread was just closed for being a repost but how was that OP to be blamed? This thread has a completely uninformative title. Is he supposed to look in every partisan hack thread and double-check that its not some snarky reference to a real story?

+1

 

[HomerJS]

The real story is the MSM doing their best to kill the story so their man, Bobo, the Post Turtle, wouldn't have to suffer any embarrassment or bad press.

That's the real story. They failed. LOL!

Since Obama only said "I have to deal with him" I would put this "story" on the same level as the flag pin.