Channels disguise corporate propaganda as 'analysis'
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
there's a petition on the site
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/59 ... n_KEY=2302
Channels disguise corporate propaganda as 'analysis'
Scores of pundits appearing on cable news networks are paid corporate lobbyists and PR flaks--and the networks aren't disclosing their corporate ties. In a new report in the Nation (3/1/10), reporter Sebastian Jones writes:
Since 2007 at least 75 registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials--people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests--have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens--and in some cases hundreds--of appearances.
For example, during the collapse of insurance giant AIG--and the ensuing government bailout--some pundits appearing to discuss the story were, unbeknown to viewers, actually working for AIG, as lobbyists or public relations advisers. And as the healthcare debate unfolded throughout the past year, a number of pundits and former lawmakers have made numerous appearances to talk about health insurance reform--all the while employed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In almost all cases, viewers had no way of knowing the affiliations of these guests. The allegedly liberal-leaning MSNBC, writes Jones, had
the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest. Only on MSNBC did Todd Boulanger, a Jack Abramoff-connected lobbyist working for Cassidy and Associates, go on a TV rehabilitation tour with no identification of his work, all while he was under investigation for corruption. (He pleaded guilty in January 2009.) Only on MSNBC was a prime-time program, Countdown, hosted by public relations operative Richard Wolffe and later by a pharmaceutical company consultant, former Gov. Howard Dean, with no mention of the outside work either man was engaged in. And MSNBC has yet to introduce DynCorp's Barry McCaffrey as anything but a "military analyst."
Some networks have written policies demanding that contributors and analysts reveal their conflicts of interest. But it's hard to take those guidelines very seriously; as Jones points out, one MSNBC official suggested that their idea of disclosure might be to post relevant information about their guests on the MSNBC website. In a media system already dominated by official sources from government and big business, why are cable channels relying on paid spokespeople and lobbyists as commentators? And why are these channels hiding the affiliations of their pundits? Join FAIR to demand answers and accountability. Sign our petition to MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Channel, demanding that they come clean about their corporate-sponsored pundits.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/59 ... n_KEY=2302
Channels disguise corporate propaganda as 'analysis'
Scores of pundits appearing on cable news networks are paid corporate lobbyists and PR flaks--and the networks aren't disclosing their corporate ties. In a new report in the Nation (3/1/10), reporter Sebastian Jones writes:
Since 2007 at least 75 registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials--people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests--have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens--and in some cases hundreds--of appearances.
For example, during the collapse of insurance giant AIG--and the ensuing government bailout--some pundits appearing to discuss the story were, unbeknown to viewers, actually working for AIG, as lobbyists or public relations advisers. And as the healthcare debate unfolded throughout the past year, a number of pundits and former lawmakers have made numerous appearances to talk about health insurance reform--all the while employed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In almost all cases, viewers had no way of knowing the affiliations of these guests. The allegedly liberal-leaning MSNBC, writes Jones, had
the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest. Only on MSNBC did Todd Boulanger, a Jack Abramoff-connected lobbyist working for Cassidy and Associates, go on a TV rehabilitation tour with no identification of his work, all while he was under investigation for corruption. (He pleaded guilty in January 2009.) Only on MSNBC was a prime-time program, Countdown, hosted by public relations operative Richard Wolffe and later by a pharmaceutical company consultant, former Gov. Howard Dean, with no mention of the outside work either man was engaged in. And MSNBC has yet to introduce DynCorp's Barry McCaffrey as anything but a "military analyst."
Some networks have written policies demanding that contributors and analysts reveal their conflicts of interest. But it's hard to take those guidelines very seriously; as Jones points out, one MSNBC official suggested that their idea of disclosure might be to post relevant information about their guests on the MSNBC website. In a media system already dominated by official sources from government and big business, why are cable channels relying on paid spokespeople and lobbyists as commentators? And why are these channels hiding the affiliations of their pundits? Join FAIR to demand answers and accountability. Sign our petition to MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Channel, demanding that they come clean about their corporate-sponsored pundits.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
They are ALL in the business of selling viewers/readers/listeners to the companies who are selling their product/service. The priority is to get as many people to see what that company is selling. The best way to do that is to appeal to a certain demographic, whether it be the middle/upper age group conservative or the younger liberal who still believes in government, etc.
NPR is the closest thing we have to a non-corrupt media outlet, and I don't even listen to that shit because it is depressing as hell.
Tune out.
Most people would say NPR is liberal. I think it is fairly unbiased... probably less biased than any other "mainstream" news outlet... But they do have to sell a consistent message and consistent rhetoric to stay alive - to keep their audience - so there is inherent bias. And the typical news story is 5 minutes long with a bunch of fluff so it is difficult for me to stay tuned.
tune out.