Марк Дайс - The True Story of Fake News - How Mainstream Media Manipulates Millions

It certainly is odd that the people who are supposed to function as watchdogs and keep administrations accountable are wining and dining with them. The inside jokes and the overall atmosphere of the dinner reeks of elitism and hypocrisy and is just one more example of the collusion between the top mainstream media outlets and the people they’re supposed to hold accountable.

University of Texas Radio-Television and Film professor América Rodriguez points out, “The ownership of the national media system is centralized in very few hands. These owners, and the journalists they employ, in turn have close personal and professional relationships with the political elites of their respective nations. The interaction of these two factors◦— ownership concentration and the tight web of relations within the political elite◦— has created national news production processes intent on safeguarding privilege and status.” 310

The government is actually the most frequent source of news, so a cozy relationship between politicians and journalists further tarnishes the credibility of their reporting. One study showed 46% of stories from The Washington Post and The New York Times originated from the government. 311Another primary source of ‘news’ is from what’s been dubbed ‘churnalism,’ which is when news outlets use press releases sent by government agencies or corporations as the basis for stories and often report the information contained in them virtually verbatim. 312The term refers to journalists quickly “churning out” stories from the information they mostly just take from press releases or news wires, often without even fact checking it or doing any original research.

Part of the churnalism problem comes from the constant pressure to continuously keep posting new content in our never-ending 24-7 news cycle. This leaves reporters little time to do original research or fact-check, because there is an urgency to “be first” to post a story in hopes of having it go viral so it drives a bunch of traffic to their website. A study by British journalist Nick Davies found that 80% of the stories in British newspapers were just rewritten wire copy and press releases. 313

The tone of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner dramatically changed when Donald Trump became president. As the first dinner of the Trump administration approached, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker announced that they would not be attending “in protest” because of the way Trump was treating the media. 314Then sources within CNN and MSNBC revealed that those networks were considering boycotting the 2017 dinner as well. 315

Then President Trump trumped the media again, and announced that he wasn’t going to go, breaking a long-held tradition of presidents attending, and instead held a rally to celebrate his first 100 days in office. “I’m treated very unfairly and very dishonestly by the press and I thought it was inappropriate to go this year. If I were treated even slightly fairly by the press I would have gone,” Trump said. “I thought it would be very disingenuous if I went. I thought it would be actually, in a certain way, dishonest if I went.” 316

There were other changes regarding White House press correspondents now that Trump was in office. The Trump administration had considered moving the White House press briefing to another location so they could include more reporters since the briefing room is rather small. One location considered was the White House Conference Center, which is across the street from the White House, and another was the Old Executive Office Building which is right next door. The Establishment media cried about a ‘lack of transparency,’ even though this move would have expanded the number of reporters who had access to the president and the press secretary.

Then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said, “I know some of the folks in the press are uptight about this and I understand. The only thing that’s been discussed is whether or not the initial press conferences are going to be in that small press room. For the people listening to this that don’t know this, the press room that people see on TV is very, very tiny◦— 49 people fit in that press room.” 317

He continued, “We had like 500 or 600 folks at the press conference last week so we started thinking, ‘if we can have more people involved [rather] than less people involved, that would be a good thing’◦— that’s what this is about.” 318They decided not to move locations, but came up with a way to include more reporters by allowing them to call in on Skype, the video conferencing service from anywhere in the country. 319

After the very first press briefing of the Trump administration the liberal media were complaining that the first outlets called on to ask questions weren’t CNN, or The Washington Post , but instead the New York Post , and then the second question went to the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), and the third went to Univision, the Spanish-language network.

CNN’s Jim Acosta even went on air and complained about the seating arrangement at one of the president’s press conferences since he was placed in one of the back rows, saying it was the equivalent of being sent to Siberia. 320

“If you’re legacy media and have been trading on that access for decades, when the new guy comes in and gets your access, it’s enraging,” said Sean Davis, a co-founder of The Federalist. “This is legacy outlets acting like an entitled monopoly or a cartel when someone new comes in and does the job better than they do.” 321

The liberal media kept crying about Trump not calling on them enough during his press conferences. Politico complained, “President Donald Trump on Wednesday continued his streak of calling only on conservative-leaning outlets at his bilateral press conferences with foreign leaders,” saying, “During his press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday afternoon, Trump called on David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Katie Pavlich, the editor of TownHall.com.” 322

As I’m sure you recall, CNN’s Jim Acosta was acting more like a protester than a reporter during one press conference, literally yelling at the president and interrupting him, causing Trump to point at him and declare, “You are fake news!” Maybe someone should tell CNN that the First Amendment’s protection of the Freedom of the Press means that the government won’t shut down media outlets by forcing them out of business, it doesn’t guarantee that the president or his press secretary has to invite them to the White House or answer their questions.

It seems only the liberal media denies that there is a liberal bias problem in the media, but decades of studies and polls (not to mention common sense) have proven an overwhelming bias in their coverage of just about everything. A Harvard study analyzing the media coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office found that 80% of it was negative. 323Of course that was obvious to anyone old enough to pay attention during the election, but it was surprising that Harvard, a very liberal university, would actually investigate the matter.

The study analyzed reports from The New York Times , The Washington Post , and The Wall Street Journal; as well as CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and even the BBC, and found the average coverage was 80% negative. Also not surprising was that CNN’s coverage was 93% negative. Fox News, on the other hand, was shown to be 52% negative and 48 percent positive, which fits in almost perfectly with their trademarked slogan “Fair & Balanced.” Professor Thomas E. Peterson, who conducted the study, said, “The nation’s watchdog has lost much of its bite and won’t regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties.” 324