FAKE MEDIA--Debunking the Conspiracy (sorry to disappoint you)
There's a post going around about "Fake News" and "Alt-Media" https://steemit.com/fakenews/@jamesc/fake-news-alt-media-is-working explaining that the news media is scripted, and therefore completely bogus. (To be clear, the post is actually not addressing the "fake media" that has been circulated by Melissa Zimdars. A separate but related issue.)
So anyway they show this talking heads video of dozens upon dozens of news networks quoting VERBATIM headlines that could not possibly be a coincidence. And at first, I totally bought it. I mean, what other explanation is there? We're all just puppets in this crazy show written and directed by some nebulous entity in charge of the media, right?
(pixabay)
Well....there’s this thing called the Associated Press. It’s basically a giant vendor of news stories.
To put it in their own words, “The AP is one of the largest and most trusted sources of independent newsgathering, supplying a steady stream of news to its members, international subscribers and commercial customers. AP is neither privately owned nor government-funded. It is a not-for-profit news cooperative.”
Essentially, it’s just a bunch of journalists and freelance writers, like YOU and ME, who independently write stories and put them in a pool of other stories up for grabs by the highest bidder.
It’s like Shutterstock or Pixabay for photos--someone takes a photo, puts it in the inventory of photos, and gets paid a certain amount when someone decides to use or purchase the photo. And if it’s a great photo, then lots of people will use it. And it will get circulated and earn royalty off its circulation. But the photo itself was taken by one person with a camera, in the middle of the rolling hills of Austria, who just thought it a pretty sight. And now it’s everywhere.
(pixabay)
Same thing with news. Someone writes a story, puts it in the inventory, and now it’s up for grabs. The most common bidder will be the networks--you know, NBC, ABC, FOX. They pay the big bucks to get fresh stories that will sell. Sometimes, when the moon is just right, contending networks will inadvertently buy the SAME story---GASP!
HERE’S HOW SYNDICATED NEWS WORKS
Each “mother” network has hundreds or maybe thousands of subsidiary networks all over the country: from New York to L.A. All of these networks are owned and run by their mothership. Like a franchise. And each of them has a specific set of parameters of operation, helping their network fall in step with its mothership. Like a franchise.
They have a basic agenda for the day the network requires of them, and then a little wiggle room to do forays into local stuff or dabble in whatever keeps it fresh and unique for the area.
Think McDonald’s.
(allcateringmenuprices.com)
You’ve got your basic menu each day (fries, burgers, chicken nuggets, etc.), and then you’ve got things particular to your area (Maybe New York will have buffalo chicken wings on the menu, Texas will have meximelts, and Alaska will have whale blubber smoothies. Who knows?).
With news, you’ve got the basic menu for the day that everyone has to put out, in a particular order and style, and within a specific time frame. Every time. Formulaic. With rare exception.
Then you've got your local news and whatever else each network decides is worth spewing that evening. The “extra” stuff may come from local news reporters, from network employed or contracted journalists, or from other sources like the AP. But there will always be the basic menu for the day.
This is by design. It is not a brainwashing tactic or conspiratorial plan to take over the world. It is simply a matter of economics. Why buy 5,000 stories from the AP and from freelance reporters when you can just buy one and broadcast it in Alabama and in New Jersey at the same time?
Why hire the staff to manage the content of 5,000 different stories each day, when you can hire ONE editor to manage ONE story? If you want to call it censorship, be my guest. But it’s really just a matter of dollars and cents.
And when you’re a fortune 500 company, I’m sorry, but you’ve got to have a predictable bottom line for your investors. And a predictable bottom line means a predictable story spewing formula with censorship-like story management. No rogue stuff. Networks are in the business of selling stories that make money, first and foremost. They pedal to the masses. Because it makes money.
(foliomag.com)
So yes, someone IS in charge of the content of the media. It’s the network owners. Are they going to censor what comes out of their network? Why, yes. Yes they are. Because it is THEIR network. They bought it. It’s theirs. They get to pick whatever stories they want to put out.
When you get your own network, you can do the same thing.
With the world wide web and sites like steemit, we all become our own network. I've turned off the mainstream media for the time being. There are plenty of reliable news sites on the net. As far as fake news, yeah it's out there but it's up to each person to research and discover the truth for themselves instead of having some talking head on the tv set spoon feed it to them from a teleprompter.
Well if you think about it, the kinds of posts that make it on this platform are dictated largely by who has the money and power (and who they choose to curate). People are less likely to create content that doesn't sell. In this case, "all" of us have the money and power here, so more and more of us are in charge of which content trends. With time, the content gets more and more diverse as the voting influence becomes more decentralized.
But in the beginning, the content was extremely narrow. This is because the money was coming from a central source of a few like-minded individuals who decided what stories would trend. And they may have all had great ideas, and nothing is wrong with these individuals voting to their own liking.
But because the money was centralized, the stories tended to be as well. But we didn't go around saying that Steemit is a conspiratorial media dictator...did we? What we said instead was that the money needed to be decentralized so the masses could have more say about what content trended and what didn't.
As long as all of the money and influence in journalism production remains in the hands of a few, then the content will be narrow, and will fit a certain agenda. I'm not saying the "powers that be" are not influencing the media. Damn straight they are. But first and foremost, it's just a money maker, and an extension of whoever the network belongs to.
If Dr. Phil owned a giant news network, then we'd probably see a lot more stories with psycho-social impact. If Dan Larimer owned a giant news network, we'd probably see a lot more stories about cryptocurrency and minimizing government influence. If Rachel Ray owned the network, we'd see a lot more stories with sizzling recipes in them.
Hi @littlescribe! Thank you for your great article and I hope you're doing good. My guess is the post you're talking about is the one link I posted below.
I have one question that might seem totally unrelated at first but it totally is. Have you ever wonder about who create or more precisely who's issuing money or even more precisely to whom it profit? It's a pretty interesting topic to say the least.
Here's Maurice Allais the 1988 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics has to say about this topic.
It's weird right? It seems like it doesn't make much sense. Money can't be create out of thin air. Well that's the idea I help for a long time. I couldn't wrap my head around the concept at first.
The process by which money is created is so simple that the mind is repelled.' John Kenneth Galbraith (economist and Bill Clinton's mentor)
I hope I might have pique your curiosity and it might leave you wanting to investigate more about the world we live in. I'm planning on addressing this fundamental subject more thoroughly in upcoming chapters of my non-fiction book: "The Ultimate Steem Book" which can be found on my Steem blog.
Now, all that being said, Steem is the technology that is giving me the greatest hope for a brighter future and this is a big part of what my book is all about.
I only want to bring positive influence. I might not be the most skillful at this but that's what I'm trying.
https://steemit.com/fakenews/@jamesc/fake-news-alt-media-is-working
Fake news is in!
First... thanks for posting a fun topic to discuss. I am going to resteem your article and I started to reply to you here... instead I made my own blog post as a response.
Response to @littlescribe - Fake Media - Debunking the Conspiracy Theory
The videos you are talking about in which we see news anchors repeating one after the other the same line as nothing to do with what people are nowadays denouncing as fake news. Here is a classic example of lies being produce by MSM:
The discontentment about the mass media in general you probably caught wind of lately has to do with two specific lists promoted by some of these, as you say, fortune 500 news outlet. In the span of one week, there was this list of 100+ fake news web sites dressed up by a Merrimack College assistant professor named Melissa Zimdars which has been debunked has being sloppy work since but still has been shared by a lot the influential companies you are referring to. Plus, there was this anonymous effort promoted by the Washington Post to tag respectful journalists and web sites as part of a Russian propaganda conspiracy. Not to mention the fact that Facebook (again) & Google are now said to be looking for ways to detect ''fake news'' (unverified).
It's as if some of the mainstream medias are desperately trying to gain back some credibility after all of their Clinton ''will win for sure'' predictions failed. Or because journalists got caught attending unofficial gatherings with Hillary's campaign staff:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/
It's as if by spreading these two ''full of shit'' lists, and I know and respect people who are contributing with sites on that list, the mass media involve are declaring war to some of the alternative & independent media pointed at for being fake. Of course there was some click-bait & parody sites being tossed around with serious ones on these lists, which make it even more intelectually dishonest by the MSM who shared them.
Hope I have not lost you with all those mentions of lists (3 different ones). lol
As for press agencies, I totally agree with you that it's pretty common that local media will use the news packages they'll receive from AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. Poeple don't even notice that half of the articles written in news papers are signed by let's say, AFP or QMI (both in French).
You're right. The "fake news" is a different thing entirely. I was simply replying to an article that called it fake news. And yes, you did kind of lose me. I'll reread your post and see if I can find my way.
Sorry, the Mainstream Mockingbird Media doesn't work that way.
Yes, it could be explained that the dozens of times all the MSM talking heads said the exact same thing could be coincidence, or as you say, all come from the same AP source. However, that does not explain ALL of the MSM stations not reporting on the trial of the killing of Martin Luther King. Or any of the other dozen stories that should have been front page, top of the fold news.
How many MSM stations have been reporting on the North Dakota pipeline standoff? It was almost two weeks before PBS aired something on it.
And then you have confirmed times when stories aired by all of MSM were written by the CIA and/or Monsanto.
Then there is the deluge of fake stories completely made up by people of the MSM. Like the split-screen satellite interview.. in the same parking lot.
And then you have forgotten the biggest issue of all. All of this is a psyop. Everything you see on MSM is run through legal, marketing and psych. If you study psychological manipulation, (such as Edward Bernays) you will see it in EVERYTHING the MSM does.
True, it does not explain the lack of coverage. And I never said MSM wasn't censored, in or out. But I kind of feel like as long as all of the money and influence in journalism production remains in the hands of a few, then the content will be narrow, and will fit a certain agenda. I'm not saying the "powers that be" are not influencing the media. They are. But first and foremost, it's just a money maker, and an extension of whoever the network belongs to.
Is there evidence of conspiracy cover ups, or conspiracy stories pumped out to appease the masses? Sure. I won't dispute that. But in general, I am not sure it is as intentionally schemed and dangerous as it is just really about making a buck. What we're talking about here is payoffs to the media, and/or strong arming the media. Do I think that's likely---I don't know. I guess. On occasion. But on a daily basis. Nah.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal