The Free Press

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Generally?  How about entirely?

In regards to this comment, my experience:

1) Stations I have worked for have done negative stories on advertising customers.  They were granted no special treatment due to their advertising status, sometimes to the sales department's chagrin.

2) The sales department does appreciate when news worthiness and coverage align, sometimes to the chagrin of the news department.

3) Yes, there is the underlying goal to provide content that will draw viewers.  But I am not aware of any stories being done in exchange for direct compensation.

4) Then there are station sponsored events.  Covering events because the station paid money; often to the chagrin of the assigned news crew.

[Badgerhoney]

Here you go, Chicos:

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility". When challenged on fake content, Schmitt twists the potential criticism into a positive. "A fake document is a story in itself," he says.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/exposed-wikileaks-secrets

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

Before I go -

The implication is that Wikileaks alters or fakes the documents.  Nowhere has that happened. What you have provided is a fake document that they released, if true. Garbage in, garbage out, but they did not not alter anything.  Nor have they in the past.

Podesta admitted his emails were hacked.  The same way the DNC was hacked.  Wikileaks put them out there. It caused 2 DNC members to be fired.  Some of the things coming out of the Podesta emails are concerning. The attacks on Catholics, Southerners, Bernie Sanders supporters.  All the examples of the NY Times, Globe, Post, taking orders from the Clinton campaign, even giving them ability to strike parts of stories.  Donna Brazille given debate questions ahead of the debate.  These hacks have a great way of showing people what they truly are, the positions and feelings they really have.

The press spikes stories to protect, or spins up stories to destroy.  Case in point, the press spiked Monica Lewinsky.  NBC had the Trump tape since July, was it not newsworthy then?  Yet they released it for maximum damage.  Someone earlier said 7% of journalists are Republicans.  Over 90% of D.C. journalists vote Democrat. For the same reason liberals gravitate to college faculty, they do the same in the media, and they push their agenda.   http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/media-bias-explained-only-7-of-journalists-identify-as-republicans/

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Even releasing fake leaks dings the credibility of WikiLeaks.  It shows they have no filter.  How does one know what is real and what is fake if they leak fake info?

For the record, I have been against WikiLeaks from the start.  Hacking is illegal and the ends do not justify the means.  Not to mention leaking classified material is dangerous.  WikiLeaks agenda remains unchanged.  It is anti-American, whether Bush or Obama is President.  Assange is using political divisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: "exposing the truth".

That is my opinion of WikiLeaks.

Edit: I realized I had typed decisiveness when I meant divisiveness.  Change has been made.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

[mu03eng]

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

I almost regret skipping on this thread......almost

[Pakuni]

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

Before I go -

The implication is that Wikileaks alters or fakes the documents.  Nowhere has that happened. What you have provided is a fake document that they released, if true. Garbage in, garbage out, but they did not not alter anything.  Nor have they in the past.

Methinks he doth protest too much.
Anyhow, you asked "Can you point to a time in the 10 years of WikiLeaks that there document dumps have been fake?"

It took me all of three seconds on the Google machine to find a case in which WikiLeaks has posted fake documents.
So .... you're welcome.

[Benny B]

In regards to this comment, my experience:
3) Yes, there is the underlying goal to provide content that will draw viewers.

Forget who the sponsors are and focus on this... you can't make money in news unless you draw eyeballs.  So journalists put the stories out there that draw the attention of viewers.

That's why we don't see the stories about kittens and bunnies playing together.  Viewers want dumpster fires, so that's what journalists either look for, and for those times when they can't find one, they carry matches in their pocket.

[brandx]

That's why we don't see the stories about kittens and bunnies playing together. 

Zuckerberg owns all the copyrights on those, anyway.

[MU82]

I'm not sure why people think the media isn't reporting the Wikileaks stuff.

My local paper in Charlotte reports on the revelations daily. CNN covers them. Bloomberg is covering them. Goodness knows Fox News is covering them. I'm quite certain the debate moderator will mention them next week, probably more than once.

I think for many the question is "Why are Trump's problems, bombast, personality disorders, etc, receiving the bigger headlines and priority placement in newspaper and TV coverage?"

I like to think the reason is pretty obvious. People can't get enough Trump, and haven't been able to for a year-plus now.

A video of a major-party presidential candidate bragging about committing sexual assault? The candidate's own party abandoning him like rats on a burning ship? The candidate going to a scorched-earth campaign, trashing his own party leaders and tripling down on sexual allegations against his opponent's spouse? Numerous women saying they were abused by the candidate, followed by the candidate's personal attacks against the accuser, including one in which he said the alleged victim wasn't good-looking enough for him to assault. Numerous women saying the candidate walked in on them when they were naked while preparing for a beauty pageant, which the candidate also had boasted about?

And the media not giving greater coverage to Wikileaks somehow "proves" their bias?

Whether you are a media outlet, a restaurant owner or a furniture maker, you give the customer what he or she wants.

[dgies9156]

I spent 10 years in the Media both in trade and daily journalism. My daily journalism was at newspapers, one in a small city and one in a mid-sized Metro. Long ago I got an MBA and said I wanted a "real" paycheck.

Here are some my thoughts and experiences.

1) At the small city daily, our editors once came to us and told us to run a K*Mart press release because "they are a good advertiser..." It was K*Mart's 25th anniversary, so we ran a headline, "Let the Blue Light Special Shine It's Ever Loving Light..." We got so much of this, we became disillusioned when we saw the city editor coming. Total and complete BS!

2) We had a publisher at the mid-sized Metro who bought the paper, among other reasons, to be assured of getting into the city's snooty country club. He regularly ordered stories tilted in one direction to his liking and, of course, it was done.

3) When Foster Winans traded on the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" info, it went after Mr. Winan's sexual orientation, knowing that would infuriate most WSJ readers at the time.

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

5) For years the Milwaukee Journal was the biggest cheerleader for the state of Wisconsin. It's as if the Journal could never understand why a manufacturer or business owner would locate in, say, Alabama or Tennessee, instead of Wisconsin. When Saturn located in Spring Hill, I think there must have been a significant portion of the Journal executive suite that could never understand why GM didn't double down in Wisconsin.

In the 38 years since I left Marquette's Journalism School, the quality of newspaper reporting has dropped due to the economic realities of the newspaper business. That's not going to change. Television, especially in Chicago, takes the position, "If it Bleeds, It Leads." It's ironic here that the America's most chipper anchorwoman, the Lovely Allison on Channel 5, regularly is reading stories about blood and guts on the streets of Chicago. Yes, I know, there's lots of blood and guts here and it makes for compelling video, but there's things others than shooting happening here. You would never know it from the media!

[HouWarrior]

I just read this on Wiki Leaks so it must be true.

Chicos appeared here for awhile as HoopaLoop...
and then, more recently he got really tricky and  tried to create a totally new, totally different on line character to throw us off the scent ....the secret memo proved it...
Chicos is now Badgerhoney

[Benny B]

I just read this on Wiki Leaks so it must be true.

Chicos appeared here for awhile as HoopaLoop...
and then, more recently he got really tricky and  tried to create a totally new, totally different on line character to throw us off the scent ....the secret memo proved it...
Chicos is now Badgerhoney

Well, unlike Wikileaks, Scoop has the Ye Olde IP Tracker that will confirm the source... so until Rocky comes back with his analysis, I think we have to question everything.

[rocket surgeon]

Don't editors decide what is news and what is not. It's what they don't tell us that I take issue with. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

BINGO!!  UN-reported stories is a form of bias.  one cannot form an opinion on something they haven't heard about

[brandx]

I spent 10 years in the Media both in trade and daily journalism. My daily journalism was at newspapers, one in a small city and one in a mid-sized Metro. Long ago I got an MBA and said I wanted a "real" paycheck.

Here are some my thoughts and experiences.

1) At the small city daily, our editors once came to us and told us to run a K*Mart press release because "they are a good advertiser..." It was K*Mart's 25th anniversary, so we ran a headline, "Let the Blue Light Special Shine It's Ever Loving Light..." We got so much of this, we became disillusioned when we saw the city editor coming. Total and complete BS!

2) We had a publisher at the mid-sized Metro who bought the paper, among other reasons, to be assured of getting into the city's snooty country club. He regularly ordered stories tilted in one direction to his liking and, of course, it was done.

3) When Foster Winans traded on the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" info, it went after Mr. Winan's sexual orientation, knowing that would infuriate most WSJ readers at the time.

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

5) For years the Milwaukee Journal was the biggest cheerleader for the state of Wisconsin. It's as if the Journal could never understand why a manufacturer or business owner would locate in, say, Alabama or Tennessee, instead of Wisconsin. When Saturn located in Spring Hill, I think there must have been a significant portion of the Journal executive suite that could never understand why GM didn't double down in Wisconsin.

In the 38 years since I left Marquette's Journalism School, the quality of newspaper reporting has dropped due to the economic realities of the newspaper business. That's not going to change. Television, especially in Chicago, takes the position, "If it Bleeds, It Leads." It's ironic here that the America's most chipper anchorwoman, the Lovely Allison on Channel 5, regularly is reading stories about blood and guts on the streets of Chicago. Yes, I know, there's lots of blood and guts here and it makes for compelling video, but there's things others than shooting happening here. You would never know it from the media!

I think, with your experiences, you verified much of what 82 said. Most of the "slanting" is pretty harmless (like the K-Mart thing) although readers really should be informed when a news story is about a paying customer to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interests.

I stand by my earlier statement that most news is pretty straight forward. To many people don't know the difference between news and the Opinion pages. They assume - usually wrongly - that because the Editorial Board has a certain slant on the news, that all reporters are ordered to structure their articles in a certain way.

And again, I am talking about newspapers - not TV News.

[dgies9156]

I stand by my earlier statement that most news is pretty straight forward. To many people don't know the difference between news and the Opinion pages. They assume - usually wrongly - that because the Editorial Board has a certain slant on the news, that all reporters are ordered to structure their articles in a certain way.

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

[MU82]

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

Here in Charlotte, we are in the middle of a big scandal involving Wells Fargo, one of our biggest employers. I believe the Observer has done an excellent job covering it. Its reporters have delivered the news, and its editorial board has taken an aggressive stance admonishing the company hierarchy.

[manny31]

Even releasing fake leaks dings the credibility of WikiLeaks.  It shows they have no filter.  How does one know what is real and what is fake if they leak fake info?

For the record, I have been against WikiLeaks from the start.  Hacking is illegal and the ends do not justify the means.  Not to mention leaking classified material is dangerous.  WikiLeaks agenda remains unchanged.  It is anti-American, whether Bush or Obama is President.  Assange is using political decisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: "exposing the truth".

That is my opinion of WikiLeaks.

I don't know where to begin with this. I love the irony here but we have to keep to the question of objectivity. If we can extrapolate a bit let's consider Wiki to be the internet equivalent of "deep throat" during the Watergate years does that resonate with people? I truly think the lack of objectivity or admission to a certain level of bias is a disservice to all. I know there are guide lines and requirements regarding disclosure of ownership for folks that appear on TV discussing  financial instruments. How about reporter divulge their voting history when reporting on election related stories?  I would question your assertion that wiki is un American if the leaks serve as a check against our government telling untruths in an unbiased fashion. I unstand that we all have a bias but if the press could trend toward an unbiased narrative the world would be a better slightly better and more civil place.

[rocket surgeon]

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

Bernie goldberg's book is a fantastic read!!  This, from a guy who worked within the "system" until a funny thing happened...his conscious got the better of him.  He couldn't take it anymore.  Good book about what really goes on in "mainstream" media

[muwarrior69]

Bernie goldberg's book is a fantastic read!!  This, from a guy who worked within the "system" until a funny thing happened...his conscious got the better of him.  He couldn't take it anymore.  Good book about what really goes on in "mainstream" media

[MU82]

I don't know where to begin with this. I love the irony here but we have to keep to the question of objectivity. If we can extrapolate a bit let's consider Wiki to be the internet equivalent of "deep throat" during the Watergate years does that resonate with people? I truly think the lack of objectivity or admission to a certain level of bias is a disservice to all. I know there are guide lines and requirements regarding disclosure of ownership for folks that appear on TV discussing  financial instruments. How about reporter divulge their voting history when reporting on election related stories?  I would question your assertion that wiki is un American if the leaks serve as a check against our government telling untruths in an unbiased fashion. I unstand that we all have a bias but if the press could trend toward an unbiased narrative the world would be a better slightly better and more civil place.

I do think Wikileaks is performing a service. However, as Lazar said, hacking IS illegal. What illegal acts did Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat" perpetrate?

[real chili 83]

I've enjoyed this thread.

ND sucks

[Badgerhoney]

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

OK, I will respond.  I joined your board in the Summer to talk recruiting.  Never came to this part of your board until two weeks ago on a thread about the Milwaukee Bucks.  As a conservative man of color, the remarks from the Bucks President touch me perhaps a bit differently than you.

I'm not equating racial slurs to being called a Chicos, but also am not 100% on what his intent was.  I said it was the first time that one has been thrown my way.  In providing some background to my race last week, it was a mystery what that moniker is supposed to mean.  Was it a racial attack as if I'm Hispanic? 

[Badgerhoney]

I do think Wikileaks is performing a service. However, as Lazar said, hacking IS illegal. What illegal acts did Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat" perpetrate?

They contacted grand jurors against Judge John Sirca's lawful orders not to.  In Sirca's memoir (To Set The Record Straight) he said he would have sent both to jail had they obtained information from a grand juror.  What Sirca didn't know, Bernstein and Woodward did just that.   Bernstein admitted in a memo to Ben Bradlee that "Maybe they’ll send us to jail after all".

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/618/watergate-and-the-washington-post-questionable-tactics-in-service-to-democracy

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/bob_woodwards_desperate_damage_control/



You know what else is illegal?  Publishing someone's tax returns, as the NY Times did recently on Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/the-new-york-times-risked-legal-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/

[GGGG]

The wikileaks stuff shows just a bunch of backroom political maneuvering.  While it most definitely paints Hillary & Co in a bad light, I think everyone realizes that crap happens.  If wikileaks were so inclined, you would see emails from Reince saying things like "Holy sh*t...what are we going to do about Trump!!"

But a major party political candidate on camera bragging about sexual assault and then having people come forward saying "yeah that happened to me," is a news story.  And yeah if Bill Clinton were running for the first time today, instead of 1992, I think the same type of stuff would be reported.  There is no way that Bill would have survived.  There is no way that Clarence Thomas would have survived either.

[GGGG]

You know what else is illegal?  Publishing someone's tax returns, as the NY Times did recently on Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/the-new-york-times-risked-legal-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/

How do you know it was unauthorized?