Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

How Terrorists and Dictators Silence Arab Journalists by Khaled Abu Toameh

That is the sad state of journalism in the Arab world: “If you’re not with us, then you must be against us and that is why we need to shut your mouth.” A journalist who does not agree to serve as a governmental mouthpiece is denounced as a “traitor.”

Hamas shut the Gaza offices of Al-Arabiya in July 2013, under the pretext that the station broadcasted “incorrect news” about the situation in the Gaza Strip. The closure did not receive much attention from the international community and human rights organizations. Had the office been closed by Israel, there would have been an international outcry, with journalists screaming about Israeli “assaults on freedom of the media.”

Al-Arabiya, like many other Arab TV stations, has a bureau in Israel, and its reporters enjoy more freedom reporting out of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv than they do in the Arab world. Today, the only free and independent Arabic newspapers in the Middle East can be found inside Israel.

Thirty-five Arab journalists have been fired since the beginning of April as a result of a campaign of intimidation and terrorism waged against them by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The journalists were working for the Saudi-owned pan-Arab Al-Arabiya television news channel, based in Dubai Media City in the United Arab Emirates. The network was previously rated by the BBC among the top pan-Arab stations.

But life for Al-Arabiya reporters has never been easy. Like most Arab journalists covering the Arab and Islamic countries, they too have long faced threats from various parties and governments.

The Trouble With Facebook Zuckerberg wants to tell you what to think. Daniel Greenfield

Despite the denials, the stories about Facebook’s bias are real. But the bias isn’t there because of the company’s new technology. Facebook is biased because of its reliance on the biased old media.

Facebook’s trending topics wasn’t the automatic system that the company wanted people to think it was. Instead it hired young journalists with new media experience to “curate” its news feed. And plenty of them proved to be biased against conservative news and sources. Meanwhile someone at the top of Facebook’s dysfunctional culture wanted to play up Syria and the Black Lives Matter hate group.

Mark Zuckerberg’s fundamental mistake was recreating the biases and agendas of the old media in a service whose whole reason for existing was to allow users to create their own experience. The big difference between social and search is that social media is supposed to let you be the curator.

But, like Facebook’s trending topics, social curation was another scam. Facebook users don’t really define what they see. It’s defined for them by the company’s agendas. This includes the purely financial. It would be foolish to think that the fortunes that Buzzfeed spends on Facebook advertising don’t impact the placement of its stories by Facebook’s mysterious algorithm. And there is the more complex intersection of politics and branding in an age when business relevance means social relevance.

Twitter piggybacked on the Arab Spring to seem relevant. Facebook has used Black Lives Matter. Social media needs to be associated with political movements to seem more important than it is. Zuckerberg doesn’t want to head up a shinier version of MySpace that was originally set up to rate the attractiveness of Harvard girls. Being socially relevant is better for business. Especially when the business is vapid at its core.

Social media needs social relevance to disguise the narcissism at the center of its appeal.

Finally, a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars is not about to let users define their own experience even if that’s what they signed up to do. Facebook does not empower users. It seeks to shape and control their experience for its own power and profit. Facebook’s news feed is just as curated as its trending topics. The news feed depends more on algorithms, but those are still shaped by agendas even if they aren’t as simple as overworked left-wing journalism majors spitefully purging stories about IRS corruption from the trending topics on the right.

Steve Kates: Media Is The Massage

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/media-massage/

Obama’s ratings remain astonishingly healthy, given eight years of foreign-policy debacles, a wan economic ‘recovery’ and a nation more deeply divided than when he took office. His secret, as a White House spinner explains, is having grasped that voters know little and reporters even less
How do you account for this: Obama report card: Approval up, economy down? In fact, Obama’s approval rating remains well up into his eighth year in office despite of the wreckage not just to the economy, but to the American health care system, the refugee crisis across the Middle East and throughout Europe, the open borders on the American south (and increasingly its north), continuous reductions in living standards, worsening racial relations, and an all-round deterioration in every aspect of American life.

You account for it by understanding that the average American knows less about America than you do and lives in a media bubble almost as tight as the bubble that once surrounded the Soviet Union.

Which is why this remains the single most important story of the Obama years because it explains everything else that would otherwise be inexplicable:

In the New York Times Sunday Magazine, David Samuels details how Ben Rhodes, a script writer, author of the Beloit Journal fiction piece titled “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” and brother of CBS president David Rhodes, a man with zero foreign policy experience, shaped and promoted the president’s foreign policy narratives.

Samuels observes: “His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.” (In this respect, of course, he matches the president’s foreign policy background: None.)

The article details how these two shaped and spun make-believe about the facts and their policies and with the aid of a supine press and a number of think tanks and social media outlets helped propagate the false narratives these two wove out of their fantasies.

The Condescending Patriarchy By Marilyn Penn

Although feminists have claimed to seek equality – in education, employment, sexual and civil rights – a curious acceptance of patriarchal condescension still meets with their approval and demands. They won the battle to bare their breasts in public since men are entitled to do the same (see the painted topless ladies of Times Square), but when it comes to accepting equal responsibility for the consequences of drunken excess, they plead special protection. On campuses throughout America, women who claim to have been sexually molested while they were blotto are considered victims of a crime, not cooperating partners. Men, on the other hand, are never excused for molesting a woman (anything from a grope to rape) because they were drunk. Title IX and university administrations give women a pass and they willingly accept it.

Similarly, the media has traditionally withheld the names of women who claim to be victims of rape or molestation while they publish the names of men who are accused but have not been tried. Now,, in the strangest extension of this macho protectiveness, both Lincoln Center and the NY Times have admitted that Jed Bernstein, the former president of Lincoln Center, was forced to resign because he had a consensual affair with a woman on his staff, violating the company policy of no dating of subordinates. Mr. Bernstein had promoted this 30-something woman but so had his predecessor – twice. Both Mr. Bernstein and his subordinate were single and the affair was over by the time the relationship came to the attention of the Center’s higher-ups. Nevertheless, Lincoln Center did not divulge the name of the employee in order to “protect” her. Since she consented to flouting company policy, why was she not named and asked to resign as well? Is the assumption that an adult woman capable of performing in a high-powered job is nevertheless helpless to withstand the seduction of her much older employer? Does this sit well with Gloria Steinem? It’s not what Hillary thought of that 21 year old “narcissistic loony toon” who nearly brought down the president.

Media starting to come together on Saudi 9-11 involvement By James Lewis

Under cover of 2016 election headlines, the liberal media have finally confessed that the Saudi ruling clan is directly responsible for the 9/11/01 mass terror attack on the Twin Towers in New York City and on the Pentagon fifteen years ago.

These facts have been widely rumored, because the 17 attackers followed Saudi (Wahhabi) war theology, along with thousand-year-old suicide-murder tactics against infidels.

That news has now been confirmed by the major media, which colluded in fifteen years of cover-up.

Media sources confirming Saudi guilt include the New York Post, CNN (reporting Saudi threats of reprisals against the disclosures), the New York Times, The Independent (U.K.), and numerous other media outlets (see here). However, we have not seen the kind of organized, single-headline media campaign that we have seen so many times when all the liberal establishment media want to make a major splash. The most likely reason is that the media will have to explain their own fifteen years of cover-up very soon. Their mendacious answer will be but we already told you so. That will be another lie, of course.

Strategically, the electoral success of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is likely to have forced the disclosure of the massive U.S. and EU establishment cover-up since 9/11/01. A de facto Radical Left-Radical Jihad alliance is now faced with a choice of gradually revealing the truth to the public or staging a public coup d’état both here and in Europe. The political-media establishment has therefore been forced into a checkmate by the popular success of political candidates it could not control, and who may be prepared to reveal Saudi criminal responsibility for the Jihad War that started with 9/11/01 and continues to this day.

Fox takes hits on viewer numbers By Steve McCann

It appears that the SS Fair & Balanced (aka Fox News) is taking on water. In April CNN, for the fifth time in the past eight months, is ranked #1 in prime time. The last time CNN had this many prime time wins was 14 years ago (November 2001) in the post 9/11 period. Further, in April, CNN had the most growth of any television network (cable or broadcast) among total viewers in the most important demographic, adults 25-54 increasing this key viewership by triple digits in prime time.

Normally in an election season, particularly one this contentious, viewership always increases significantly. However, Fox has experienced only a 9% increase in prime time versus CNN’s 156% in the 25-54 age group. Thus CNN has now more actual viewers than Fox.

There is no question the overall tilt of Fox News during the past eight months has been pro-Trump — at time to the point of sycophancy. The worst being in prime time with the lone exception of Megyn Kelly. Considering the long and successful track record of the network, the only explanation is that they have struck the Trump iceberg that has sunk so many others who foolishly attached themselves to the Trump whirlwind.

On the other hand, while CNN is still a liberal-leaning network, they have been much more open to the other Republican candidates and have been more muted in their cheerleading for any one candidate. Perhaps they are secretly rooting for Trump to face Hillary in the general election secure in the knowledge that he cannot win in November, but they have maintained a veneer of actually being fair and balanced.

Why Pro-Trump Conservative Media Should Worry By Christian Toto

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/04/29/why-pro-trump-conservative-media-should-worry/

I didn’t give up on print newspapers even when the web starting delivering all the news I needed to my laptop.

I kept buying the daily paper, tucking it under my arm and taking it everywhere I went that day. Sure, I could find it all online, but I loved the feel of the paper in my hands. It also connected me to my early days as a newspaper reporter, eager to read my colleagues’ work.

Not anymore.

Now, when I see the newspaper on our front lawn, cocooned in its pristine orange wrapper, I just keep on walking. I’ll pick it up later. Maybe.

What day is recycling again? CONTINUE AT SITE

TRUMPING THE NEWS AT FOX

I’m done with Fox News By Patricia McCarthy

When Fox News debuted in 1996, it was a breath of fresh air, seemingly unadulterated by the leftist bias that had long characterized the three mainstream networks and CNN. But that initial commitment to balance has gone by the wayside, sacrificed on the altar of Donald Trump.

Fox News, as Mark Levin has observed, has become a Trump super-PAC instead of a news organization. From morning throughout the day and night, it is Trump, Trump, Trump.

Many of us who have depended on Fox for “fair and balanced” news feel betrayed. While Trump’s rants at his rallies are a form of repetitive mass hypnosis of an angry public by a fraudster, Fox has set out to convince its viewers that Trump is a legitimate candidate, not a spoiler for Hillary – that he is a conservative when he is clearly not. His millions of supporters who have hitched their hopes for a better future, a return to American strength and values, to him will be sorely disappointed. Trump has no core values beyond his own ego and accumulated wealth.

Has Fox News changed its nature at the command of Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes? Are large amounts of money involved? Who knows?

Megyn Kelly sure got in trouble for challenging Trump and had to go grovel before him at Trump Tower. Now she is about to interview him; it will most likely be a carefully orchestrated love-fest. She has capitulated. Greta is clearly his good friend of long standing, so she will not address his candidacy honestly. Hannity has become, as one cartoonist drew it, Trump’s ventriloquist’s dummy. And Giuliani! What can one say about his support of Trump?

Meanwhile, O’Reilly speaks as though Trump is already the Republican nominee. Maybe he will be; maybe he will not. But he is not yet. These folks are betraying the country for the friendship of a rich celebrity.

So I am finished with Fox News. The channel has sold out to the lowest common denominator and actively sabotaged the one qualified candidate, the constitutional scholar, the Reaganesque guy. While I greatly respect Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, and a few others, the rest of them can wallow in their Trumpaphilia to their hearts’ content.

Obama’s Willing Executioners in the Media By Victor Sharpe and Robert Vincent

Some of the most disturbing aspects of the times in which we are living include the utter corruption of the mass print and broadcast media and the lack of awareness of this fact by a large portion of the public.

It seems that most Americans operate on the assumption that the media is making a good-faith, if imperfect, effort at objectively informing its audience. That so few are genuinely aware of the outrageous manipulation of public opinion now taking place is the single greatest threat to the republic, to the extent that we can even say that our republic still exists. A glaring example of this would be the treatment of Nixon 42 years ago over Watergate compared with the treatment of Obama today over any one of several far worse scandals.

It was recently reported in the WSJ that Obama used the NSA to spy on Congress during the deliberations related to the Iran nuclear deal. It was reported on at one time, but this story has now disappeared completely from media coverage. Consider the implications.

In the former case, Nixon apparently directed or sat by and knowingly let his immediate subordinates direct a third-rate burglary of the campaign headquarters of an election opponent. In the latter case, Obama authorized one of the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering organizations in the world to spy on American legislators, en masse, in pursuit of the most important – and egregiously flawed – international agreement impacting American national security and world stability – namely, with the chief sponsor of international terrorism: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is a thousand times worse than Watergate! Where is the media? Where are today’s equivalents of Woodward and Bernstein? The media doesn’t focus on this outrage at all, so to the overwhelming majority of the public, it is as though this never even happened. And this is only one of several comparable scandals we could name.

Another case of the selective focus of our mass media took place in 2009. Barack Hussein Obama said publicly that the U.S. is “not a Christian nation” and that America is “one of the world’s foremost Muslim countries.”

These statements amount to utter lunacy in a country in which at least 70% self-identify as Christians, where Christian holidays are official national holidays, and where Muslims number, at most, three to four million out of a population of over 330 million. This provoked not even a whimper of incredulity by the mass media. Then, in 2012, during an unintentional “open mic” moment, we overheard Obama making assurances to Russian president Medvedev that once he was able to get past the election, he would have “more flexibility.”

Here we have a sitting U.S. president apparently ready to make some huge concession to America’s most important major power rival on the world stage, a concession so drastic that it apparently couldn’t even be revealed until after the election. And the media did not hound him over this.

Did the Associated Press Cooperate with the Nazis? By Rick Moran

A paper published Wednesday in the journal Studies in Contemporary History alleges that the Associated Press had a close relationship with the Nazi propaganda office in the 1930s. Historian Harriet Scharnberg writes that the AP was able to continue operating in Germany long after most other media outlets had been booted out.

USA Today:

The AP agreed to abide by the Nazi “editor’s law,” forbidding any publication “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home,” according to The Guardian, which first reported on the research Wednesday. The news agency also hired reporters who worked in the Nazi party’s propaganda division, including photographer Franz Roth, who was in the propaganda unit of the SS and whose photos were approved by Hitler himself.

Scharnberg also contends the AP allowed the use of its photographs in antisemitic propaganda, including the publications “The Sub-Human” and “The Jews in the USA.”

By working with the Nazis, the AP helped that totalitarian regime “portray a war of extermination as a conventional war,” the historian said in the interview with The Guardian. For example, Roth’s photos following the 1941 Nazi invasion of Lviv in western Ukraine focused on the atrocities carried out by Soviet troops before the arrival of the Nazis, and ignored the violence of the German forces against the Jewish residents.

“The pictures played their part in disguising the true character of the war led by the Germans,” Scharnberg said. “Which events were made visible and which remained invisible in AP’s supply of pictures followed German interests and the German narrative of the war.”

The Associated Press said in a statement that Scharnberg’s research “describes both individuals and their activities before and during the war that were unknown to AP.” The news agency says it is conducting a review “to further our understanding of the period.”