Support NeoGAF

[Futureman]

I'm researching for a paper I'm doing on U.S. control/influence on the media and I'm looking for some ideas.

As far as institutions/committees/groups that have had an effect on what the media reports, I've come up with these so far:

-Creel Commission which was set up during World War 1 to influence the public perception on whether or not to go to war. I'm going to tie this in then with stuff on the McCarthy trials where fears of communists in our country were drummed up

-FCC having an influence on how media corporations must operate thus having an effect on what news reaches us (thinking of putting in some stuff on net neutrality, would the FCC have an effect on these decisions?)

-US military and what they release to the media during a war which then influences on perceptions on said war

-9/11 Commission and how it was set up and the funds that were appropriated for it

-Some other random stuff such as FEMA staging press conferences and how the White House Press Secretary operates and what they release to the public

Any ideas on some specific stuff I should include?

 

[Instigator]

But America is the land of the Free.

 

[Mr. Banana Grabber]

Have you considered economic bullying? It's not any organization but since the government is one of GE's largest customers, NBC doesn't run many anti-war stories or at least the ones in which their weapons were used.

Edit: Is this only current stuff because there's some excellent stuff out their about Nixon's use of the FCC?

 

[Futureman]

Have you considered economic bullying? It's not any organization but since the government is one of GE's largest customers, NBC doesn't run many anti-war stories or at least the ones in which their weapons were used.

Edit: Is this only current stuff because there's some excellent stuff out their about Nixon's use of the FCC?

Dude anything in US history is really game. Any links or books I should check out on either of those two?

 

[Enron]

......is a myth.

The US gov't WISHES it could "control" the media.

 

[Futureman]

......is a myth.

The US gov't WISHES it could "control" the media.

Yea I think control is probably too strong a word. Influence is probably better.

Oh and Banana, have you read "Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes"?

 

[Mr. Banana Grabber]

^^^^^

Haven't heard of it. My paper's due tomorrow so I'm just finishing it tonight but I might want to check it out if it's an interesting book. I found the information for my project so fascinating.

Dude anything in US history is really game. Any links or books I should check out on either of those two?

You're in luck, I'm just finishing up a juicy paper on Nixon and how the media affected his presidency and my books are sitting right in front of me.
Prologue to a Farce by Mark Lloyd from 2006

The whole book should help you here. Edit: On a second look you need to walk, sprint or fly down to your library and get this. You could write your entire paper from this book.

Richard Nixon, Watergate, and the Press by Louis Liebovich from 2003

Not as good as the first one but it still has a good bit of info.

That's about it, the rest of my books are all about the effects of the press on Kennedy and Nixon and not the other way around. Good luck writing the paper.

 

[Futureman]

Nice, my library has both those books, neither checked out.

 

[Mr. Banana Grabber]

Yeah that Lloyd book should take care of you. That book you showed me looks pretty interesting. I don't know what happened to me, wanting to read Nixon books? I'm growing old so fast.

 

[Lelielle]

How to brainwash people through media:

http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/23-tools-to-brainwash-and-influence-people-throu/


By sticking to these simple premises you should be able to produce entire societies capable of ending world hunger, but too selfish to care.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

Government will purposely try to switch the medias attention to other matters, like what Clinton was accused of doing when he authorized a bombing in the middle east during his bj scandal

Spoiler

the accusation wasn't fair, but the movie "Wag the Dog" had just come out and people noted similarities

 

[APF]

How is the FEMA fake press conference an example of government influence over the media and not the exact opposite?

 

[Zyzyxxz]

But America is the land of the Free.

LIES! You are part of the government and your GIF is making us believe what you say!

 

[Eric P]

How is the FEMA fake press conference an example of government influence over the media and not the exact opposite?

can't it be both?

 

[Futureman]

How is the FEMA fake press conference an example of government influence over the media and not the exact opposite?

If no one ever found out that FEMA faked that conference, in effect the government just "made" the news that day. Different media outlets would pick up on what FEMA said that day and most likely make some kind of report on it. FEMA really could have asked any question to itself that day and thus carefully controlled what information was released.

To be honest though, I don't think that situation was very significant and I probably won't include anything on it in my paper.

 

[worldrunover]

How is the FEMA fake press conference an example of government influence over the media and not the exact opposite?

I think it falls more under "control" than "influence". Either way they were trying to deceive the public.

 

[DEO3]

Look no further than the War Made Easy series, it has an incredible collection of news clips dating back more than 50 years documenting the relationship between the government and the media.

 

[maximum360]

I'm researching for a paper I'm doing on U.S. control/influence on the media and I'm looking for some ideas.

As far as institutions/committees/groups that have had an effect on what the media reports, I've come up with these so far:

-Creel Commission which was set up during World War 1 to influence the public perception on whether or not to go to war. I'm going to tie this in then with stuff on the McCarthy trials where fears of communists in our country were drummed up

-FCC having an influence on how media corporations must operate thus having an effect on what news reaches us (thinking of putting in some stuff on net neutrality, would the FCC have an effect on these decisions?)

-US military and what they release to the media during a war which then influences on perceptions on said war

-9/11 Commission and how it was set up and the funds that were appropriated for it

-Some other random stuff such as FEMA staging press conferences and how the White House Press Secretary operates and what they release to the public

Any ideas on some specific stuff I should include?

Also add Fox News and you're good to go.

 

[worldrunover]

Also add Fox News and you're good to go.

In all seriousness, that crazy woman/Rudy story asking to be not aired on Fox, you could use that as part of your argument.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

......is a myth.

The US gov't WISHES it could "control" the media.

they dont control it, but they try their best to influence what they report

and succeeds sometimes

 

[Zyzyxxz]

according to Fox News the media may be a possible threat of terrorism.

 

[worldrunover]

according to Fox News the media may be a possible threat of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

According to that definition Fox News is a threat of terrorism.

 

[AntoneM]

I do believe that journalists are only part of the white house press corp at the whim of the administration. Generally, the white house has just accepted whoever the major media outlets send and I believe that is still true, but, if the President doesn't like you, you might find yourself looking in from the outside.

 

[APF]

If no one ever found out that FEMA faked that conference, in effect the government just "made" the news that day.

The media covered the press conference. In order to do so it needed, at the very least, to provide attribution; further, in their own interests, media organizations investigated who was and was not invited to this "press conference." In doing their job, they uncovered the whole thing was a fake. The government neither successfully controlled the message, nor did they positively-influence the media; in fact, the media controlled the message, and the media negatively-influenced the government, getting people fired and further-discrediting an entire government organization.

Different media outlets would pick up on what FEMA said that day and most likely make some kind of report on it. FEMA really could have asked any question to itself that day and thus carefully controlled what information was released.

Let me ask you how, in practical terms, this is different than any other situation, if all you care about is what information gets released?

On another note, I'm curious why there has been no mention, so far, of how political campaigns, orgs, operatives, etc selectively-leak information to media figures and outlets in order to shape stories and the news in general. This is perhaps the biggest story re: government and the news in the past 30-odd years, and has been getting increasingly worse.

 

[Phoenix]

Having worked for the media in the past I'll try and lend you a hand:

The US government doesn't control or really even influence the media, what they do control is the information flow. The media can only report on things that it knows about. So lets say you heard that a prominent politician had a plan to eat babies, certainly the politician isn't talking and at best you have a generic source who may not want to come public. Now what? That information has been controlled and any news organization with a reputation to uphold won't take a chance on reporting it and dealing with the backlash for defamation of character. Many news agencies have ignored this investigative process in the past only to find out later that their highly credible sources simply made up the story.

Your argument would be MUCH more compelling if you went into how the press is strongly influenced by public opinion because they exist as a creature suckling on the tit of advertisers. Piss off enough advertisers and you could very well find yourself screwed. In terms of the FCC - the FCC has little to no ability to dictate what a new organization broadcasts (closer to the none side).

You can also strengthen your argument by pointing out that investigative journalism has been in decline for years with most news organizations simply commenting about stories that show up on a Reuters or UPI feed.

The only time the government "controls" the media is when the press discovers a juicy tidbit and goes to the government and says "hey this news is coming out - you're about to be fucked... just wanted to let you know" and the government official says "please sit on that information for 4 days so we have a chance to deal with it before the public finds out". This type of thing is not common, but it does happen quite a bit.

Other than that, the government is suggestive "at best".

 

[Phoenix]

I do believe that journalists are only part of the white house press corp at the whim of the administration. Generally, the white house has just accepted whoever the major media outlets send and I believe that is still true, but, if the President doesn't like you, you might find yourself looking in from the outside.

Not really, but you may find that you never make it to the front row or get called on to ask a question.

 

[Flynn]

In 2001 Larry Flynt sued to get HUSTLER reporters on the battlefield in Afghanistan -- the point he was trying to make was that major news organizations weren't pushing very hard for the coverage and were making do with what the military was doling out. Some credit him with helping force the new "embedding" of journalists.