{"id":351252,"date":"2018-03-08T04:51:49","date_gmt":"2018-03-08T03:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=351252"},"modified":"2018-03-08T04:51:49","modified_gmt":"2018-03-08T03:51:49","slug":"readers-shouldnt-trust-staff-reporters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/readers-shouldnt-trust-staff-reporters\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Readers Shouldn’t Trust Staff Reporters"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at unz.com<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Journalism \u2014 especially about important matters \u2014 is not a profession. It\u2019s a calling.\u00a0 <\/span>Or else, if it\u2019s not a calling, then it is public relations; it is propaganda, \u201cPR\u201d \u2014 done for the purpose of receiving pay, not really for the purpose of conveying truth. But propaganda isn\u2019t journalism at all. It\u2019s not merely fake \u2018news\u2019; it is fake \u2018journalism<\/i>\u2019. Corporate-owned \u2018news\u2019 is that, but so too is government-owned \u2018news\u2019. That\u2019s the problem: journalism, as it exists, isn\u2019t what people think it is, and expect it to be. What is called \u201cjournalism\u201d is actually now just a branch of the PR profession, and doesn\u2019t deserve to be trusted more than that.<\/span><\/p>\n

In order to be a staff journalist, one must adhere to the propaganda-aims of the individual(s) (the employer) who control(s) the given \u2018news\u2019 medium. No newsmedia-owner hires \u2018reporters\u2019 or editors who report (or allow to be published) facts which contradict that owner\u2019s (or controller\u2019s \u2014 because this applies to \u2018non-profits’ as well) central viewpoint. The employees are purely megaphones for their boss\u2019s views. That\u2019s what they were hired to be, and that\u2019s what they are if they succeed in their profession and rise up the career-ladder in it. Anything that a staff journalist writes (or allows to be published, if that person is an editor) contradicting the owner\u2019s views<\/i>, counts against that employee, and increases his\/her likelihood of being eliminated, or at least of being denied a deserved promotion (because not doing the person\u2019s job for the employer<\/i>).<\/span><\/p>\n

To be a staff \u2018journalist\u2019 is to be a \u2018reporter\u2019 for hire, who is willing to exclude reporting whatever facts the owner wants his\/her audience not<\/i> to know (which can be some very important things, such as that the President is clearly lying to say that solid evidence exists that \u201cSaddam\u2019s WMD\u201d still exist). Unfortunately, almost all media-owners have an agenda that overrides truth \u2014 they don\u2019t obtain the huge funding that\u2019s necessary to build audience-share if they aren\u2019t<\/i> backed by big money (billionaire investors, and mega-corporate advertisers) to begin with. Opposing the big money is a sure pathway to obscurity in the field of \u2018journalism\u2019; and \u2018journalism\u2019 prizes (especially on international-news or other major stories) are pig\u2019s lipstick, far more than indications of journalistic competence. The best journalists, and news-sites, are low-budget, basically volunteer operations (such as you now are reading, and wikileaks). The big corporations don\u2019t own them, and don\u2019t advertise in them \u2014 and so, don\u2019t control them.<\/span><\/p>\n

A good example of this is the virtually uniform failure of the U.S.\u2019news\u2019 media (including all the Pulitzer people) to have reported the undeniable and simple \u2014 and supremely important \u2014 fact that U.S. President George W. Bush was lying<\/i> to assert that he possessed solid evidence that \u2018Saddam\u2019s WMD\u2019 still existed, and solid evidence that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpiles \u2014 and for him to have asserted, for example, that\u00a0“a report came out of the Atomic \u2013 the IAEA that\u00a0they [Iraq] were six months away from developing a\u00a0[nuclear] weapon. I don\u2019t know what more evidence we\u00a0need\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to invade Iraq without allowing international weapons-inspectors to complete any new investigation into the matter. But that \u2018IAEA\u2019 \u2018report\u2019 was actually fictitious<\/i> \u2014 it didn\u2019t even exist.<\/span><\/p>\n

That 7 September 2002 lie by Bush was stenographically reported to the (unfortunately) trusting public, by the many propaganda-organizations (called \u2018news\u2019media) \u2014 none of which (except the small\u00a0Washington Times<\/i><\/span><\/a>) reported its blatant falsehood \u2014 none of them published to readers that, as the IAEA asserted, “There\u2019s never been a report like that<\/i><\/b> [which\u00a0Bush alleged] issued from this agency.\u201d<\/i><\/b> That \u2018IAEA report\u2019 Bush referenced, had simply been cooked-up by George W. Bush and endorsed by Tony Blair. Like one great journalist bannered,\u00a0\u201cEveryone Knew that Iraq Didn\u2019t Have WMDs\u201d<\/span><\/a>. Among those \u201cEveryone\u201d was\u00a0Tony Blair<\/span><\/a> himself, but his participation in Bush\u2019s hoax would already have been obvious by no later than 7 September 2002, when Prime Minister Blair was accompanying U.S. President Bush as Bush was fabricating on-the-spot that lie, and when Blair failed to \u2018correct\u2019 what the U.S. President had just asserted. Instead, Blair reaffirmed<\/i> it. They were two gangsters (just ask the Iraqis whether they were gangsters): Bush, and Bush\u2019s lapdog Blair, destroyed Iraq<\/span><\/a>. They are war-criminals, though unprosecuted (because the U.S. aristocracy and the ones that subordinate themselves to it, prohibit any<\/i> of themselves or their agents from being prosecuted).<\/span><\/p>\n

As Craig Murray blogged in Britain, the UK\u2019s aristocracy joined America\u2019s aristocracy in deep-sixing the truth on this crucial matter; and, furthermore,\u00a0Barack Obama continued the rabid lying for war<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0after George W. Bush had finished being America’s Liar-in-Chief. Obama was merely a more-articulate and cunning version of Bush, in blackface (which won him almost solid support from Blacks, and from \u2018liberals\u2019). So, Obama gave us Libya instead of Iraq; and Syria instead of Afghanistan; and Yemen as the Sauds\u2019 playground for their American-made weapons and supported by their U.S. trainers \u2014 and also civil war<\/span><\/a> and ethnic cleansing<\/span><\/a> in Ukraine instead of peace with Russia (whose longest European border is the one it shares with Ukraine). And, instead of an economic crash, Obama gave us (besides his pretty rhetoric of \u2018concern\u2019 about the elite\u2019s injustices that his actual actions did nothing to punish<\/i><\/span><\/a>) increased economic inequality, flatlined wages, and soaring poverty with lots of new burger-flipping jobs<\/span><\/a>. How much are such realities being reported (except by Bernie Sanders, whom the Clinton-Obama Democratic Party cheated out of the nomination, by manipulating the primaries and relying \u2014 and feeding \u2014 upon Democratic suckers, on Election Day)?<\/span><\/p>\n

Lies are not permitted to be called \u2018lies\u2019, unless they are made by the \u2018enemy\u2019 (such as Putin), even if the \u2018enemy\u2019 isn\u2019t really<\/i> the one who is lying.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, did the \u2018news\u2019 media report that what overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected President in February 2014 was no such thing as \u201cdemocracy demonstrations\u201d which had begun spontaneously in Ukraine after President Yanukovych on 20 November 2013 rejected the EU\u2019s trade offer (which offer would actually have cost Ukraine $160 billion<\/span><\/a> \u2014 a cost that was never reported in the U.S. press), but was instead a bloody barbaric coup<\/span><\/a> which Obama\u2019s team had started planning way back in 2011<\/span><\/a>? Did America\u2019s (and \u2019The West\u2019s\u2019) \u2019news\u2019 media report this U.S. coup in Ukraine \u2014 or even that it WAS a \u201ccoup\u201d (or even that it had been<\/i> one) and that it was (as the head of the \u2018private CIA\u2019 firm Stratfor called it when speaking only<\/i> to a non<\/i>-U.S. audience) \u201cthe most blatant coup in history\u201d<\/span><\/a>? None of them reported any of that. But now the hostilities against Russia \u2014 including the sanctions<\/span><\/a>, and the NATO buildup<\/span><\/a> \u2014 are based upon<\/i> those lies, those potentially WW-III-generating libels, against Russia.<\/span><\/p>\n

Did they report that the economic sanctions and NATO buildup against Russia that the Obama regime \u2018justified’ by \u2018Putin\u2019s conquest\u2019 of Crimea<\/span><\/a> was actually forced upon Russia, because it\u2019s next door to Ukraine \u2014 forced by Obama\u2019s land-grab of Ukraine via a U.S.-imposed coup in Ukraine<\/span><\/a> (as a hoped-for U.S. missile-base against Russia, a mere five minutes missile-flight to Moscow)? And did they report that this aggressive coup overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected President, whom 75% of Crimeans had voted for<\/span><\/a>?\u00a0And did they report that Crimea had been a state in Russia until 1954 when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine? Obama insisted that Nikita Khrushchev\u2019s imposed transfer of Crimea to Ukraine remain permanently \u2014 that Crimea remain as a state in Ukraine, no matter what the Crimean people wanted<\/i>. What would your own local state do if the federal government were taken over by a bloody coup from an enemy power, and threw out the President whom 75% of the people in your state had voted? Obama was opposed to the right of self-determination of peoples when it referred to Crimeans, but not when it referred to the Scotch, or to the Catalans. And he also opposed democracy in Syria<\/span><\/a>. Was any<\/i> of that<\/i> reported in the U.S. \u2019news\u2019 media? Or will Americans first learn about it in the history books \u2014 if even then<\/i>?<\/span><\/p>\n

Did the \u2018news\u2019 media report that the Obama-gang’s entire case against Russia is based upon lies<\/span><\/a> (even if some of the things that Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin has said have also been lies)? Did they report that Obama\u2019s charges that Russia is the world\u2019s #1 \u2018aggressor\u2019-nation<\/span><\/a> are rabid lies from<\/i> the world\u2019s actual<\/i> #1-aggressor-nation<\/span><\/a>?<\/span><\/p>\n

Volunteer journalists (such as \u201cbloggers\u201d) can report these things; well-paid \u2018journalists\u2019 cannot and do not. In true George Orwell 1984<\/i> fashion, reporting these things is called \u2018fake news\u2019, by the actual<\/i> fake-news masters \u2014 and unfortunately suckers believe them. Even on serious domestic<\/i>-policy news, the prestigious \u2018news\u2019 media pump the aristocracy\u2019s lies, and inculcate the desired (by the super-wealthy) misconceptions<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the question for many young reporters nowadays is: \u201cWill I be bad enough to keep a good job, or maybe even atrocious enough to advance in it?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As for the consumers<\/i> of journalism, there is no substitute for a reader\u2019s demanding that every news-report include mentioning each of its sources, and that those sources are 100% reliable ones on the matter alleged, and that the report link directly to the root-source and not to any mere paraphrase of what it allegedly says. In a democracy, the public don\u2019t trust the mere allegations from \u2018authority\u2019. Because, to trust \u2018authority\u2019 (note: this refers to fake<\/i> authorities, not<\/i> to methodologically careful scientific research) is to invite fascist rule, aggressive wars, and mass-exploitation. (Only a few investigative journalists with a long record of proven-accuracy, such as Seymour Hersh, are exceptions, whom a reader can reasonably<\/i> accept upon the basis of unnamed, private, sources. Such veteran, proven, journalists are rare.) <\/span><\/p>\n

Getting to the truth, and staying with it, requires constant vigilance and a constantly open mind to the possibility that there are falsehoods in one\u2019s own beliefs. If a person isn\u2019t skeptical of his own beliefs, then he becomes a waste-dump of falsehoods, instead of an accumulator of truths \u2014 a truly (i.e., truthfully<\/i>) educated person. Even today, Republicans approve of George W. Bush, and Democrats approve of Barack Obama.<\/span><\/a> Democracy is thus virtually impossible in America, because both sides are polluted by the same aristocracy. The aristocracy controls both Parties<\/span><\/a>. And the government. And the press.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the problem. Nobody has figured out a solution for it. And America\u2019s press won\u2019t allow even its existence<\/i> to be published. So, the public cannot understand why<\/i> they cannot understand.<\/span><\/p>\n

What can be done to solve this problem that the press hide from the public? Might there be a way for some members of the press to become part of the solution, and no longer part of the problem? Would that even be possible<\/i>? If not, then how can the public ever come to understand what the problem is?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at unz.com Journalism \u2014 especially about important matters \u2014 is not a profession. It\u2019s a calling.\u00a0 Or else, if it\u2019s not a calling, then it is public relations; it is propaganda, \u201cPR\u201d \u2014 done for the purpose of receiving pay, not really for the purpose of conveying truth. But propaganda isn\u2019t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":351255,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461,519],"tags":[115,30,96,535,38,541,839,526,524,754,523,76,40,1024],"class_list":{"0":"post-351252","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-editorials","8":"category-newswire","9":"tag-barack-obama","10":"tag-big-brother","11":"tag-cover-up","12":"tag-global-news","13":"tag-iraq","14":"tag-media","15":"tag-news-media","16":"tag-propaganda","17":"tag-russia","18":"tag-syria","19":"tag-ukraine","20":"tag-warfare","21":"tag-white-house","22":"tag-ww3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/351252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=351252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/351252\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/351255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=351252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=351252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=351252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}