The mainstream media corporations have specific agendas and need to be identified for what agendas they really support. The point of this thread is not only to research mainstream media corporations and present FACTS, but also to post videos from youtube or other sources pertaining to these corporations or research the owners of these corporations.

Also, post good alternative media sources which you have found, and help expose the lies which are presented to us on a daily basis.

Example: NBC, or MSNBC is owned by General Electric. President Eisenhower said this about the Military Industrial Complex: http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/eisenhower_farewell_address.asp

They have contracts of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS with the U.S. to develop weapons.

(These facts eventually leading us to see that MSNBC has a specific agenda when they support the wars we are currently fighting...EVEN if they say they are against it.)

Enjoy the thread, and please inform us about YOUR mainstream media in your countries. I am especially interested to hear about Al-Jazeera.

Written by Konrad on 06.05.2009 at 21:31


Enjoy the thread, and please inform us about YOUR mainstream media in your countries. I am especially interested to hear about Al-Jazeera.

I am going to talk about Aljazeera,it is in deed mainstream media source,I don't know anymore if this channel reflects the way the average arab thinks or if it's it that forms the average arab's views.
Is Aljazeera there to help accomplish a particular agenda?I gave it a lot of thought,and I studied the two accusations that were told about Aljazeera:

The first one is rediculous,they accused ALjazeera several times of being a hidden loyal tool of Israel and the US,espacially that Aljazeera was one of the first arab channels who put the name of "Israel" on the map of "occupied palestine" on the news,the channel defended then that it was the fact on the ground ect ect. Also after the capture of 9/11 "producer" Ramzi Bin Ashiba a day after the channel passed a documentary where he was interviewed.

The second is more logical,most of the Arab League countries accuse the channel of helping to fulfil the "iranian agenda" or the "shiite invason" ect,to me it sounds possible,Aljazeera gives a lot of attention to Iran,their nuclear program,the statements of their president,they even passed a series of documentaries called "Eye on Iran" that implicitely portrays Iran always like a great nation,great leadership.But what makes me give second thoughts about this matter is that Iran shut Aljazeera office in Tehran several times.

I don't think now Aljazeera helps to fulfil any arabic or middle eastern country's agenda simply because there is always tension between the channel and those countries,Aljazeera talks a lot about violations of human rights in arabic countries and they upset almost everyone(leaders),it even caused many problems between those countries and Qatar(the country from where Aljazeera is broadcasted),some countries cut their diplomatic relations with Qatar,some shut the channel's office in their countries.

During the war on Iraq,I remember very well how accusations of dishonesty were directed at Aljazeera both from the US and the Iraqi gouvernment,bothaccusing it of broadcasting the other camp's rumours and propaganda,and I think only the arabic people is mostly satisfied with what the channel presents,before Aljazeera,there was no free media in the entire arab world.

I would like to precise that the channel's founders are ex BBC Arabic journalists.

Yeah I wouldn't think the network would be at all controlled by The U.S. or Israel, because here in the U.S. I would say that our networks kind of try to make Al-Jazeera look bad. If you asked the average ignorant person here they would probably tell you it was "terrorist television" or something. I know that it's headquarters are in Doha, Qatar, and it is owned now by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani.

Like FOX news, I think they have an agenda but since it is owned by ONE person I would assume they try to gain ratings by showing violence, war, etc.

@Black Winter do they show a lot of celebrities or things like this? Stars...etc?

Thanks for the input dude!

That depends of which kind of celebrities you are asking about,yes they show celebrities from the field of litterature,like poets ect,they have a weekly program too that talks about all the new in cinema,but not a very important show,other than that,they show no music or movie stars.They are almost totally focusing on politics,they interview important politicians from everywhere.

This is about Al-Jazeera channel,but about the other channels from the network I don't know a lot,like Aljazeera Sports,International,or Documentary.One thing is sure,they got a lot of money,and they gain a lot too,with all the excusives in sports and politics.

They show the average arabs what they want to watch,they focus also on scenes of violence and emotions,but I evaluate that as a reaction from the channel towards the official arab channel's way of exposing news,the language they use,if you watch one of those official arab channels,you will hardly notice the difference between the news of today,yesterday,and last year,it's like a tape,the same wooden words,the same lies..people watch Al-Jazeera to get news about what is happening in their own countries because their local channels hide always the truth.

They may have an agenda,as a Tunisian,I noticed that Al-Jazeera always gives negative news about my country,they don't mention any of our achievements,in the other hand,they constantly give news on politic prisonners,social instability,,even if the news are mostly made up,in a way that the reputation of my country is of police state,blasphemous regime.Idon't understand why but this happens all the time.

My problem with mainstream media comes from the idea that there's too much of a draw to our primality. Granted, the agenda issues that corperations try to put down into everything is a mess since the whole deal comes down to trying to use our senses tyo legitimize giving people more money but the problem also is that society allows it to happen.

Since WWII we've had generation upon generation of people who conform to "social norms", accepting "something that everyone does" as a norm and no real sense of things picking up to the level of enforcing the self/self growth. It's why mainstream media works. For the last few generations we've been breeding cattle instead of people, enforcing group thought/mainstream thought and not allowing things to progress in a manner of personal growth. HEaring in an election year "This candidate is out of the mainstream" as a complaint is seriously a problem to me. Sinply because the "mainstream" isn't solving anything they're being complacent.

Now if there was a revamp to the entire system of how america works (Schools, social interaction, general messages sent) we may yactually be able to change the country around.
When your culture entirely is "For sale" you have no true culture. When your mentality is wealth of finance is true personal wealth you have no depth. When you're looking to just get money out of somne instead of to enhance the person you're a charlatain.

The main problem in this equation is that the way the american system works it about keeping the "System that's already there" preserved and building more onto it. This system not only creates a social structure based on needless judgement of others but also creates a system of "money matters most". Aspects of a person & who they are really get thrown away compared to their earning capasity.

MAss Media just upholds thins while blinding us to it by creating "norms for complacency". For example, One of the most popular shows out of this country is Friends. Aside from all the characters needing a beating for being total retards abotu everything there's a huge sense of stupidity, selfishness and just chillin' while minding the business of others is okay. Another show, Sex inthe City... Wow, it's basically a collection of women who aren't out of highschool yet. They are but they as beings stopped growing there entirely. DEsperate housewives is just married sex inthe city. None of it is real but people relate to it and find answers to things in lofe from these shows. As soon as it turns into "I relate to this character"it goes right into being "Well (Character here) did this and they turned out alright".

MAss media upholds this not only to ensure people are watching the commmercials but also so that people will just jump to their base wants and integrate them into the buying power of the people. What we dont' see in everything is the reality that there's nothing really there. IT's all just an agenda that's meant to keep us wanting more from a "provider" of some kind. It's part of what's killing humanity.

The view above works only under the assumption that there exists a so called 'entertainment industry' (Adorno and Horkheimer) that is all too often perceived and even anthropomorphically personified as some sort of Cartesian demon entity capable of controlling the masses by manufacturing media based on a conscious model designed beforehand. From both theoretical and practical perspectives, I do not believe this to be true. While it would most likely be equally fallacious to believe that the media solely answer the demand of the common man, this side of the issue cannot be ignored. Both sides feed each other in a complex manner, most likely similar to Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, which essentially reveals mass media to be a kind of machinery that nobody is really in control of but that runs by the conflicting needs of the population and the content-makers. And frankly, as someone who has actually worked in television for some time, I feel that this is very true. One very simple reason for this is that television programming is created by literally hundreds of thousands of people and nearly every single one of them has some opportunity to embed a judgment value into what they are producing. A writer can transgressively write a line of dialogue that their boss won't pick up on, for example, or a set designer can include some hidden symbol on a toaster in Joey's apartment. In reality, however, all of these little cogs in the big machine just do their job while fulfilling highly personal notions of what they believe will sell well, or be entertaining, or interesting, or all of these. In the end, mainstream media is a machine that runs itself and can be used to observe the shared communal sensibilities of a large number of people but in no way can be seen as real political tools.

I disagree. The Media projects views which they want to be projected. Here is a small example.

There are a lot of things in the news now that are anti-gun, and they show much gun violence in America. Despite the fact that if in weren't for guns we wouldn't have gained independence in America, they have other agendas when they show these videos. There is a city in Georgia in which every citizen was required to own one gun at home. (as long as they weren't a convicted felon). They had one of the lowest crime rates in the country. So NBC does 30 interviews from people within the village and 28 of those people supported gun rights and said they felt safe with guns in their house. 2 of those people were against gun rights. NBC only showed those 2 interviews.

The idea of polling is manipulative and used to sway the general people. Here is a quote from David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop or plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world govt. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4

Written by Konrad on 11.05.2009 at 19:35

I disagree. The Media projects views which they want to be projected. Here is a small example.

There are a lot of things in the news now that are anti-gun, and they show much gun violence in America. Despite the fact that if in weren't for guns we wouldn't have gained independence in America, they have other agendas when they show these videos. There is a city in Georgia in which every citizen was required to own one gun at home. (as long as they weren't a convicted felon). They had one of the lowest crime rates in the country. So NBC does 30 interviews from people within the village and 28 of those people supported gun rights and said they felt safe with guns in their house. 2 of those people were against gun rights. NBC only showed those 2 interviews.

The idea of polling is manipulative and used to sway the general people. Here is a quote from David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop or plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world govt. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4

But then again, the very fact that you are aware of this misinterpretation of polling on behalf of NBC proves that NBC could not actually sway you to believe in their message. This means that somebody has made some kind of 'mistake' in the process of making a program that is meant to be manipulative. Also, NBC does not exist in a vacuum. There are other channels and this multitude of sources defines the TV watching experience.

Written by jupitreas on 11.05.2009 at 04:46

The view above works only under the assumption that there exists a so called 'entertainment industry' (Adorno and Horkheimer) that is all too often perceived and even anthropomorphically personified as some sort of Cartesian demon entity capable of controlling the masses by manufacturing media based on a conscious model designed beforehand. From both theoretical and practical perspectives, I do not believe this to be true. While it would most likely be equally fallacious to believe that the media solely answer the demand of the common man, this side of the issue cannot be ignored. Both sides feed each other in a complex manner, most likely similar to Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, which essentially reveals mass media to be a kind of machinery that nobody is really in control of but that runs by the conflicting needs of the population and the content-makers. And frankly, as someone who has actually worked in television for some time, I feel that this is very true. One very simple reason for this is that television programming is created by literally hundreds of thousands of people and nearly every single one of them has some opportunity to embed a judgment value into what they are producing. A writer can transgressively write a line of dialogue that their boss won't pick up on, for example, or a set designer can include some hidden symbol on a toaster in Joey's apartment. In reality, however, all of these little cogs in the big machine just do their job while fulfilling highly personal notions of what they believe will sell well, or be entertaining, or interesting, or all of these. In the end, mainstream media is a machine that runs itself and can be used to observe the shared communal sensibilities of a large number of people but in no way can be seen as real political tools.

But where is the sensabilities? If we're all seeing things off a relational point that's "way too general" how do we see our way out of or through something that was basically on the 5th grade level to begin with? Not to say that television needs to show out a consistant show or moral and/or ethical truths but why should it promote a cetrain level of "kids do this" as something adults do. Aside from it being old and tired it's not a really decant formula. It insinuates a norm for people to a degree.

It's not like the media really brings to light anything anyone really wants. In essence it's an escape of the self with a whole bunch of sales loops inside of it. They think they want it is the thing. How many times have you heard somone say "Well if it wasn't on (Pick channel name) then it's probably not really any good". With that in mind you have the problem of running into people allowing media to decide if it actually is good. It's aninfluence. Not some kind of amazingly soul conqueringing monster but it does form an opinion of some kind for people to base things off of. Regardless of the sales agenda in this one (eventhough I do believe it still plays in) the entire thing seems to come down to being a sort of "well this illustrates what happens" to the minds of enough onlookers to be a problem. Since there are also generations of people "raised on television" it's also somethign to worry about on some level.

The calibur of various forms of "entertainment don't really have much to do with actually really being anything more than an expanded version of something that's out dated. Case in point, sitcoms... they haven't been anything by way of humor lines or joke lines that really are anything new. I like horror movies a lot as well, I haven't really seen anythingmemorable within that realm in a long time. The best they have currently is remakes of old films and playing off of the fx that the movie "the ring" came from. When it comes to entertainment a lot of it inspires thought and gives people ideas for things based off of new ideas. Instead of going through a more backwards route of media (Get as many people in as you can based on "What worked to attract viewers") there can atleast be a deal of making something that's a lot better about putting things into a perspective of "this is something that'll work people just need to give it time". It worked with Family Guy.

Mainstream media is a fact that only responds to the interests of the grand capital, therefore is totally biased and [enajenante] (i dont think there's a word for this in english).

@jupitreas: yes, there are tons of other channels... that will say the same thing.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 11.05.2009 at 21:56

long post

I don't think criticizing television for focusing on surface values and 'norms' is really warranted. If you don't mind, I'll argue with this excerpt straight outta my MA dissertation, regarding Siegfried Kracauer's Mass Ornament:

Quote:

Looking at those seemingly inconspicuous surface elements of society in order to understand something deep about it, Kracauer argued that the analysis of these seemingly trite and basic artistic manifestations of a period are capable of revealing more about it than critiques of the period of higher artistic value. The word distraction has been used to lament the audience's abandonment to glamor and drama. Kracauer doesn't see it in this way and writes:

This emphasis on the external has the advantage of being sincere. It is not externality that poses a threat to truth. Truth is threatened only by the naïve affirmation of cultural values that have become unreal and by the careless misuse of concepts such as personality, inwardness, tragedy, and so on--terms that in themselves certainly refer to lofty ideas but have lost much of their scope along with their supporting foundations, due to social change. Furthermore, many of these concepts have acquired a bad aftertaste today, because they unjustifiably deflect an inordinate amount of attention from the external damages of society onto the private individual?. In a profound sense, Berlin audiences act truthfully when they increasingly shun these art events? preferring instead the surface glamor of the stars, films, revues, and spectacular shows. Here, in pure externality, the audience encounters itself; its own reality is revealed in the fragmented sequence of splendid sense impressions. (Kracauer 1995)

This is all because social change is a traumatic experience. Traditionally understood hierarchies of artistic value become outdated in the presence of change and cannot be used to describe it. Although Kracauer argued like this about film, a similar argument applies to television. Kracauer identifies entertainment-based cinema not as a numbing and manipulative form of popular narrative but as a manifestation of underlying trends in society. An audience also chooses such entertainment due to it being more democratic in not expecting a certain form of elitism required to understand more conceptual cinema.

And I'm moving this to the Serious Discussions forum now, since it seems like it can become a nice civilized discussion.

Written by jupitreas on 11.05.2009 at 23:50

Written by Ph0eNiX on 11.05.2009 at 21:56

long post

I don't think criticizing television for focusing on surface values and 'norms' is really warranted. If you don't mind, I'll argue with this excerpt straight outta my MA dissertation, regarding Siegfried Kracauer's Mass Ornament:

Quote:

Looking at those seemingly inconspicuous surface elements of society in order to understand something deep about it, Kracauer argued that the analysis of these seemingly trite and basic artistic manifestations of a period are capable of revealing more about it than critiques of the period of higher artistic value. The word distraction has been used to lament the audience's abandonment to glamor and drama. Kracauer doesn't see it in this way and writes:

This emphasis on the external has the advantage of being sincere. It is not externality that poses a threat to truth. Truth is threatened only by the naïve affirmation of cultural values that have become unreal and by the careless misuse of concepts such as personality, inwardness, tragedy, and so on--terms that in themselves certainly refer to lofty ideas but have lost much of their scope along with their supporting foundations, due to social change. Furthermore, many of these concepts have acquired a bad aftertaste today, because they unjustifiably deflect an inordinate amount of attention from the external damages of society onto the private individual?. In a profound sense, Berlin audiences act truthfully when they increasingly shun these art events? preferring instead the surface glamor of the stars, films, revues, and spectacular shows. Here, in pure externality, the audience encounters itself; its own reality is revealed in the fragmented sequence of splendid sense impressions. (Kracauer 1995)

This is all because social change is a traumatic experience. Traditionally understood hierarchies of artistic value become outdated in the presence of change and cannot be used to describe it. Although Kracauer argued like this about film, a similar argument applies to television. Kracauer identifies entertainment-based cinema not as a numbing and manipulative form of popular narrative but as a manifestation of underlying trends in society. An audience also chooses such entertainment due to it being more democratic in not expecting a certain form of elitism required to understand more conceptual cinema.

And I'm moving this to the Serious Discussions forum now, since it seems like it can become a nice civilized discussion.

Amen move it on over (this isn't a subject that should be without civility)!!!

The thing that I gotta say is getting the underlaying aspect of what the society encorperates as it's personal interests is nice but if it doesn't lead to some form of growth in society it's like valuing eating pizza on Friday. Sure it's a trend but it doesn't really create anything except the expectation of pizza on Friday. THis doesn't show out more about underlying culture other than it can gravitate to a single idea like a herd. That's not living.

On the scope which you quoted yourself and Kracauer it's more to the idea that media in this timeframe illustrates a lack in social change. When has the format of television really changed (Aside from degree of violence, sex and what not that the conservatives people would be complaining about?) nothing has really come around to show out anything different in what's being presented. What it however does is help the populace go hunting for scandle , create a state of being withthings were people care about drama more than information and are more interested in seeing something go down with a celebrity than what's going on with the gov't.

The only reason why "inwardness & personality" have become lessened is due to the lack of social change in order to put them up as a priority. You see people acting in a group mind more than you see them doing things on an individual basis. Aside from the deal of people not wanting to think it's also a slow degredation of an individual. This isn't something I would call a trend but something I'd put up as an epidemic. I don't see how Berlin, by staying out of the art scene and embracing a mass media situation is being true to themself. In essence they're walking away from something that is from a person (potentially with some meaning) and gravitating towards something made to bring them in for their money. I don't think it's a matter of ideals being "too lofty" here but moreover it seems like there's more of a deal to do with people just not understanding what or how to find/see things for themselves.

The reason why social change is so "traumatic" is because the society and the social structure currently is stuck. That's not a matter of being "honest to the self" but more about escaping the self" or "putting off the self". The only way people can see change through general mentality is that "it's disruptive". That's the underlying trend. You see it a lot in social and general media mentalities. "The mainistream is good and what is outside the mainstream is feakish and scary". This isn't like animals being affraid of fire at night, this is preconcieved notions and nonrealilstic fear. You're never going to see a character on television ever really try to carry things out much differently than their mentality suggests (It's rare for anything even on soap operas with long running plot schemes and long running characters). There are ways of enacting change that don't necessarily need to be disruptive. aArt of that is ensuring that there is some way to allow people to be truly open minded and not making judgement calls on what they're used to. With the way media has "grown" it's based off of people gravitating to what they're used to; Hence the "Trauma of change". That's a societal failure. Media keeps some level of keepingit going. People themselves do it as well intheir societies but media has it as a staple.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 12.05.2009 at 01:16

long post

I have to say, I sympathize with your point of view; however, you should also realize that it is based on a pretty big value judgment wherein you decide what constitutes 'growth in society' and what does not. You are entitled to your opinion in this matter naturally; however, also keep in mind that such judgments can only be made in hindsight.

The format of television is actually changing significantly right now due to the advances in technology, increased presence of so called 'quality television' and larger multiplicity of sources in the form of more channels, more choice and the rising importance of the Internet as a medium. Actions such as channel surfing and downloading content from the internet (illegal but significant in terms of viewing habits), as well as the blurring lines between cinema and television result in a significantly more personalized viewing experience. Although it might be a bit random, it does nevertheless result in an individual viewing mechanic, and how does that take you away from the self?

Written by jupitreas on 12.05.2009 at 01:43

Written by Ph0eNiX on 12.05.2009 at 01:16

long post

I have to say, I sympathize with your point of view; however, you should also realize that it is based on a pretty big value judgment wherein you decide what constitutes 'growth in society' and what does not. You are entitled to your opinion in this matter naturally; however, also keep in mind that such judgments can only be made in hindsight.

The format of television is actually changing significantly right now due to the advances in technology, increased presence of so called 'quality television' and larger multiplicity of sources in the form of more channels, more choice and the rising importance of the Internet as a medium. Actions such as channel surfing and downloading content from the internet (illegal but significant in terms of viewing habits), as well as the blurring lines between cinema and television result in a significantly more personalized viewing experience. Although it might be a bit random, it does nevertheless result in an individual viewing mechanic, and how does that take you away from the self?

I do get your angle as well, just so you're warry.

Only thing the personalization does is basically creating easier avinue's of escapism. (And for the "Corperate agenda buffs" out there, it does make it easier to get commercials at you too so you can go crazy on that when you feel up to it.) The time people can spend figuring themselves out for themself (Ya know, "What do I want?, how does this affect me?, why am I doing this?" type stuff.) or actually taking in the world around them. Part of our complacency as beings can be put on people not going out to the world and actually becomming a part of it. That whole aspect of "real initeraction" bringing on real action so to speak.

I don't think my value judgement is all that big concidering that a form of entertainment really doesn't carry much value to it yet carries more value than it should (Yeah, that's a bit judgemental but whatever angle you come across with anything to do with the effect of the media there's always some deal to do with finding that. The joy of perception... ). Does it have implications in there, yes but I will wholy say that this is an opinion deal more than anything else. Same as your angle. Same as a lot of angles in the forums.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 12.05.2009 at 02:18

long post

For better or worse it seems we have reached an impasse in our discussion, since we both realize our different views regarding what constitutes a growth in society and simply disagree with each other. Nothing wrong with that, this is a discussion board after all and the aim should be enlightening discussion and not forcing conclusions on others.

So yes, I don't really see the effect that the media have on society as a particularly bad one, in fact I dont really see it as a good one either, merely as an observation of a change. Interactions are re-evaluated, the media offers infinite choice in escapism, which is not necessarily a negative thing in my eyes either... Escapism is also an intellectual process, albeit an abstract one and not one based on firsthand experience. Ultimately, I don't really see it as good or bad, but certainly interesting.

On a final note, my quotation of Kracauer was meant to emphasize that surface entertainment also has value, not that it has more value than so called 'high art'. It's just a different kind of value, but value nonetheless.

Anyway, I enjoyed this discussion, hopefully some more people can chip in right now, as to not let this topic become stale.

Written by jupitreas on 12.05.2009 at 02:32

Written by Ph0eNiX on 12.05.2009 at 02:18

long post

For better or worse it seems we have reached an impasse in our discussion, since we both realize our different views regarding what constitutes a growth in society and simply disagree with each other. Nothing wrong with that, this is a discussion board after all and the aim should be enlightening discussion and not forcing conclusions on others.

So yes, I don't really see the effect that the media have on society as a particularly bad one, in fact I dont really see it as a good one either, merely as an observation of a change. Interactions are re-evaluated, the media offers infinite choice in escapism, which is not necessarily a negative thing in my eyes either... Escapism is also an intellectual process, albeit an abstract one and not one based on firsthand experience. Ultimately, I don't really see it as good or bad, but certainly interesting.

On a final note, my quotation of Kracauer was meant to emphasize that surface entertainment also has value, not that it has more value than so called 'high art'. It's just a different kind of value, but value nonetheless.

Anyway, I enjoyed this discussion, hopefully some more people can chip in right now, as to not let this topic become stale.

Amen and agree'd.

I figured that was the case with the quoting, I still had to say something to it since it was taken into the convo.

Oh lord yeah, let somone else drop their 2 cents in please. I honestly figured somone woulda considered doing that up by now. This totally took enough time to be seen.

It's all good, I wasn't out to win anything/magickally change anyone's mind over the course of a forum discussion. I just wanted to shoot the proverbial *explative* with you on this topic. Good chat, yo!

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

The sociology major's made-up quote ? which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 ? flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.

They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.

A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets in an e-mail and the corrections began.

"I was really shocked at the results from the experiment," Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia.

"I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn't come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up," he said. "It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact."

So far, The Guardian is the only publication to make a public mea culpa, while others have eliminated or amended their online obituaries without any reference to the original version ? or in a few cases, still are citing Fitzgerald's florid prose weeks after he pointed out its true origin.

"One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack," Fitzgerald's fake Jarre quote read. "Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear."

Fitzgerald said one of his University College Dublin classes was exploring how quickly information was transmitted around the globe. His private concern was that, under pressure to produce news instantly, media outlets were increasingly relying on Internet sources ? none more ubiquitous than the publicly edited Wikipedia.

When he saw British 24-hour news channels reporting the death of the triple Oscar-winning composer, Fitzgerald sensed what he called "a golden opportunity" for an experiment on media use of Wikipedia.

He said it took him less than 15 minutes to fabricate and place a quote calculated to appeal to obituary writers without distorting Jarre's actual life experiences.

If anything, Fitzgerald said, he expected newspapers to avoid his quote because it had no link to a source ? and even might trigger alarms as "too good to be true." But many blogs and several newspapers used the quotes at the start or finish of their obituaries.

Wikipedia spokesman Jay Walsh said he appreciated the Dublin student's point, and said he agreed it was "distressing so see how quickly journalists would descend on that information without double-checking it."

"We always tell people: If you see that quote on Wikipedia, find it somewhere else too. He's identified a flaw," Walsh said in a telephone interview from Wikipedia's San Francisco base.

But Walsh said there were more responsible ways to measure journalists' use of Wikipedia than through well-timed sabotage of one of the site's 12 million listings. "Our network of volunteer editors do thankless work trying to provide the highest-quality information. They will be rightly perturbed and irritated about this," he said.

Fitzgerald stressed that Wikipedia's system requiring about 1,500 volunteer "administrators" and the wider public to spot bogus additions did its job, removing the quote three times within minutes or hours. It was journalists eager for a quick, pithy quote that was the problem.

He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal.

"The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source," said the readers' editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

Walsh said this was the first time to his knowledge that an academic researcher had placed false information on a Wikipedia listing specifically to test how the media would handle it.

article

That is really really funny. hahahahahaha

Today on the news, the reporter spoke about the fourth death in Australia caused by swine flu. Only later to be read as the third death caused by swine flu by the anchorman.

A little inconsistency? I think not!

Written by Throne Dweller on 26.06.2009 at 16:57

Today on the news, the reporter spoke about the fourth death in Australia caused by swine flu. Only later to be read as the third death caused by swine flu by the anchorman.

A little inconsistency? I think not!

In Belgium we used to have a tv-show that showed all those inconsistenties (alles kan beter) and parodied it.

Written by belisarius on 27.06.2009 at 15:06

Written by Throne Dweller on 26.06.2009 at 16:57

Today on the news, the reporter spoke about the fourth death in Australia caused by swine flu. Only later to be read as the third death caused by swine flu by the anchorman.

A little inconsistency? I think not!

In Belgium we used to have a tv-show that showed all those inconsistenties (alles kan beter) and parodied it.

I wish we had a show like that; then maybe I'd watch a little more TV.

Written by Throne Dweller on 29.06.2009 at 11:54

Written by belisarius on 27.06.2009 at 15:06

Written by Throne Dweller on 26.06.2009 at 16:57

Today on the news, the reporter spoke about the fourth death in Australia caused by swine flu. Only later to be read as the third death caused by swine flu by the anchorman.

A little inconsistency? I think not!

In Belgium we used to have a tv-show that showed all those inconsistenties (alles kan beter) and parodied it.

I wish we had a show like that; then maybe I'd watch a little more TV.

Here it's already 10 years ago or so

Mainstream media sucks. It is way too obsessed with celebrities and what is popular and shoves them down our throats indiscriminately. Also, it is pretty biased, which is something that at times collides with the flaw that I first talked about in this comment. I don't give a crap to hear about what happened on American Idol last night, nor do I give a crap to hear about the same story over and over and over, especially if it's trivial crap or unneeded crap, such as that one Miley Cyrus photoshoot controversy. That got too much coverage at the time, but it, among other things, shows how much of a bad influence she is on children; yet people, including the media, still glorify her for her stupid little show on the Disney Channel and for her vain music career as well. The Disney Channel, over time, has turned into a product of this mainstream media system. What, with their ever-popular shows and cast inside those shows. This mainstream media is just baneful crap.

Hillary Duff was fairly hot, though. :

Www.infowars.com is a pretty good alternative news website...they have an obvious agenda but they are open about it and their reporting is quite good. I don't even own cable tv anymore, and since normal tv switched to digital antennas, I can't get anything on there...and that's a good thing. If I have any question about anything happening internationally, I can always ask someone on metalstorm, or look for scholarly articles on Google Scholar.

Mainstream Media, Brainwashing you and your kids since 1920 !

It's not lesser than a nuclear weapon!

It is generally known that the mainstream media here is divided in Liberal Democrats(the current party which is in power, Basescu is a member of PDL) and Social Democrats(opposition "rural people's party", many ex-communists were/are in ruling positions)

to keep it short, the tv stations Antena 1 and more importantly the news channel Antena 3 supports the social-democrats and the conservative party.

Written by Valentin B on 14.02.2011 at 18:11

It is generally known that the mainstream media here is divided in Liberal Democrats(the current party which is in power, Basescu is a member of PDL) and Social Democrats(opposition "rural people's party", many ex-communists were/are in ruling positions)

to keep it short, the tv stations Antena 1 and more importantly the news channel Antena 3 supports the social-democrats and the conservative party.

Are those public channels or privately owned?

Over here there's been a number of high profile journalist getting fired from public tv recently. The HRT ( public tv network ) claims its to "reinvent the program", but its obvious that certain high ranked politicians feel threatened by them. Also the shows on public tv are getting more and more trivial to take the focus of the nation away from the shady operations by certain officials... In other words, to brainwash a entire nation.

This is a great thread, people have to start opening their eyes and take nothing they get from the mainstream media for certainties. but on the other hand, don't belive every conspiracy theory either. It's not like if one aint true the other one is... it's more than two alternatives. I will post suspicious News here from now on.

"Belive in nothing of what you hear and half of what you see"