The News Problem

Since long before the founding of the United States, the printing press was the primary means by which literate people decided their vote for a politicians and public policy referendums.

People have come to depend on the news media so much for their daily lives that owning a major newspaper meant you had more power than the government because you could make or break politicians.

The newspaper’s original free market model was entirely based on the quality of the product. There were no advertisers and the newspaper was allowed to survive based on its pure appeal to subscribers. Much like the original newspaper model, cable television once upon a time also had no advertising and was entirely subscriber based. Today, Internet service is supported by subscription to the telecommunication companies.

In the free market phase, the media is a product that relies purely on its own quality to sustain itself. A news organization should survive well in a society where affluence and literacy abound.

An appealing product of information should be easily produced in a society which is taught in a regimented and homogenous manner. An audience educated with proper critical thinking skills should require only facts with which to make decisions.

News was produced that only affected the daily lives and futures of its subscribers.

The current trend toward gentrification of literacy, by raising tuition at private schools and state colleges, the closing of public libraries by cash-strapped cities like Springfield, the shielding of teachers and administrators from Freedom of Information Act requests, is changing the course of society’s future.

Once news organizations began to depend on advertising for survival, they began to shift their appeal toward those who would advertise rather than those who would read or watch. The continued positive messages about the stock market and economy leading up to the banking collapse in 2008, and the continued positive messages about economic recovery during the current recession is one example.

The once-respected news organizations by virtue of only their continued circulation, present ideas that are of no real value to anyone, but which are perceived as being valuable merely by their presence on the printed page or television. The use of the word “popular” became more frequently necessary, as does the subtle presentation that someone or some thing is popular.

The perception of integrity and journalism has shifted from presentation of facts, to speculation and hyperbole. Reporters who adapted were kept employed while those who did not were eliminated or rejected. Media personalities who could garner the highest ratings through pure emotional appeal are paid the highest.

The owners of media decided who gets employed. The potential for an editor to gain employment may depend on how close his or her ideological agenda matches that of the owner. One might claim that an editorial board makes decisions, but how is the board selected?

Suddenly, the Internet became declassified and accessible to the public. The media “gatekeepers” no longer control the flow of information. There is no one to edit or censor communication, and everyone can research for themselves, the stories they are told.

But nobody has time. Everyone is too busy to recognize their livelihoods being gradually eroded away through subtle distortions in their values.

GOP News Control Plan C - A and B didn't work out so well.

GOP Event at Hoogland Center on Monday evidently Hush-Hush

On the evening of Monday, December 14, 2009 my mother wanted to go to a GOP event because she had a really good question for them. I wanted to go so I could take notes and compare what I heard with how the news media reported it later.

A while ago, perhaps weeks, my mother wrote the event down on her calendar. How or where she found that information was forgotten. Monday evening she wanted to confirm it so she looked it up in that day’s Illinois State Journal-Register. It was not in the “Happening Today” section.

I looked up the schedule for Hoogland Center for the Arts and they had “Geppeto and Son” on the 13th of December, followed by “Every Christmas Story Ever Told” on the 19th of December. Nothing on December 14th.

Mom was frustrated because it was on her calendar, but neither of us could find any supporting evidence that the event was still going on. The Illinois Times dated December 10-16 didn’t mention anything for the event either.

Tuesday morning’s Illinois State Journal-Register has an article titled “GOP candidates against Thomson housing detainees” [ http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1479446421/Five-GOP-gubernatorial-candidates-against-Thomson-housing-Gitmo-prisoners ]

According to the article, the event was hosted by the Springfield Citizens Club. I went to their website [ http://www.citizensclubofspringfield.org/ ] to see if they had any information about the event, and the latest event they had on their website was a public policy breakfast they had on November 20.

“Friday, November 20: Public Policy Breakfast, Tom Cavanagh, County Treasurer and Jim Langfelder, City Treasurer, Hoogland Center for the Arts, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.”

So, we have an event discussing public policy by candidates running for public office, but the venue holding the event does not have it in their schedule, the hosting organization of the event does not have it in their schedule, two of the largest local news publications don’t have it in their schedule. What are we supposed to assume from that?

We can assume that any news reported the following day about the event was completely fabricated because the event itself was entirely controlled and held secret by collaborating organizations.

IS this GOP news control plan C? Plan A was planting a blogger with press credentials in the White House press pool who would ask softball questions. Plan B was paying Armstrong Williams to write GOP leaning news articles during the Bush Years. Plan C appears to be staging top secret press conferences for the purpose of fabricating news. As bad as A and B turned out, C is really the only way to control the situation from start to finish.

The Internet Killed The Television Star

Why are television news reporters being so nice to Senator John McCain? MediaMatters.org noted recently that McCain has been getting the red carpet treatment and softball questions on the broadcast networks, as well as cable news networks. It's shocking to see the media fawn and flatter a political candidate.

Following the November 2008 election, there may be no more broadcast television as we know it. The results of the election will throw mud in the face of the mainstream commentators.



The news media needs McCain so it can create content and justify its own existence. It's fast becoming totally irrelevant. Most viewers have enourmous quantities of information from the Internet with which to hold up against what these people are saying, yet the television personalities continue to operate under the assumption that most of their audience is stupid, has yet to adopt Internet technology, or never will.

Substantive Speaking

Or How substance will catch up to your speech and bite it really, really hard.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld both used the same speech tactic for similar situations. In Rumsfeld’s situation it was the expose of photos at AbuGraihb prison. With Gonzales it was the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys allegedly to make way for more politically loyal servants.

Essentially they both said that they were upset about the situation and were going to get to the bottom of it and find out what happened.

Some people would be glad to hear that Secretary Rumsfeld was upset about the treatment of prisoners, and that Attorney General Gonzales was upset about the U.S. Attorneys getting fired. But evidence and other statements preceding and following the event in question reflect more substance about what they said that they would appreciate.

That Rumsfeld and Gonzales were only upset about getting caught. They would have gotten away with it too, had it not been for the Internet. They forgot to include the New Media in their calculations. They were counting on the very short life span of their exposed foibles in an old machine of mass media.

Newspapers only have space to report on the basic overall position, and television has very little time to risk repeating speeches before the viewer changes the channel.

Newspapers get buried by the following day’s newspapers, and television video segments get taped over or forgotten by viewers, but he Internet collects and holds information for years, and we can go back and search for everything we need.

They, and others like them, are catching on. They are beginning to figure out how dangerous the Internet is for them, and they are quietly working behind the scenes to rein in public access to the Internet by making it more expensive and more difficult for the public to gain access.

The PBS Series Frontline recently created a miniseries called “The News Wars” nearly a decade after they created a miniseries called “Why America Hates the Press” Frontline producers analyze the state of the American news media and provide insight into changes that can impact the behavior of not only politicians, but corporate owners of mass media outlets, and the owners of the pipelines and cables that carry the Internet.

The danger to the Internet is only exasperated by old mass media shows that talk about it, like Frontline, and cable news networks that regularly produce news segments about the Internet.

Corporations are attempting to gain control of what goes on the Internet, and we must all work together to keep it free of such control and accessible to all. http://www.savetheinternet.com