Why U.S. Reporters Are Always Pro-War

[Judi Lynn]

Why U.S. Reporters Are Always Pro-War

Posted on February 8, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog


5 Reasons that Both Mainstream Media – and Gatekeeper “Alternative” Websites – Are Pro-War

There are five reasons that the mainstream media and the largest alternative media websites are always pro-war.

1. Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.

A survey by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review in 2000 found:

Self-censorship is commonplace in the news media today …. About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices.

Similarly, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”

Several months after 9/11, Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions…. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship.

More:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/u-s-reporters-always-pro-war.html

[calimary]

1. Indeed. And I am chagrinned to see Lester Holt step into the anchor chair that

Brian Williams just vacated - for how-ever long that's gonna be.

Lester Holt was frickin' EMBARRASSING with his rah-rah-rah for the troops and the invasion of Iraq and every bush/cheney move there was. He was utterly ridiculous. Hate to see him further elevated. The only thing he lacked was cheerleader pompoms on the air every night. Shoulda worn a bib on camera - he was slobbering over the war so disgustingly.

[newthinking]

2. Mainstream media is completely controlled. Project Censored has a good

definition of modern censorship.

Soft control is probably even more effective than direct censorship, because it is more hidden and harder for the public to comprehend.

http://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/

We define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional non-inclusion of a news story – or piece of a news story – based on anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation can take the form of political pressure (from government officials and powerful individuals), economic pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the threat of lawsuits from deep-pocket individuals, corporations, and institutions).

[al_liberal]

3. Why can't we call a spade a spade after all these years?

The reason the media promotes war is the same as it has always been. Profit!

From Wikipedia:

"The eruption of the Cuban revolt, Weyler's measures, and the popular fury these events whipped up proved to be a boon to the newspaper industry in New York City, where Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal recognized the potential for great headlines and stories that would sell copies."

War sells and the media is in business to make money.

We're never going to learn to ignore the sensational headlines it seems.

[yurbud]

4. Which alternative media are pro-war?

[Judi Lynn]

5. Stormfront, etc.?