New York Times Confesses that Mainstream Media is Scripted by the State

September 20th, 2012

We all know the mainstream media is controlled by the state right? Maybe not directly through law, but at least through a complex network of licenses and FCC regulations, and obedient privileges. The fact is, for whatever reason, major news outlets are constantly licking the boots of the State, and marginalizing every oppositional viewpoint. Nowhere was this more clear to the activist community than Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential run, and to a lesser degree his 2012 run as well. Now it seems the New York Times has not only confessed to this troubling fact, but also shown just how controlled the message is, and how complicit the media is.

According to the Times, quotes from presidential candidates are submitted to the campaign headquarters for approval before they are printed, and they often come back “redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.” Campaign officials only submit to interviewers who agree to this ahead of time, so essentially the campaign has veto power on every statement attributed to their candidate. Journalists agree, because how do you cover a campaign if you can’t quote the candidate? And of course if they break this agreement they’ll likely never get another interview their whole career.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that whenever anything juicy comes out of the mainstream media it’s almost always the result of citizen journalism. It’s always something from Wikileaks, or a clandestine recording by a citizen, or a Tweet, or a YouTube video or at the very least a gaffe made in a public speech. The archetype of the no-nonsense journalist holding a politician’s feet to the fire simply no longer exists, and the only real news coming from the mainstream media is hijacked from the independent media. But the Times addresses this as well, “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”

So, now, or at leave very soon, news outlets will have to submit everything to Campaign officials for approval or face the black list. The Times article focused entirely on the experience of reporters on the campaign trail, but I would suggest that the white-washing of mainstream media goes much further than that, and why wouldn’t it?

Here’s what I imagine happens:

Candidates are insecure, but they are also insufferable narcissistic. So of course they surround themselves with Yes-Men in civilian life. When they run for office and begin assembling a campaign staff they hire all their favorite Yes-Men, who understand implicitly that their role is to protect the candidates ego. This masquerades as campaign optics, or strategy or whatever, but of course the campaign itself is first and foremost to gratify the candidates ego, so it’s all the same really. During the race these campaign officials run defense with reporters, and the New York Times describes, but once elected it’s time for the politician to assemble his administrative staff, which they do the same way they assembled campaign staff. So, by now it’s the most successful Yes-Men, who run the most successful ego defense, who make it into the administrative staff. Now they take all those nasty tactics for white-washing media they learned on the campaign trail and they apply it to their bureaucratic role in government. They serve in a few different administrations. They get promoted, or transferred from one agency to another. Before you know appointed positions in government are all filled with Yes-Men with this this anti-transparency mentality and press rooms everywhere are filled with reporters who are trained to cater to these sociocrats. Ergo, ipso facto columbo oreo…. no more honest media.

And don’t forget to visit our official website to learn more about the Silver Circle Movie:

About the Author: Davi Barker

In grade school Davi refused to recite the pledge of allegiance because he didn't understand what it meant. He was ordered to do as he was told. In college he spent hours scouring through the congressional record trying to understand this strange machine. That's where he discovered Dr. Ron Paul. In 2007 he joined the End The Fed movement and found a political home with the libertarians. The Declaration of Independence claims that the government derives its power “from the consent of the governed." He does not consent.