November 2, 2021 • 47 mins
How often do you think news outlets bury, skip or distort an important story? The answers -- or, at least, the accusations -- might surprise you.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to this week's classic episode. Folks. What is media manipulation?
That's the title that we have for this back in
but it's it's a really good question, you know, like, um,
we made this as the world was collectively learning the
phrase fake news, I believe, uh. And there there's serious
(00:22):
questions like how often do news outlets bury a story right?
Who determines what gets reported? And how? Yeah, it is
a big question because there are so many allegations that
there's some kind of governmental entity or some larger private
industry entity that can somehow decide what all the different
outlets can and can't do, right? And is it that
(00:46):
wide ranging or is it more granular than that? Is
there actually some kind of control mechanism in there? We'll
find out in this classic episode from UFOs two Ghosts
and Government cover Ups. Is jury is riddled with unexplained events.
You can turn back now or learn the stuff they
don't want you to now. Pictory America as one large,
(01:16):
unblinking uh. According to a two thousand thirteen ball of pole,
about fifty five of this eye gets its news about
current events from television. The Internet is a distant second,
at about a smaller bit of the eye. Maybe nine
percent still reads print and newspapers, while that last six
(01:40):
percent the moat in the eye if you will listen
to the radio. But where is this eye looking and
who decides what it sees? Welcome back to the show.
My name is Matt and Ben and as always we
are here with our super produce us your know, the
(02:00):
spin Dr Brown. So most of the American audience, I
would say, much of the American audience holds a cynical
view of what they're told on the news or what
they read or see in the news. A lot of
them do. Yeah, yeah, And these audiences can be partisan
in their viewpoints, right, arguing that one outlet is real journalism,
(02:22):
one outlet is just complete hogwash. And you know, maybe
they have a hidden agenda, maybe they're connected to the
Illuminati or something short that's on that's on the far reaches,
but it's there, and it leads us to a big question. Right,
We've been thinking about this all week. Yeah, So who's correct?
And to what degree could it be possible that media
(02:43):
outlets have crossed this line from reporting the news to
creating it? And here's where it gets crazy. Yes, absolutely,
this is a very popular trick, and we should go
ahead and add here, Matt that you and I and
I assume NOL is well as on board with this.
We are not picking sides. We're not here to say
(03:05):
that one particular CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or
Al Jazeera is or RT why don't we throw that
in there too, is better, right or necessarily worse. We're
here to talk about a phenomenon, a systemic phenomenon, which
is uh, different groups, I guess, different institutions using the
(03:30):
media to report things that are agendas disguised as objective facts.
And it's a creepy thing, but it's a thing a
lot of people expect, and it's a very old trick
to write. Oh yeah, this is something that we've been
seeing for a long time, even before Edward Edward Burns.
But he was, you know, kind of the originator, let's say,
(03:54):
of some of the techniques that are even used today.
He he has this quote that is pretty great. He
said that quote, the United States has become a small
room in which a single whisper is magnified thousands of times. Yeah,
that's from his nineteen seven essay The Engineering of Consent,
(04:14):
which you can check out for free online. Alright, So, Matt,
people who have listened to our show for a while
know that you and I are fascinated with Edward Burnets,
and we even because we are really into this guy,
and which is strange because he is sort of a
Darth Vader of manipulation. But is he an Emperor Palpatine?
(04:37):
I'm not sure right in and let us know what
you think. But but we actually had gott some really
nice notes from Chuck from stuff you should know, because
they did a podcast on Burnets and they were checking
our stuff out. So this guy is maybe the most
popular supervillain anti hero mad scientists, maybe in in how
(04:57):
stuff works currently. Yeah, I can see him as this
anti hero because he is a hero to a lot
of people. He's created huge swaths of jobs all across
the world. He's better known as the father of public relations.
He pioneered numerous advertising tactics that kind of blur the
(05:19):
line between commercials, professional advice, and even journalism. Yes, and today,
as we said, the majority of news outlets have all
been accused at one point or another of twisting the
facts to support an agenda or to oppose one. But
this doesn't necessarily mean that any given TV channel is
going to lie or misrepresent the story. Um, it just
(05:43):
means that maybe they're not reporting on it, maybe they're
focusing instead on something else, something I don't know, a
little more on the surface, like let's say a celebrity's
latest faux paw, Yeah, as celebrity's latest stumble, Kanye West
latest outrace statement, or uh, let's see bibs in there
all the time? Sure, yeah, or Cyrus Clint Eastwood says
(06:06):
something someone gets in a fight, yeah, Mel Gibson's right, yeah,
and this this stuff. While I'm not saying that it's
not important, I think we can as a group agree
that large political movements, economic trends, international crimes, these things
(06:28):
are more important to the common person and have more
of an impact on their life, unless, of course, you
are one of the very small percent of people who
works directly with or for a celebrity, in which case
I'm sorry, I hope you're okay. I'm gonna just kind
of make a line in the sand here and say,
I don't think those celebrity stories are important whatsoever. You
(06:50):
don't think so, I don't think so. Even if it's
a person you could make the argument that their opinion
shapers sure there that when they when they're a ininion
is adverse to let's say, the progressive views, the current
progressive views. I can see that being harmful in some way.
(07:10):
But man, yeah, I think I just I'm sorry, I
have I just have to say it, or else I
would feel horrible after this podcast. I understand, and I
see you see what I'm saying, Like it would matter
more if it was if it directly affects someone. Yes,
But these larger issues I think have a more direct
(07:32):
effect on the average John and j Q public than
do the stories of you know, strangers I've always found.
And I know this is terrible. I don't know if
I've talked about this on the air before, but you
know this, Matt, No, you've heard me say it before too.
For a long time, I kind of resented celebrities. It's
it's the idea you're a stranger and it's my job
(07:54):
to know who you are and be caught up on
your stuff. Has something changed, No, I'm just it's it's
an ongoing process. Of course, celebrities are people too. I
don't want to be I don't want to be rude,
but it's it's also strange. You know, I find it
presumptuous that I should be expected to know what's going
on with you. You know, I I don't know what's
(08:16):
going on with some of my cousins. And we're related
right here. Actually, so this can happen. It does happen.
It happens often. If you're a fan of Last Week
Tonight the way that Matt and I are, then you
have probably seen the episode where where I think they
show the cutaway from a congresswoman talking about a fairly
(08:38):
important issue to actually no lie a report about Justin Bieber. Yeah,
this is breaking news. I'm gonna have to stop you
right there. We're going over here, right yeah, But we
have to be careful and to ask ourselves the question
is this intentional or is you know, is there some
nefarest scheme, or is this simply a sincere decision that
(09:03):
that's what people want to see? And that's what this
sort of bread and circus vibe is what feeds. If
we don't cut to the Beaver story, then people are
gonna cut away to you know, they're gonna turn their channel,
right and and some experts see this this kind of
manipulation or censorship as an act of self censorship, as
something that the the company, or the journalists themselves or
(09:27):
the blogger for instance, would decide to do to preserve
their career longevity. Right, There's a great book called The
Business Media, Corporate Media, and the Public Interest by these
authors named David Creteau and William Hoyn's and they and
I may be mispronouncing your names, guys, sorry, They argue that, uh, this,
(09:49):
this act of self censorship is an understandable rational move.
I agree. I don't know if that makes it right,
but I totally agree. And it brings me to something
it was interesting that I think you and I should
talk about. All Right, so we've got we've got a
couple of different ways that this can occur, a couple
of different entities that can affect the news that people
(10:11):
will watch. Not just in the States, of course, because
let's also remember that quite a few countries have state
owned media and that that can lead to all kinds
of sticky conflicts of interest. But one question you and
I get often is, hey, guys, have you ever been
(10:32):
shut down? Has there been something that you were told
you could not report on? No, Ben, we have not
been shut down on any of the subjects. Scientology was
one of those that we had to tiptoe around, but
we didn't get shut down. Yeah, you know, I guess
we should say thanks Church of Scientology for not suing us,
but we didn't. Oh man, that was that was a
(10:54):
weird one because we always try to be respectful of
people's personal beliefs, even if those are spiritual values, which
you know, we don't describe or whatever. And you and
I and Noel or none of us are scientologists at
least that we know of, So we're watching Noel when
you said that, just to see his reaction. So we
(11:14):
did a video on and a podcast on Operations Snow White,
and we just stuck to the facts, just just the
publicly available things that have come about through court documents
and Freedom of Information Act requests. And yeah, we we
didn't make a two and a half hour long documentary
about it. We're good. But check out Going Clear if
(11:34):
you're interested in that story. And you for some reason,
I haven't seen it yet. And Matt, you and I
found that we were pretty fortunate. The folks at how
stuff works in general, are are pure podcasts are pretty
fortunate as well, because we haven't had someone come down
like a hammer. But if someone is manipulating the media,
(11:55):
here are the three entities that are most likely to
be responsible. The first one is the money, the corporate sponsorship. Now,
this can be a problem for let's say, for profit
media like television, the internet, uh, the radio, pretty much,
(12:16):
any of them. Sure, any for profit reporting institution. Yeah.
It depends on advertising almost always, and it can it
can occasionally find itself in a conflict of interest where
you've got someone who is providing money for you to
make your show that has done something wrong or at
least you know, uh, it doesn't have to necessarily be wrong,
(12:38):
but it can be bad for pr right right, Yeah,
it could be a conflict of interest, for sure, and
that's understandable. This, this corporate interference could also be something
as simple as killing a story or you know, burying
it somewhere, or as misleading as having a jumped up
(12:58):
pseudo expert or a industry financed by a study become
a big focus for a news piece. You know what
I mean? This is where and let me do an
example that's not too scary. This would be something like
where they have just make up a name male or female, Richie, Richie.
(13:23):
What's Richie's last name? Jacobson? So, uh, doctor Richie Jacobson
from the American Dairy Growers Association, Institute for Innovation or
whatever whatever, some sort of official name. Anyway, Dr Jacobson
is interviewed on CNN or Fox or MSNBC, and I
(13:47):
keep naming them all because I want to be fair.
And the interview is about the health benefits of butter.
Are people eating enough butter? Studies show they are not?
What could the dangers be? Well, yeah, so that kind
of stuff can happen, and Bernese really did popularize that.
But then there's another related possibility that we see when
(14:09):
big companies start eating each other and creating leviathans. It's
that they could prevent access to competitor news the same
way that cable companies and uh, internet service providers and
things like Netflix are currently in Uh what would they say, beefing. Yeah,
(14:30):
they're beefing pretty harder. They were beefing a lot harder
like this previous year before that. But there's there's lots
of beef to go around in that sector. Who is
going to be watching the media and where which Apple
are you're going to use, right, and so we can
see that happening. If an I s P. Also owns
a news outfit, then logically, from a business perspective, you
(14:56):
can you can follow the breadcrumbs to to learn how
they would eventually decide. Wait, let's not have these other
people use our road to take our business, you know
what I mean. The second possibility is that you've got
some kind of government interference or state level manipulation. Oh man,
(15:16):
you know this is my favorite one, right, yeah. I
love stories where an unnamed official reported but they couldn't
make it, couldn't make a public statement. So an unnamed
and there's always a little hint like an unnamed State
Department official, an unnamed high level intelligence official and unnamed
White House person right or unnamed right? Yeah, yeah, And
(15:41):
when that happens, we would caution you to be hypersensitive
to it because what that means is that someone is
manufacturing a leak. It is sanctioned when people do that
in general, it is sanctioned. And it's there because your
opinion should is meant to be suede Yes, we're yeah
(16:04):
to to provide a counterpoint, perhaps to something that's being
talked about in the media, or even like a small
giving in just a small amount to a negative news
story that's that's circulating, right, Yeah, exactly, a little bit,
a little bit of spin. And this of course is
(16:24):
legal at this point, right, we know it's legal if
it's sanctioned by the actors. But then state level actors,
and when we say state actors, what we mean are
the governing regimes of any country. Right, So state level
actors can also prevent media outlets from publishing information that
(16:46):
they think would be damaging. You. Often hear this associated
with the phrase national security, almost always the great boogeyman. Yeah,
if you can get away with preventing a story coming
out in the news that national security phrases in there somewhere.
So this is something when we see, like the New
York Times has been accused of withholding information. But I
(17:10):
think there's a big gray area here too, because if
publishing some sort of information harms people when you publish it,
then ethically should you sit on it? I don't know,
and maybe it goes case by case. But another thing
I just want to say, I think it depends on
how you view what the media is, it's function in
(17:32):
a democracy. Should the media be a merciless reporting machine, right?
Should it exist not to help, not to hinder, but
only to propagate facts? Should it? I mean maybe in
a perfect world. I don't think we've ever seen it
function that way. No. Pro Publica, which we I believe
(17:54):
we've mentioned on the show before, is a nonprofit entity
that is, you know, in depth investigative journalism. Yeah, but
there there are a lot of stories that they will
have a tough time getting to just due to time demands,
as I think sometimes yeah, no kidding. Another thing one
(18:18):
thing that I don't think Pro Publica has done, but
that a lot of countries work with media outlets to
create our stories that are written largely by the government.
So for example, we'll pick on RT a little bit
here Russian Times. That's what the RT stood for before
(18:40):
it pulled a TLC, right, And what you will see
often here are going to be you'll see stuff like
an unnamed official from the Ministry of blah blah blah
has said that the latest act of the US is
total malarkey. And here's why. I don't think they would
(19:01):
use the word malarkey, but I'd love it if they did.
I don't know how to. I don't know if there's
a Russian word for malarkey. Rtie is a news source
that I find helpful because they will give you that
opposing viewpoint from a lot of the news you'll see
in the Western media. But yeah, yeah, like Ben said,
there there are things that if you're consciously watching and
(19:25):
and really paying attention, you'll see some of the the
hints at that stuff, right, Yeah, that the government is
is writing the think pieces or the drum sometimes, well,
I would say it's pretty often, and yeah, yeah, I
mean that's maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that's
the case. It seems like that it is used often
(19:47):
for propaganda purposes. And that leads us to another another
entity that can control these things, the third one. So
we did the money right, the corporate sponsorship, we did
the state level interference, and there's something here that's very individual,
very very John Galt, I guess the the ideology of
(20:10):
the owner. Yeah, it's no surprise. These are corporations. If
you're a large news entity, you're you're probably a corporation.
And corporations have boards. Corporations have owners, which is kind
of the board, but also c E. O s and
all these other people that make up everything right right,
high powered media barons, and case in point, Rupert Murdoch.
(20:35):
Whether you agree, whether you agree with what he thinks
or what he wants to see happen in the world,
or whether you disagree, it's it would be misleading. It
would be dishonest to say that he does not actively
use his possession, his position to influence political views and
(20:57):
actions of his audience. And it is totally legal. I
don't know if it's ethical, but until he willfully distorts
the news, then it is legal. But there's so many
different ways you can affect the news or influence it
without quiet crossing that line, you know what I mean.
(21:20):
So we have we have a quote for another example.
Here we have a quote from The New Yorker in
two thousand thirteen, uh piece called a Word from our
Sponsor by Jane Meyer. And this gives us a little
bit of insight into the Koch Brothers, specifically David Coke.
In the nineteen eighties, he began expanding his charitable contributions
(21:43):
to the media, donating twenty three million dollars to public
television over the years. In he began serving as a
trustee of Boston's public broadcasting operation w g b H,
and in two thousand and six, he joined the board
of New York's public television outlet w and ET. Recent
news reports have suggested that the Koch Brothers are considering
(22:04):
buying eight daily newspapers owned by the Tribune Company, one
of the country's largest media empires, raising concerns that it's publications,
which include the Chicago Tribune in the Los Angeles Times,
might slant news coverage to serve the interests of their
new owners, either through executive mandates or through self censorship.
(22:26):
Clarence Page, a Liberal Tribune columnist, recently said that the
Cokes appeared intent on using a media company as a
vehicle for their political voice. And this, this example just
shows us, I think, a quick walk through of what
could happen if if someone has an ideology and everybody
has some sort of ideology, right, some sort of belief system. Sure,
(22:49):
and and it should be noted that that is a
big what if. That is a speculation on what might
happen if this goes through. It is not speculation that
he did take those actions, absolutely, but the very last
part there, and to be fair, it sounds like Mr. Page,
as a Liberal Tribune columnist, has reason to be concerned,
(23:13):
right because he probably does not align with the Koch
brother vision. We have other examples. Let's do some examples
of times this has happened. So Jane Acre in journalist
named Jane Akre and her then husband and partner Steve Wilson,
were journalists for a little station called w t v
(23:34):
T in Tampa, Florida that's part of Fox Broadcasting Company,
and they were working on a story Matt about Monsanto
and r b g H or its formeral name recombinant
bovine growth hormone. This is an additive that people put
in milk. The f d A approved it, but this additive,
(23:57):
this r b g H, is also blamed for a
number of alleged health issues. Yeah. R b g H
is that thing that they inject into the cows to
make them produce more milk. And I remember when I
was reading about the story. It makes the they get puss,
the cows get puss in their utters, and then it
(24:19):
gets into the milk and it was just a really
it was a nasty thing. So definitely health issues for
the cattle. Yes, um and possible health issues for humans
consuming it, but that was kind of because it gets
pasteurized anyway, I see, I see, well, okay. So Steve
Wilson and Jane Acre, they had planned a investigative report
(24:42):
on this, a long form, four part report. Monsanto, however,
or representative of Monsanto, wrote to the president of Fox
News Channel an attempt to have the report quote reviewed
for bias and because of concerns of potentially enormous damage. Yeah,
if you knew that there was this thing that sounds
(25:03):
really gross, that does gross things to the cows, you know,
from the milk that you're eating, probably you know, you
might not buy milk that week. You might try something else.
I think silk was coming out around that time or
becoming really big. Is that the soy milk, the soy
milk and all of that. I don't know. It could
have been really bad for business, been well. Either way,
(25:25):
w t VT there in Tampa, Florida killed the report
and they said officially they killed it because this was
not breakthrough journalism. Snow we're looking for you, guys. Jeez. So,
Wilson and Acre then claimed w t v T was lying,
and the channel said that this decision occurred for the
sake of fairness, I have fair and balance, show both
(25:46):
sides of the issue. That's what Fox's motto. According to
Acre and Wilson, the two rewrote this report, and rewrote
this report, and rewrote it, and they went through about
eighty visions than w t v T fired them without
just cause or did not renew their contracts which would
(26:08):
have been up for renewal in the channel. W t
VT then later ran a report about mon Santo and
r v g H the year after, and this report
included defenses directly from Monsanto, So they had the other side.
So they show both sides, which is something you know,
(26:28):
oddly enough on our show, we we do right to do. Yeah,
I guess I can see it. So Acres and Wilson
took this to court, fired unjustly. Uh. Acre saw herself
as a whistleblower, saying this is what shut down. This
is not real journalism, this is unethical. Uh. They had
a long court battle, They went through appeals. They finally
(26:49):
lost the case in two thousand seven, their final challenge
with the FCC because the FCC called the conflict an
editorial dispute rather than a deliberate effort to distort the news.
So was this just a debate over how the story
should be presented to the public, or was this a
debate over covering up a story? You know what I mean?
(27:14):
And the FCC said it was just a debate about
essentially how how it's presented or the tone. Well, let's
go to one of my personal favorite ones, another example,
Edward Burnet's and the American support for the coupe data
in Guatemala in nineteen fifty four, United Fruit Company, great company.
You should really learn as much as you can about
(27:34):
the United Fruit Company. Yeah, United Fruit Company had a
problem with the democratically elected government of Guatemala, which was
that the government of Guatemala felt it was being unfairly
treated by a foreign owned company that was intensely corrupt
and violent towards the people of Guatemala and large and powerful,
(27:57):
right and large and more powerful than the government of Guatemala.
So United Fruit hired Edward Burns to portray the company
as a victim of the unfair Guatemalan government to spread
misinformation building support in the US amidst voters and influencers
(28:18):
link in Congress to build support for a coup in Guatemala,
which launched a civil war that went on for decades
and was absolutely brutal and did not end until the
nineteen nineties. That's what happened. And this, this, this thing
that worked so well, was necessary really for support of
(28:40):
the coup because at that time, you know, like the
average person again going back to John and Jane Quotitian public,
that's what the Q stands for. They were they were
not likely to support a foreign intervention. You know, how,
what what does this have to do with us? That
was what do I gain from this action? But it
(29:01):
worked and the R. Bens government was overthrown thanks to this, uh,
this series of reports. So that was a while ago.
Right now, we're in this brand new age of the
Internet bend. You can get information as quickly as you
want it and as much of it from any different
place that you want to. So misinformation unfortunately, in this
(29:25):
brand new world, it can spread more easily than ever before.
And Gadget knocked four billion off the Apple market cap.
Do you remember this? It was due to an internal
Apple email about the delay of an OS and operating
system Leopard back in two thousand seven. So just by
Engadget talking about this, it went flup. There's four billion
(29:51):
down the drain. Yeah, Apple stocked tank. There was a
massive sell off. And then Apple quickly notified in gadget
that this was a hoax and that there was no delay. Oh,
it was just a hoax. Okay, Yeah, speaking of hoaxes, right,
Green Peace also did a hoax. Uh. Then there was
a video, an alleged video of Shell executives celebrating a
(30:12):
new drilling venture. Several news sources must take it for
something legit and was actually a production involving the Yes Men,
which you you're familiar with, right Matt, Yeah, great, And
I think it was the first thing they were in
was a documentary that they made about what they were doing,
where they would impersonate an official from some giant corporation
(30:34):
and basically get other corporations or the one that they
were impersonating to admit things, admit or try to get
them to admit wrongdoing. Yes, yeah, exactly, or say we apologize,
and they would pretend to be representatives of a bank
or some other large company, oil company, right yeah, and
(30:54):
they would say we apologize for whatever, We're going to
give donate billions of dollars. The one I remember most
is when they represented Union Carbide and they came out
and publicly apologized for the Beau Paul spill and disaster. Uh,
and they said they were gonna pay I think I
(31:14):
think they said they were going to pay people in
Bo Paul for all the harm that they caused. Oh right, Yeah.
This was in two thousand and four, twenti anniversary of
the disaster. A guy claiming to be a Dow representative
was interviewed on BBC World News. He said the company
was going to clean up the site and compensate everyone
(31:35):
harmed in that incident because they were gonna liquidate you
and Union Carbide for like twelve billion dollars. Dal quickly said,
we don't know this guy. Everything he's saying is not correct,
and that was all happening while he was on the air, right, Yeah,
they jumped on it pretty quickly. This manipulation could also
be a matter of timing. And there's something really neat
(31:57):
that we'd like to introduce you guys to here in
the West, a lot of possibly disruptive, unfavorable around popular
stories are issued on a Friday afternoon or early evening,
and it's often called a Friday news Dump. If you
want to learn more about this, we highly recommend you
check out the subreddit Friday news Dump, right. Yeah, and
(32:21):
if you just scroll through that, you'll see a bunch
of stories that are allegedly stuff, maybe not stuff they
don't want, you know, but stuff they hope you don't
pay too much attention. They reported it, but not not
many eyes are on it at that time when it's
really hot, right when at that moment when it comes out. Yeah,
And speaking of learning more and fantastic segways, we have
(32:43):
some stuff you to check out if you would like
to delve into the strange world of media manipulation. The
first would be the book we mentioned at the top
of the Business of Media, Corporate Media and the Public
Interest with David Crouteaux and William Hoynes. That second one
is the essay we mentioned by Edward Burns called Engineering Consent.
(33:04):
And also I would say maybe even first read Propaganda. Yes, Propaganda, Wow,
what a great book. I had a copy of that somewhere.
Did I steal it from you? I don't know. I
don't know if there's some books met that I don't
think anybody really owens. I'm gonna check my shelves when
(33:25):
I go home. Okay, well, then if you find it,
just just pass it along to someone else. Yeah. And
then we have a more recent book, The Image, A
Guide to Pseudo Events in America by Daniel J. Boston.
This is more recent than Propaganda, but it's still It
was published in nineteen sixty two. And this this concept
(33:46):
of pseudo events, This is stuff like a press conference
or presidential debate manufactured solely to be reported. And how
the definition of a celebrity at the time this book
was being written was transforming to someone who is known
for being well known, so not someone who contributes artistically
or materially or intellectually to society. Someone who is just
(34:14):
is a stranger you are supposed to know for doing anything,
even if it's just being in this being good at
being in the spotlight. Yeah right, Yeah, and then this
guy kind of cast a vision of us at least
that is consumed by its own illusions that sort of
(34:37):
feed on themselves, and how difficult it can be to
find actual information. Right. The next one is called trust
Me I'm Lying. Confessions of a Media Manipulator by Ryan Holiday. Now,
Ryan Holiday right has written some great stuff for Forbes,
and he would be I think the phrase uses is
(34:59):
me he a strategist, but the media manipulator is what
he's what he's called it before, and he talked about,
you know, these malicious online rumors costing companies millions of dollars. Uh,
these scandals just sweeping across the political landscape, leining someone's career.
(35:20):
That way, someone all this is some product or celebrity
becomes a viral sensation. But he says this doesn't happen
by accident. There's usually someone responsible for it. And he
says he establishes three things about today's culture. The first
one is blogs online blogs like think about the Gawker
(35:42):
or huff Po, Huffington Post or BuzzFeed. These sites they've
spit out so much stuff and they are meant to
bait you into clicking. Right, you won't believe what how
clickable they are. Keyboards hate them, write something like that,
(36:03):
Microsoft and other keyboard makers love them right right, But
stick around for the rest of the list because number
two will blow your mind. Number two bloggers are slaves
to money, technology and deadlines. And his his language there,
I don't know that if that comparison is very good
but you know, the point is there there are things
(36:24):
that these bloggers have to depend upon, right, Yeah, they
can't just be magically nurtured by the gods of good
investigative journalism. True yet, which is a shame one day
number three. Manipulators whield these levers to shape everything you read,
everything you see and watch online and sometimes offline. Right,
(36:48):
the Bernese legacy continues and in these in these books
you can learn more about the behind the scenes and now,
be honest, some of it's pretty dirty, the behind the
scenes behavior that goes into the the story. You all
of a sudden saw the Internet go nuts over, like
(37:10):
the what color was the dress? Thing? Right, which was
a thing that people seem to be very interested in,
but it was was it because it was really interested
or was there a manufactured wave of attention? You know,
that's a good question. I don't know the answer to it. However,
we hope that this introduction to media manipulation has given
(37:32):
you some things to think about and some tools to
use when you're watching stuff. Now, Matt, I think you
and I have said this before, but if you go
in assuming that every place, every every show, ours included,
perhaps has an agenda. Then what you find is that
the best way to learn the objective facts or truth
(37:56):
about something is not to rely on one source. Right. Absolutely,
spread it out a little bit, because you're those points
of perspective from all these different outlets are going to
give you better perspective, right Exactly. So it's true that
r T and maybe the Washington Post will publish very
(38:19):
different accounts of maybe the same event. Right And instead
of thinking, well, I'm going to find one place reporting
this that isn't clearly a hit piece or doesn't have
some sort of agenda, it takes a little more effort,
but it is more rewarding to check out both of
(38:39):
them and say what, what what do I think? It's true,
it's like going to the doctor for something serious, get
a second opinion every time. Absolutely. Before we wrap up,
inn I was interested if you would like to hear
some listener mail. Alright, so listener mail today, we have
(39:02):
some corrections. Ladies and gentlemen come to us courtesy of
Stephen Kay. And Stephen Kay pointed out a huge goof
that we made in the episode. Yeah, lb J was
not running for re election. In fact, two months before
Robert Kennedy was killed l b J said, I shall
(39:22):
not seek and I will not accept the nomination of
my party for another term as your president. Right, And
you are correct, Stephen, And thanks so much for writing
and we we appreciate it. We appreciate your time there. Okay,
we've got a little bit of time. Let's do one
more all right. This message comes from Corey. He says, Hey, guys,
really enjoy your show. Thanks dude, I was listening to
(39:43):
the most recent episode on Robert Kennedy and the theory
regarding whether he was assassinated by a Manchurian candidate. You
may want to take a look at the hypnotism and
mentalism community. While you mentioned Darren Brown, take a look
at Anthony Waukin's hypnotism seminars and products he as one
called reality is Plastic and the Trilby connection and the
(40:05):
Manchurion approach all sound interesting, uh. In addition, there are
some other magic esque products out there on the market,
like mind Eraser by Joe Broguey, which according to them,
makes people forget simple information like the chosen card their
own name. What my personal belief is that hypnotism doesn't work.
(40:26):
It's based on routines, that are psychological and aid and
assisting people to believe. Perhaps you can do a show
on head hacking see j Noble Izada. Anyhow, I hope
this helps interesting stuff. Corey. Yeah, thank you for writing
Inquiry one. One thing I will say is that it
really depends on what your concept of hypnotism is. We did, ah,
(40:50):
I did a piece for brain Stuff on hypnotism earlier,
and this state of suggestibility concept does it does have
hand to However, it's the the idea that you could
mentally overpower someone, put them in a trance and make
(41:10):
them do something insane. It's not that simple, nor that
clear cut, and it's not right. Yeah, exactly, uh and
how cool would it be? And we hope that you
guys have enjoyed the podcast so far because there's one
more thing we do at the end of every episode, now,
isn't that right? That's right, Ben, It's time for our
(41:31):
moment with NOL. Hey buddy, Hey guys, how's how's it going.
It's going okay, there we go doing pretty well. See,
you've got a double set of headphones in today. Well,
it's just a proper set of headphones and then a
single earbudon yeah, nice, you're a renaissance man. Can I
bring something up that our audience maybe doesn't know? Sure?
And you guys might be a little embarrassed, but I
(41:52):
just want to get into it. Just if that's okay?
Do it? So? I have now seen both of you
perform live in front of audio in things that are
outside of work. Are you guys okay with me talking
about this? Okay? Well, should we get through you first?
Let's get done with you first. Let's do let's okay? Okay? Alright? Noel, yes?
(42:14):
Uh so. I don't know how many people out here. No,
but you're a musician. You're an excellent bassist, You're excellent
on a keyboard, you're composer, you are a multi instrumental
kind of you, sir, and I I don't know. I
just want to bring this up. I want to talk
about performing live in front of an audience because I
(42:35):
haven't done this in a good long while. I played drums,
used to play drums live a lot. But how do you,
guys approach that? Do you still have, like get the
nervous feeling when you do that stuff? I mean, I
guess it's all about your comfort level. Like I look
at something like what Ben does where he's you know,
doing stuff off the cuff in front of a crowd,
and that just makes me feel like a crazy person
(42:56):
that like, you know, I mean, I can improvise playing music,
but nine times out of ten, I'm doing something that's
pretty well rehearsed and then I'm real comfortable with and
you know, I feel the exact same way as a drummer.
So everybody been, I thank you for asking, Thank you
for asking. I primarily, uh, I primarily count on mescaline.
(43:18):
You know. That's how live performances, yeah, is you know,
I mean, just take a bunch of mescaline, right, and
then the spirit is with you and then it's a
spirit journey whatever you're doing. Just in all, in all farness,
I have never tried mescaline. I'm not that. I'm not
(43:38):
that uh cool or really even that enterprising. I don't
know where I would find it. I'm not plugged in enough.
I'm too square. Uh But I hear it's in the desert,
like you gotta tap a cactus or something nice. Do
you have a secret tap? I don't know. I think
I learned that from watching the Doors movie. Yes, so well,
live performance you know, we have a lot of performers
(44:00):
in our audience too, and every so often we get
an email from them. I want to invite you guys
to feel free if you if you would like to
send some music our way that you think is cooled,
and yeah, we'd love to hear it. Any performance really well,
any safe your work, your performance, don't crack it up
a little bit there. You know what I've been revisiting lately.
(44:20):
I don't know if you guys are into this. Have
you heard of the group Destroyers? Yes, they were big
on album eight for All Time. Yeah, let's this guy,
Dan b b har b Jar. It's a jounce so
but he was also in the band the New Pornographers.
But his stuff is Destroyer. I've been kind of revisiting
and he's got some pretty pretty interesting little conspiratorial tidbits
(44:42):
in his layers, very kind of apocalyptic, kind of little
urns of phrase. Well I'm a big fan of Yeah,
all right, I'm gonna go check that out right now.
Thank you for telling me. You know, I love there's
something that I felt like maybe I would have wanted
to hear you guys touch on in the episode today. Um,
I guess it hasn't really made a huge splash, but
it came out maybe yesterday yesterday that Brian Williams in
(45:05):
fact not going to be resuming his post. Really, Brian Williams,
didn't he get in trouble for uh exaggerating right this
story about the helicopter. Yeah, and then you know, and
I think that called attention to the fact that maybe
there were some other things that he wasn't completely you know,
(45:25):
above board with, and it just kind of made me
think of this idea as like news reporters as celebrities. Yeah,
that's exactly want to bring up. He crosses the divide
there a regular Anderson Cooper, So it really starts blurring
the lines. And you're talking about like reporting celebrity gossip,
and then you have these reporters who themselves are celebrities
doing a performance. So I don't know, Yeah, uh, that
(45:50):
that's that's an excellent example and thank you so much
for raising it. And this is a great way for
us to ask you for advice. Ladies and gentlemen, What
do you think are some of the most often censored
or suppressed news stories? What do you what do you
think is dishonest about the media today and why if
(46:12):
you if you had to guess why, I'd really like
to know stories, at least recent stories that you think
have been either pushed to the side or just covered
like just on top with a giant pancake of celebrity.
I just I mean the biggest pancake you can imatch
to it on top. And that's the end of this
classic episode. If you have any thoughts or questions about
(46:36):
this episode, you can get into contact with us in
a number of different ways. One of the best is
to give us a call. Our number is one eight
three three st d w y t K. If you
don't want to do that, you can send us a
good old fashioned email. We are conspiracy at i heart
radio dot com. Stuff they Don't want you to Know
is a production of I heart Radio. For more podcasts
(46:59):
from my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to this week's classic episode. Folks. What is media manipulation?
That's the title that we have for this back in
but it's it's a really good question, you know, like, um,
we made this as the world was collectively learning the
phrase fake news, I believe, uh. And there there's serious
(00:22):
questions like how often do news outlets bury a story right?
Who determines what gets reported? And how? Yeah, it is
a big question because there are so many allegations that
there's some kind of governmental entity or some larger private
industry entity that can somehow decide what all the different
outlets can and can't do, right? And is it that
(00:46):
wide ranging or is it more granular than that? Is
there actually some kind of control mechanism in there? We'll
find out in this classic episode from UFOs two Ghosts
and Government cover Ups. Is jury is riddled with unexplained events.
You can turn back now or learn the stuff they
don't want you to now. Pictory America as one large,
(01:16):
unblinking uh. According to a two thousand thirteen ball of pole,
about fifty five of this eye gets its news about
current events from television. The Internet is a distant second,
at about a smaller bit of the eye. Maybe nine
percent still reads print and newspapers, while that last six
(01:40):
percent the moat in the eye if you will listen
to the radio. But where is this eye looking and
who decides what it sees? Welcome back to the show.
My name is Matt and Ben and as always we
are here with our super produce us your know, the
(02:00):
spin Dr Brown. So most of the American audience, I
would say, much of the American audience holds a cynical
view of what they're told on the news or what
they read or see in the news. A lot of
them do. Yeah, yeah, And these audiences can be partisan
in their viewpoints, right, arguing that one outlet is real journalism,
(02:22):
one outlet is just complete hogwash. And you know, maybe
they have a hidden agenda, maybe they're connected to the
Illuminati or something short that's on that's on the far reaches,
but it's there, and it leads us to a big question. Right,
We've been thinking about this all week. Yeah, So who's correct?
And to what degree could it be possible that media
(02:43):
outlets have crossed this line from reporting the news to
creating it? And here's where it gets crazy. Yes, absolutely,
this is a very popular trick, and we should go
ahead and add here, Matt that you and I and
I assume NOL is well as on board with this.
We are not picking sides. We're not here to say
(03:05):
that one particular CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or
Al Jazeera is or RT why don't we throw that
in there too, is better, right or necessarily worse. We're
here to talk about a phenomenon, a systemic phenomenon, which
is uh, different groups, I guess, different institutions using the
(03:30):
media to report things that are agendas disguised as objective facts.
And it's a creepy thing, but it's a thing a
lot of people expect, and it's a very old trick
to write. Oh yeah, this is something that we've been
seeing for a long time, even before Edward Edward Burns.
But he was, you know, kind of the originator, let's say,
(03:54):
of some of the techniques that are even used today.
He he has this quote that is pretty great. He
said that quote, the United States has become a small
room in which a single whisper is magnified thousands of times. Yeah,
that's from his nineteen seven essay The Engineering of Consent,
(04:14):
which you can check out for free online. Alright, So, Matt,
people who have listened to our show for a while
know that you and I are fascinated with Edward Burnets,
and we even because we are really into this guy,
and which is strange because he is sort of a
Darth Vader of manipulation. But is he an Emperor Palpatine?
(04:37):
I'm not sure right in and let us know what
you think. But but we actually had gott some really
nice notes from Chuck from stuff you should know, because
they did a podcast on Burnets and they were checking
our stuff out. So this guy is maybe the most
popular supervillain anti hero mad scientists, maybe in in how
(04:57):
stuff works currently. Yeah, I can see him as this
anti hero because he is a hero to a lot
of people. He's created huge swaths of jobs all across
the world. He's better known as the father of public relations.
He pioneered numerous advertising tactics that kind of blur the
(05:19):
line between commercials, professional advice, and even journalism. Yes, and today,
as we said, the majority of news outlets have all
been accused at one point or another of twisting the
facts to support an agenda or to oppose one. But
this doesn't necessarily mean that any given TV channel is
going to lie or misrepresent the story. Um, it just
(05:43):
means that maybe they're not reporting on it, maybe they're
focusing instead on something else, something I don't know, a
little more on the surface, like let's say a celebrity's
latest faux paw, Yeah, as celebrity's latest stumble, Kanye West
latest outrace statement, or uh, let's see bibs in there
all the time? Sure, yeah, or Cyrus Clint Eastwood says
(06:06):
something someone gets in a fight, yeah, Mel Gibson's right, yeah,
and this this stuff. While I'm not saying that it's
not important, I think we can as a group agree
that large political movements, economic trends, international crimes, these things
(06:28):
are more important to the common person and have more
of an impact on their life, unless, of course, you
are one of the very small percent of people who
works directly with or for a celebrity, in which case
I'm sorry, I hope you're okay. I'm gonna just kind
of make a line in the sand here and say,
I don't think those celebrity stories are important whatsoever. You
(06:50):
don't think so, I don't think so. Even if it's
a person you could make the argument that their opinion
shapers sure there that when they when they're a ininion
is adverse to let's say, the progressive views, the current
progressive views. I can see that being harmful in some way.
(07:10):
But man, yeah, I think I just I'm sorry, I
have I just have to say it, or else I
would feel horrible after this podcast. I understand, and I
see you see what I'm saying, Like it would matter
more if it was if it directly affects someone. Yes,
But these larger issues I think have a more direct
(07:32):
effect on the average John and j Q public than
do the stories of you know, strangers I've always found.
And I know this is terrible. I don't know if
I've talked about this on the air before, but you
know this, Matt, No, you've heard me say it before too.
For a long time, I kind of resented celebrities. It's
it's the idea you're a stranger and it's my job
(07:54):
to know who you are and be caught up on
your stuff. Has something changed, No, I'm just it's it's
an ongoing process. Of course, celebrities are people too. I
don't want to be I don't want to be rude,
but it's it's also strange. You know, I find it
presumptuous that I should be expected to know what's going
on with you. You know, I I don't know what's
(08:16):
going on with some of my cousins. And we're related
right here. Actually, so this can happen. It does happen.
It happens often. If you're a fan of Last Week
Tonight the way that Matt and I are, then you
have probably seen the episode where where I think they
show the cutaway from a congresswoman talking about a fairly
(08:38):
important issue to actually no lie a report about Justin Bieber. Yeah,
this is breaking news. I'm gonna have to stop you
right there. We're going over here, right yeah, But we
have to be careful and to ask ourselves the question
is this intentional or is you know, is there some
nefarest scheme, or is this simply a sincere decision that
(09:03):
that's what people want to see? And that's what this
sort of bread and circus vibe is what feeds. If
we don't cut to the Beaver story, then people are
gonna cut away to you know, they're gonna turn their channel,
right and and some experts see this this kind of
manipulation or censorship as an act of self censorship, as
something that the the company, or the journalists themselves or
(09:27):
the blogger for instance, would decide to do to preserve
their career longevity. Right, There's a great book called The
Business Media, Corporate Media, and the Public Interest by these
authors named David Creteau and William Hoyn's and they and
I may be mispronouncing your names, guys, sorry, They argue that, uh, this,
(09:49):
this act of self censorship is an understandable rational move.
I agree. I don't know if that makes it right,
but I totally agree. And it brings me to something
it was interesting that I think you and I should
talk about. All Right, so we've got we've got a
couple of different ways that this can occur, a couple
of different entities that can affect the news that people
(10:11):
will watch. Not just in the States, of course, because
let's also remember that quite a few countries have state
owned media and that that can lead to all kinds
of sticky conflicts of interest. But one question you and
I get often is, hey, guys, have you ever been
(10:32):
shut down? Has there been something that you were told
you could not report on? No, Ben, we have not
been shut down on any of the subjects. Scientology was
one of those that we had to tiptoe around, but
we didn't get shut down. Yeah, you know, I guess
we should say thanks Church of Scientology for not suing us,
but we didn't. Oh man, that was that was a
(10:54):
weird one because we always try to be respectful of
people's personal beliefs, even if those are spiritual values, which
you know, we don't describe or whatever. And you and
I and Noel or none of us are scientologists at
least that we know of, So we're watching Noel when
you said that, just to see his reaction. So we
(11:14):
did a video on and a podcast on Operations Snow White,
and we just stuck to the facts, just just the
publicly available things that have come about through court documents
and Freedom of Information Act requests. And yeah, we we
didn't make a two and a half hour long documentary
about it. We're good. But check out Going Clear if
(11:34):
you're interested in that story. And you for some reason,
I haven't seen it yet. And Matt, you and I
found that we were pretty fortunate. The folks at how
stuff works in general, are are pure podcasts are pretty
fortunate as well, because we haven't had someone come down
like a hammer. But if someone is manipulating the media,
(11:55):
here are the three entities that are most likely to
be responsible. The first one is the money, the corporate sponsorship. Now,
this can be a problem for let's say, for profit
media like television, the internet, uh, the radio, pretty much,
(12:16):
any of them. Sure, any for profit reporting institution. Yeah.
It depends on advertising almost always, and it can it
can occasionally find itself in a conflict of interest where
you've got someone who is providing money for you to
make your show that has done something wrong or at
least you know, uh, it doesn't have to necessarily be wrong,
(12:38):
but it can be bad for pr right right, Yeah,
it could be a conflict of interest, for sure, and
that's understandable. This, this corporate interference could also be something
as simple as killing a story or you know, burying
it somewhere, or as misleading as having a jumped up
(12:58):
pseudo expert or a industry financed by a study become
a big focus for a news piece. You know what
I mean? This is where and let me do an
example that's not too scary. This would be something like
where they have just make up a name male or female, Richie, Richie.
(13:23):
What's Richie's last name? Jacobson? So, uh, doctor Richie Jacobson
from the American Dairy Growers Association, Institute for Innovation or
whatever whatever, some sort of official name. Anyway, Dr Jacobson
is interviewed on CNN or Fox or MSNBC, and I
(13:47):
keep naming them all because I want to be fair.
And the interview is about the health benefits of butter.
Are people eating enough butter? Studies show they are not?
What could the dangers be? Well, yeah, so that kind
of stuff can happen, and Bernese really did popularize that.
But then there's another related possibility that we see when
(14:09):
big companies start eating each other and creating leviathans. It's
that they could prevent access to competitor news the same
way that cable companies and uh, internet service providers and
things like Netflix are currently in Uh what would they say, beefing. Yeah,
(14:30):
they're beefing pretty harder. They were beefing a lot harder
like this previous year before that. But there's there's lots
of beef to go around in that sector. Who is
going to be watching the media and where which Apple
are you're going to use, right, and so we can
see that happening. If an I s P. Also owns
a news outfit, then logically, from a business perspective, you
(14:56):
can you can follow the breadcrumbs to to learn how
they would eventually decide. Wait, let's not have these other
people use our road to take our business, you know
what I mean. The second possibility is that you've got
some kind of government interference or state level manipulation. Oh man,
(15:16):
you know this is my favorite one, right, yeah. I
love stories where an unnamed official reported but they couldn't
make it, couldn't make a public statement. So an unnamed
and there's always a little hint like an unnamed State
Department official, an unnamed high level intelligence official and unnamed
White House person right or unnamed right? Yeah, yeah, And
(15:41):
when that happens, we would caution you to be hypersensitive
to it because what that means is that someone is
manufacturing a leak. It is sanctioned when people do that
in general, it is sanctioned. And it's there because your
opinion should is meant to be suede Yes, we're yeah
(16:04):
to to provide a counterpoint, perhaps to something that's being
talked about in the media, or even like a small
giving in just a small amount to a negative news
story that's that's circulating, right, Yeah, exactly, a little bit,
a little bit of spin. And this of course is
(16:24):
legal at this point, right, we know it's legal if
it's sanctioned by the actors. But then state level actors,
and when we say state actors, what we mean are
the governing regimes of any country. Right, So state level
actors can also prevent media outlets from publishing information that
(16:46):
they think would be damaging. You. Often hear this associated
with the phrase national security, almost always the great boogeyman. Yeah,
if you can get away with preventing a story coming
out in the news that national security phrases in there somewhere.
So this is something when we see, like the New
York Times has been accused of withholding information. But I
(17:10):
think there's a big gray area here too, because if
publishing some sort of information harms people when you publish it,
then ethically should you sit on it? I don't know,
and maybe it goes case by case. But another thing
I just want to say, I think it depends on
how you view what the media is, it's function in
(17:32):
a democracy. Should the media be a merciless reporting machine, right?
Should it exist not to help, not to hinder, but
only to propagate facts? Should it? I mean maybe in
a perfect world. I don't think we've ever seen it
function that way. No. Pro Publica, which we I believe
(17:54):
we've mentioned on the show before, is a nonprofit entity
that is, you know, in depth investigative journalism. Yeah, but
there there are a lot of stories that they will
have a tough time getting to just due to time demands,
as I think sometimes yeah, no kidding. Another thing one
(18:18):
thing that I don't think Pro Publica has done, but
that a lot of countries work with media outlets to
create our stories that are written largely by the government.
So for example, we'll pick on RT a little bit
here Russian Times. That's what the RT stood for before
(18:40):
it pulled a TLC, right, And what you will see
often here are going to be you'll see stuff like
an unnamed official from the Ministry of blah blah blah
has said that the latest act of the US is
total malarkey. And here's why. I don't think they would
(19:01):
use the word malarkey, but I'd love it if they did.
I don't know how to. I don't know if there's
a Russian word for malarkey. Rtie is a news source
that I find helpful because they will give you that
opposing viewpoint from a lot of the news you'll see
in the Western media. But yeah, yeah, like Ben said,
there there are things that if you're consciously watching and
(19:25):
and really paying attention, you'll see some of the the
hints at that stuff, right, Yeah, that the government is
is writing the think pieces or the drum sometimes, well,
I would say it's pretty often, and yeah, yeah, I
mean that's maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that's
the case. It seems like that it is used often
(19:47):
for propaganda purposes. And that leads us to another another
entity that can control these things, the third one. So
we did the money right, the corporate sponsorship, we did
the state level interference, and there's something here that's very individual,
very very John Galt, I guess the the ideology of
(20:10):
the owner. Yeah, it's no surprise. These are corporations. If
you're a large news entity, you're you're probably a corporation.
And corporations have boards. Corporations have owners, which is kind
of the board, but also c E. O s and
all these other people that make up everything right right,
high powered media barons, and case in point, Rupert Murdoch.
(20:35):
Whether you agree, whether you agree with what he thinks
or what he wants to see happen in the world,
or whether you disagree, it's it would be misleading. It
would be dishonest to say that he does not actively
use his possession, his position to influence political views and
(20:57):
actions of his audience. And it is totally legal. I
don't know if it's ethical, but until he willfully distorts
the news, then it is legal. But there's so many
different ways you can affect the news or influence it
without quiet crossing that line, you know what I mean.
(21:20):
So we have we have a quote for another example.
Here we have a quote from The New Yorker in
two thousand thirteen, uh piece called a Word from our
Sponsor by Jane Meyer. And this gives us a little
bit of insight into the Koch Brothers, specifically David Coke.
In the nineteen eighties, he began expanding his charitable contributions
(21:43):
to the media, donating twenty three million dollars to public
television over the years. In he began serving as a
trustee of Boston's public broadcasting operation w g b H,
and in two thousand and six, he joined the board
of New York's public television outlet w and ET. Recent
news reports have suggested that the Koch Brothers are considering
(22:04):
buying eight daily newspapers owned by the Tribune Company, one
of the country's largest media empires, raising concerns that it's publications,
which include the Chicago Tribune in the Los Angeles Times,
might slant news coverage to serve the interests of their
new owners, either through executive mandates or through self censorship.
(22:26):
Clarence Page, a Liberal Tribune columnist, recently said that the
Cokes appeared intent on using a media company as a
vehicle for their political voice. And this, this example just
shows us, I think, a quick walk through of what
could happen if if someone has an ideology and everybody
has some sort of ideology, right, some sort of belief system. Sure,
(22:49):
and and it should be noted that that is a
big what if. That is a speculation on what might
happen if this goes through. It is not speculation that
he did take those actions, absolutely, but the very last
part there, and to be fair, it sounds like Mr. Page,
as a Liberal Tribune columnist, has reason to be concerned,
(23:13):
right because he probably does not align with the Koch
brother vision. We have other examples. Let's do some examples
of times this has happened. So Jane Acre in journalist
named Jane Akre and her then husband and partner Steve Wilson,
were journalists for a little station called w t v
(23:34):
T in Tampa, Florida that's part of Fox Broadcasting Company,
and they were working on a story Matt about Monsanto
and r b g H or its formeral name recombinant
bovine growth hormone. This is an additive that people put
in milk. The f d A approved it, but this additive,
(23:57):
this r b g H, is also blamed for a
number of alleged health issues. Yeah. R b g H
is that thing that they inject into the cows to
make them produce more milk. And I remember when I
was reading about the story. It makes the they get puss,
the cows get puss in their utters, and then it
(24:19):
gets into the milk and it was just a really
it was a nasty thing. So definitely health issues for
the cattle. Yes, um and possible health issues for humans
consuming it, but that was kind of because it gets
pasteurized anyway, I see, I see, well, okay. So Steve
Wilson and Jane Acre, they had planned a investigative report
(24:42):
on this, a long form, four part report. Monsanto, however,
or representative of Monsanto, wrote to the president of Fox
News Channel an attempt to have the report quote reviewed
for bias and because of concerns of potentially enormous damage. Yeah,
if you knew that there was this thing that sounds
(25:03):
really gross, that does gross things to the cows, you know,
from the milk that you're eating, probably you know, you
might not buy milk that week. You might try something else.
I think silk was coming out around that time or
becoming really big. Is that the soy milk, the soy
milk and all of that. I don't know. It could
have been really bad for business, been well. Either way,
(25:25):
w t VT there in Tampa, Florida killed the report
and they said officially they killed it because this was
not breakthrough journalism. Snow we're looking for you, guys. Jeez. So,
Wilson and Acre then claimed w t v T was lying,
and the channel said that this decision occurred for the
sake of fairness, I have fair and balance, show both
(25:46):
sides of the issue. That's what Fox's motto. According to
Acre and Wilson, the two rewrote this report, and rewrote
this report, and rewrote it, and they went through about
eighty visions than w t v T fired them without
just cause or did not renew their contracts which would
(26:08):
have been up for renewal in the channel. W t
VT then later ran a report about mon Santo and
r v g H the year after, and this report
included defenses directly from Monsanto, So they had the other side.
So they show both sides, which is something you know,
(26:28):
oddly enough on our show, we we do right to do. Yeah,
I guess I can see it. So Acres and Wilson
took this to court, fired unjustly. Uh. Acre saw herself
as a whistleblower, saying this is what shut down. This
is not real journalism, this is unethical. Uh. They had
a long court battle, They went through appeals. They finally
(26:49):
lost the case in two thousand seven, their final challenge
with the FCC because the FCC called the conflict an
editorial dispute rather than a deliberate effort to distort the news.
So was this just a debate over how the story
should be presented to the public, or was this a
debate over covering up a story? You know what I mean?
(27:14):
And the FCC said it was just a debate about
essentially how how it's presented or the tone. Well, let's
go to one of my personal favorite ones, another example,
Edward Burnet's and the American support for the coupe data
in Guatemala in nineteen fifty four, United Fruit Company, great company.
You should really learn as much as you can about
(27:34):
the United Fruit Company. Yeah, United Fruit Company had a
problem with the democratically elected government of Guatemala, which was
that the government of Guatemala felt it was being unfairly
treated by a foreign owned company that was intensely corrupt
and violent towards the people of Guatemala and large and powerful,
(27:57):
right and large and more powerful than the government of Guatemala.
So United Fruit hired Edward Burns to portray the company
as a victim of the unfair Guatemalan government to spread
misinformation building support in the US amidst voters and influencers
(28:18):
link in Congress to build support for a coup in Guatemala,
which launched a civil war that went on for decades
and was absolutely brutal and did not end until the
nineteen nineties. That's what happened. And this, this, this thing
that worked so well, was necessary really for support of
(28:40):
the coup because at that time, you know, like the
average person again going back to John and Jane Quotitian public,
that's what the Q stands for. They were they were
not likely to support a foreign intervention. You know, how,
what what does this have to do with us? That
was what do I gain from this action? But it
(29:01):
worked and the R. Bens government was overthrown thanks to this, uh,
this series of reports. So that was a while ago.
Right now, we're in this brand new age of the
Internet bend. You can get information as quickly as you
want it and as much of it from any different
place that you want to. So misinformation unfortunately, in this
(29:25):
brand new world, it can spread more easily than ever before.
And Gadget knocked four billion off the Apple market cap.
Do you remember this? It was due to an internal
Apple email about the delay of an OS and operating
system Leopard back in two thousand seven. So just by
Engadget talking about this, it went flup. There's four billion
(29:51):
down the drain. Yeah, Apple stocked tank. There was a
massive sell off. And then Apple quickly notified in gadget
that this was a hoax and that there was no delay. Oh,
it was just a hoax. Okay, Yeah, speaking of hoaxes, right,
Green Peace also did a hoax. Uh. Then there was
a video, an alleged video of Shell executives celebrating a
(30:12):
new drilling venture. Several news sources must take it for
something legit and was actually a production involving the Yes Men,
which you you're familiar with, right Matt, Yeah, great, And
I think it was the first thing they were in
was a documentary that they made about what they were doing,
where they would impersonate an official from some giant corporation
(30:34):
and basically get other corporations or the one that they
were impersonating to admit things, admit or try to get
them to admit wrongdoing. Yes, yeah, exactly, or say we apologize,
and they would pretend to be representatives of a bank
or some other large company, oil company, right yeah, and
(30:54):
they would say we apologize for whatever, We're going to
give donate billions of dollars. The one I remember most
is when they represented Union Carbide and they came out
and publicly apologized for the Beau Paul spill and disaster. Uh,
and they said they were gonna pay I think I
(31:14):
think they said they were going to pay people in
Bo Paul for all the harm that they caused. Oh right, Yeah.
This was in two thousand and four, twenti anniversary of
the disaster. A guy claiming to be a Dow representative
was interviewed on BBC World News. He said the company
was going to clean up the site and compensate everyone
(31:35):
harmed in that incident because they were gonna liquidate you
and Union Carbide for like twelve billion dollars. Dal quickly said,
we don't know this guy. Everything he's saying is not correct,
and that was all happening while he was on the air, right, Yeah,
they jumped on it pretty quickly. This manipulation could also
be a matter of timing. And there's something really neat
(31:57):
that we'd like to introduce you guys to here in
the West, a lot of possibly disruptive, unfavorable around popular
stories are issued on a Friday afternoon or early evening,
and it's often called a Friday news Dump. If you
want to learn more about this, we highly recommend you
check out the subreddit Friday news Dump, right. Yeah, and
(32:21):
if you just scroll through that, you'll see a bunch
of stories that are allegedly stuff, maybe not stuff they
don't want, you know, but stuff they hope you don't
pay too much attention. They reported it, but not not
many eyes are on it at that time when it's
really hot, right when at that moment when it comes out. Yeah,
And speaking of learning more and fantastic segways, we have
(32:43):
some stuff you to check out if you would like
to delve into the strange world of media manipulation. The
first would be the book we mentioned at the top
of the Business of Media, Corporate Media and the Public
Interest with David Crouteaux and William Hoynes. That second one
is the essay we mentioned by Edward Burns called Engineering Consent.
(33:04):
And also I would say maybe even first read Propaganda. Yes, Propaganda, Wow,
what a great book. I had a copy of that somewhere.
Did I steal it from you? I don't know. I
don't know if there's some books met that I don't
think anybody really owens. I'm gonna check my shelves when
(33:25):
I go home. Okay, well, then if you find it,
just just pass it along to someone else. Yeah. And
then we have a more recent book, The Image, A
Guide to Pseudo Events in America by Daniel J. Boston.
This is more recent than Propaganda, but it's still It
was published in nineteen sixty two. And this this concept
(33:46):
of pseudo events, This is stuff like a press conference
or presidential debate manufactured solely to be reported. And how
the definition of a celebrity at the time this book
was being written was transforming to someone who is known
for being well known, so not someone who contributes artistically
or materially or intellectually to society. Someone who is just
(34:14):
is a stranger you are supposed to know for doing anything,
even if it's just being in this being good at
being in the spotlight. Yeah right, Yeah, and then this
guy kind of cast a vision of us at least
that is consumed by its own illusions that sort of
(34:37):
feed on themselves, and how difficult it can be to
find actual information. Right. The next one is called trust
Me I'm Lying. Confessions of a Media Manipulator by Ryan Holiday. Now,
Ryan Holiday right has written some great stuff for Forbes,
and he would be I think the phrase uses is
(34:59):
me he a strategist, but the media manipulator is what
he's what he's called it before, and he talked about,
you know, these malicious online rumors costing companies millions of dollars. Uh,
these scandals just sweeping across the political landscape, leining someone's career.
(35:20):
That way, someone all this is some product or celebrity
becomes a viral sensation. But he says this doesn't happen
by accident. There's usually someone responsible for it. And he
says he establishes three things about today's culture. The first
one is blogs online blogs like think about the Gawker
(35:42):
or huff Po, Huffington Post or BuzzFeed. These sites they've
spit out so much stuff and they are meant to
bait you into clicking. Right, you won't believe what how
clickable they are. Keyboards hate them, write something like that,
(36:03):
Microsoft and other keyboard makers love them right right, But
stick around for the rest of the list because number
two will blow your mind. Number two bloggers are slaves
to money, technology and deadlines. And his his language there,
I don't know that if that comparison is very good
but you know, the point is there there are things
(36:24):
that these bloggers have to depend upon, right, Yeah, they
can't just be magically nurtured by the gods of good
investigative journalism. True yet, which is a shame one day
number three. Manipulators whield these levers to shape everything you read,
everything you see and watch online and sometimes offline. Right,
(36:48):
the Bernese legacy continues and in these in these books
you can learn more about the behind the scenes and now,
be honest, some of it's pretty dirty, the behind the
scenes behavior that goes into the the story. You all
of a sudden saw the Internet go nuts over, like
(37:10):
the what color was the dress? Thing? Right, which was
a thing that people seem to be very interested in,
but it was was it because it was really interested
or was there a manufactured wave of attention? You know,
that's a good question. I don't know the answer to it. However,
we hope that this introduction to media manipulation has given
(37:32):
you some things to think about and some tools to
use when you're watching stuff. Now, Matt, I think you
and I have said this before, but if you go
in assuming that every place, every every show, ours included,
perhaps has an agenda. Then what you find is that
the best way to learn the objective facts or truth
(37:56):
about something is not to rely on one source. Right. Absolutely,
spread it out a little bit, because you're those points
of perspective from all these different outlets are going to
give you better perspective, right Exactly. So it's true that
r T and maybe the Washington Post will publish very
(38:19):
different accounts of maybe the same event. Right And instead
of thinking, well, I'm going to find one place reporting
this that isn't clearly a hit piece or doesn't have
some sort of agenda, it takes a little more effort,
but it is more rewarding to check out both of
(38:39):
them and say what, what what do I think? It's true,
it's like going to the doctor for something serious, get
a second opinion every time. Absolutely. Before we wrap up,
inn I was interested if you would like to hear
some listener mail. Alright, so listener mail today, we have
(39:02):
some corrections. Ladies and gentlemen come to us courtesy of
Stephen Kay. And Stephen Kay pointed out a huge goof
that we made in the episode. Yeah, lb J was
not running for re election. In fact, two months before
Robert Kennedy was killed l b J said, I shall
(39:22):
not seek and I will not accept the nomination of
my party for another term as your president. Right, And
you are correct, Stephen, And thanks so much for writing
and we we appreciate it. We appreciate your time there. Okay,
we've got a little bit of time. Let's do one
more all right. This message comes from Corey. He says, Hey, guys,
really enjoy your show. Thanks dude, I was listening to
(39:43):
the most recent episode on Robert Kennedy and the theory
regarding whether he was assassinated by a Manchurian candidate. You
may want to take a look at the hypnotism and
mentalism community. While you mentioned Darren Brown, take a look
at Anthony Waukin's hypnotism seminars and products he as one
called reality is Plastic and the Trilby connection and the
(40:05):
Manchurion approach all sound interesting, uh. In addition, there are
some other magic esque products out there on the market,
like mind Eraser by Joe Broguey, which according to them,
makes people forget simple information like the chosen card their
own name. What my personal belief is that hypnotism doesn't work.
(40:26):
It's based on routines, that are psychological and aid and
assisting people to believe. Perhaps you can do a show
on head hacking see j Noble Izada. Anyhow, I hope
this helps interesting stuff. Corey. Yeah, thank you for writing
Inquiry one. One thing I will say is that it
really depends on what your concept of hypnotism is. We did, ah,
(40:50):
I did a piece for brain Stuff on hypnotism earlier,
and this state of suggestibility concept does it does have
hand to However, it's the the idea that you could
mentally overpower someone, put them in a trance and make
(41:10):
them do something insane. It's not that simple, nor that
clear cut, and it's not right. Yeah, exactly, uh and
how cool would it be? And we hope that you
guys have enjoyed the podcast so far because there's one
more thing we do at the end of every episode, now,
isn't that right? That's right, Ben, It's time for our
(41:31):
moment with NOL. Hey buddy, Hey guys, how's how's it going.
It's going okay, there we go doing pretty well. See,
you've got a double set of headphones in today. Well,
it's just a proper set of headphones and then a
single earbudon yeah, nice, you're a renaissance man. Can I
bring something up that our audience maybe doesn't know? Sure?
And you guys might be a little embarrassed, but I
(41:52):
just want to get into it. Just if that's okay?
Do it? So? I have now seen both of you
perform live in front of audio in things that are
outside of work. Are you guys okay with me talking
about this? Okay? Well, should we get through you first?
Let's get done with you first. Let's do let's okay? Okay? Alright? Noel, yes?
(42:14):
Uh so. I don't know how many people out here. No,
but you're a musician. You're an excellent bassist, You're excellent
on a keyboard, you're composer, you are a multi instrumental
kind of you, sir, and I I don't know. I
just want to bring this up. I want to talk
about performing live in front of an audience because I
(42:35):
haven't done this in a good long while. I played drums,
used to play drums live a lot. But how do you,
guys approach that? Do you still have, like get the
nervous feeling when you do that stuff? I mean, I
guess it's all about your comfort level. Like I look
at something like what Ben does where he's you know,
doing stuff off the cuff in front of a crowd,
and that just makes me feel like a crazy person
(42:56):
that like, you know, I mean, I can improvise playing music,
but nine times out of ten, I'm doing something that's
pretty well rehearsed and then I'm real comfortable with and
you know, I feel the exact same way as a drummer.
So everybody been, I thank you for asking, Thank you
for asking. I primarily, uh, I primarily count on mescaline.
(43:18):
You know. That's how live performances, yeah, is you know,
I mean, just take a bunch of mescaline, right, and
then the spirit is with you and then it's a
spirit journey whatever you're doing. Just in all, in all farness,
I have never tried mescaline. I'm not that. I'm not
(43:38):
that uh cool or really even that enterprising. I don't
know where I would find it. I'm not plugged in enough.
I'm too square. Uh But I hear it's in the desert,
like you gotta tap a cactus or something nice. Do
you have a secret tap? I don't know. I think
I learned that from watching the Doors movie. Yes, so well,
live performance you know, we have a lot of performers
(44:00):
in our audience too, and every so often we get
an email from them. I want to invite you guys
to feel free if you if you would like to
send some music our way that you think is cooled,
and yeah, we'd love to hear it. Any performance really well,
any safe your work, your performance, don't crack it up
a little bit there. You know what I've been revisiting lately.
(44:20):
I don't know if you guys are into this. Have
you heard of the group Destroyers? Yes, they were big
on album eight for All Time. Yeah, let's this guy,
Dan b b har b Jar. It's a jounce so
but he was also in the band the New Pornographers.
But his stuff is Destroyer. I've been kind of revisiting
and he's got some pretty pretty interesting little conspiratorial tidbits
(44:42):
in his layers, very kind of apocalyptic, kind of little
urns of phrase. Well I'm a big fan of Yeah,
all right, I'm gonna go check that out right now.
Thank you for telling me. You know, I love there's
something that I felt like maybe I would have wanted
to hear you guys touch on in the episode today. Um,
I guess it hasn't really made a huge splash, but
it came out maybe yesterday yesterday that Brian Williams in
(45:05):
fact not going to be resuming his post. Really, Brian Williams,
didn't he get in trouble for uh exaggerating right this
story about the helicopter. Yeah, and then you know, and
I think that called attention to the fact that maybe
there were some other things that he wasn't completely you know,
(45:25):
above board with, and it just kind of made me
think of this idea as like news reporters as celebrities. Yeah,
that's exactly want to bring up. He crosses the divide
there a regular Anderson Cooper, So it really starts blurring
the lines. And you're talking about like reporting celebrity gossip,
and then you have these reporters who themselves are celebrities
doing a performance. So I don't know, Yeah, uh, that
(45:50):
that's that's an excellent example and thank you so much
for raising it. And this is a great way for
us to ask you for advice. Ladies and gentlemen, What
do you think are some of the most often censored
or suppressed news stories? What do you what do you
think is dishonest about the media today and why if
(46:12):
you if you had to guess why, I'd really like
to know stories, at least recent stories that you think
have been either pushed to the side or just covered
like just on top with a giant pancake of celebrity.
I just I mean the biggest pancake you can imatch
to it on top. And that's the end of this
classic episode. If you have any thoughts or questions about
(46:36):
this episode, you can get into contact with us in
a number of different ways. One of the best is
to give us a call. Our number is one eight
three three st d w y t K. If you
don't want to do that, you can send us a
good old fashioned email. We are conspiracy at i heart
radio dot com. Stuff they Don't want you to Know
is a production of I heart Radio. For more podcasts
(46:59):
from my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.