June 12, 2015 • 46 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):
From UFOs to ghosts and government cover ups. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Victory
America as one large, unblinking According to a two thousand
(00:24):
thirteen ball of pole, about fifty five percent of this
eye gets its news about current events from television. The
Internet is a distant second at about twenty one percent.
A smaller bit of the eye, maybe nine percent, still
reads print and newspapers, while that last six percent the
(00:45):
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 producer know the spin, Dr Brown. So most
(01:07):
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, one outlet is just
(01:27):
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 outlets have
(01:48):
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 at here, Matt that you and I and I
assume Noel as well as on board with this. We
are not picking sides. We're not here to say that
(02:09):
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 media to
(02:34):
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,
(02:55):
you know, kind of the originator, let's say, of some
of the techniques that are in use 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, which
(03:19):
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 Burnet's
and we even because we got really into this guy,
and which is strange because he is sort of a
Darth Vader of manipulation. But or is he an Emperor Palpatine.
(03:41):
I'm not not sure right in and let us know
what you think. But but we actually had gotted 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 side entist maybe in
in how stuff works currently. Oh yeah, I can see
(04:04):
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 line between commercials, professional advice, and
(04:26):
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. Right, But this doesn't necessarily mean
that any given TV channel is going to lie or
misrepresent the story. Um. It just means that maybe they're
(04:48):
not reporting on it, maybe they're focusing and said on
something else, something I don't know a little more on
the surface, like let's say a celebrity's latest faux pas.
Celebrities later stumble Kanye West's latest out trace statement, or uh,
let's see bibs in there all the time? Sure, yeah,
(05:08):
or Cyrus Clint Eastwood says 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,
(05:29):
international crimes, these things 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
(05:51):
here and say, I don't think those celebrity stories are
important whatsoever. You don't think so, I don't think so.
Even if it's a person, you could make the argument
at their opinion shapers. Sure there that when they when
their opinion is adverse to let's say, the progressive views,
the current progressive views. I can see that being harmful
(06:13):
in some way. 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
(06:35):
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
(06:58):
to know who you are and be caught up on
your stuff. Have something changed, No, I'm just say it's
it's an ongoing process. But 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
(07:20):
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
(07:42):
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's some
nefarious scheme, or is this simply a sincere decision that
(08:07):
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,
(08:31):
or the blogger for instance, would decide to do to
preserve their career longevity. Right. There's a great book called
The Business of Media, Corporate Media, and the Public Interest
by these authors named David Korteaux and William Hoyn's and
they and I may be mispronouncing your names, guys, sorry,
They argue that this, this act of self censorship is
(08:55):
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 that 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 will watch. Not just in the States,
(09:17):
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 shut down? Has there been something that
(09:38):
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 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
weird one because we we always try to be respectful
(10:01):
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 he said that, just to see his reaction. So
we did a video on and a podcast on operations
(10:22):
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 you're interested in that story and you for
some reason, I haven't seen it yet, and Matt, you
(10:42):
and I found that we were pretty fortunate. The folks
at how stuff works in general are are pure. Podcasts
are are pretty fortunate as well, because we haven't had
someone come down like a hammer. But if someone is
manipulating the media, here are the three entities that are
most likely to be responsible. The first one is the money,
(11:07):
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, 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
(11:28):
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, 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
(11:50):
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 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
(12:12):
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. What's Richie's
last name? Jacobson? So, uh, doctor Richie Jacobson from the
(12:34):
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 keep naming
them all because I want to be fair. And the
interview is about the health benefits of butter. Are people
(12:56):
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 big companies
start eating each other and creating leviathans. It's that they
(13:17):
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,
they're beefing pretty harder. They were beefing a lot harder
like this previous year before that. But there's there's lots
(13:41):
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
can you can follow the breadcrumbs to to learn how
(14:02):
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,
you know this is my favorite one, right, Yeah. I
love stories where an unnamed official reported but they couldn't
(14:26):
make they 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
when that happens, we would caution you to be hypersensitive
(14:49):
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 swayed. Yes, and we're yeah,
to to provide a counterpoint, perhaps to something that's being
(15:11):
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
legal at this point, right. We know it's legal if
it's sanctioned by the actors. But then state level actors,
(15:35):
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
they think would be damaging you. Often hear this associated
with the phrase national security almost always the great boogeyman. Yeah,
(15:58):
if you can get away with preventing a story coming
out in the news that 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 think there's a big gray area here too,
because if publishing some sort of information harms people when
(16:21):
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 a democracy. Should the media be a
merciless reporting machine? Right? Should it exist not to help,
(16:43):
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 we've mentioned on the show before,
is a nonprofit entity that does you know, in depth
(17:05):
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. I think sometimes yeah, no kidding.
Another thing One thing that I don't think Pro Publica
has done, but that a lot of countries work with
(17:28):
media outlets to create are 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 RTIs
stood for before it pulled a TLC, right, and what
(17:48):
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 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. RT
(18:11):
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 and really paying attention, you'll see some
of the the hints at that stuff, right, Yeah, that
(18:35):
the government is is writing the think pieces or the
drug sometimes, well, I would say it's pretty often in art. 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 for propaganda purposes, and that leads us to another
another entity that can control these things the third one.
(18:58):
So we did the money right, the corporate sponsorship, we
did the state level interference. And there's something here that's
very individual, you know, very John Galt, I guess the
the ideology of the owner. Yeah, it's no surprise. These
are corporations. If you're a large news entity, you're a
(19:18):
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.
Whether you agree, whether you agree with what he thinks
(19:42):
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
actions of his audience. And it is totally legal. I
(20:04):
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.
So we have we have a quote for another example,
(20:27):
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 Koke brothers, specifically David Coke.
In the nineteen eighties, he began expanding his charitable contributions
to the media, donating twenty three million dollars to public
(20:49):
television over the years. He began serving as a trustee
of Boston's public broadcasting operation w g b H, and
in two thousand and six he joined in the board
of New York's public television outlet w n ET. Recent
news reports have suggested that the Koch brothers are considering
buying eight daily newspapers owned by the Tribune Company, one
(21:11):
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.
Clarence Page, a liberal Tribune columnist, recently said that the
(21:32):
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,
and and it should be noted that is a big
(21:53):
what if. That is a speculation on what might happen
if this goes through. It is not speculating shion that
he did take those actions, 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, right
(22:16):
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 seven, journalist named
Jane Akre and her then husband and partner, Steve Wilson
were journalists for a little station called w t VT
(22:38):
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 at 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,
(23:00):
this r B g H was 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
(23:21):
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
(23:45):
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
(24:05):
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,
(24:27):
w t VT there in Tampa, Florida killed the report,
and they said officially they killed it because this was
not breakthrough journalism, snow or looking for you guys, jeez.
So Wilson and Acre then claimed w t v T
was a lying and the channel said that this decision
occurred for the sake of fairness. I at fair and balance,
(24:48):
show both 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 revisions. Then w t v T fired
them without just cause or did not renew their contracts
(25:10):
which would have been up for renewal in the channel.
W t VT then later ran a report about Monsanto
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
(25:30):
you know, 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
shut down, this is not real journalism, this is unethical. Uh.
They had a long court battle, they went through appeals.
(25:51):
They finally lost the case in two thousand seven, their
final challenge with the f c C because the FCC
called the conflict and ed ptorial 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
(26:15):
a story? You know what I mean? 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
ninety four. United Fruit Company, great company. You should really
(26:35):
learn as much as you can about 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
(26:57):
of Guatemala and large in power, 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 linked in Congress
(27:21):
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 the coup
(27:43):
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 ye? What do
I gain from this action? But it worked and the R.
(28:05):
Bens government was overthrown thanks to this, uh, this series
of reports. So that was a while ago. 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 brand new world,
(28:30):
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 flop. There's four billion down the drain. Yeah,
(28:55):
Apple socked tank. There was a massive sell off. And
then Apple quickly notified 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. H Then there was a video,
an alleged video of Shell executive celebrating a new drilling venture.
(29:16):
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 with a
documentary that they made about what they were doing, where
they would impersonate an official from some giant corporation and
(29:37):
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
they would say, we apologize for whatever, we're going to
(30:00):
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 Pall spill and disaster. Uh,
and they said they were gonna pay I think I
think they said they were going to pay people in
Bo Paul for all the harm that they caused. Oh right, yeah.
(30:24):
This was in two thousand and four, twenty 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
harms in that incident because they were gonna liquidate you
and Union Carbide for like twelve billion dollars. Dal quickly said,
(30:45):
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 that we'd like to introduce you
guys to. Here in the West, a lot of possibly disruptive,
unfavorable or unpopular stories are issued on a Friday afternoon
(31:10):
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 if you just sproll 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
(31:30):
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 some stuff for you to check out if
you would like to delve into the strange world of
(31:52):
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 day of a Quoteaux and
William Hoyns. That second one is the essay we mentioned
by Edward Burns called Engineering Consent. And also I would
say maybe even first read Propaganda. Yes, Propaganda. Wow, what
(32:15):
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 owns. I'm gonna check my sholds when
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
(32:36):
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
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
(32:59):
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
is a stranger you are supposed to know for doing anything,
(33:21):
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 a US at
least that is consumed by its own illusions that sort
of fee on themselves, and how difficult it can be
(33:42):
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 media strategist, but the media manipulator is
(34:06):
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, leaning someone's
career that way, someone all this is some product or
celebrity becomes a viral sensation. But he says this doesn't
(34:30):
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 or huff Po, Huffington Post or BuzzFeed. These sites
they've spit out so much stuff and they are meant
(34:54):
to bait you into clicking. Right, you won't believe what
how linkable they are. Keyboards hate them, write something like that.
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
(35:15):
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
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.
(35:39):
Number three manipulators wield these levers to shape everything you read,
everything you see and watch online and sometimes offline. Right.
The Bernese legacy continues and in these in these books
you can learn more about the behind the scenes and
now be on at some of it's pretty dirty, uh,
(36:02):
the behind the scenes behavior that goes into the the story.
You all of a sudden saw the Internet go nuts
over like 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?
(36:25):
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 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,
(36:47):
ours included, perhaps has an agenda, then what you find
is that the best way to learn the objective facts
or truth about something is not to rely on one source.
Absolutely absolutely spread it out a little bit, because you're
those points of perspective from all these different outlets are
(37:09):
going to give you better perspective, right exactly. So it's
true that r T and maybe the Washington Post will
publish very different accounts of maybe the same events, right
And instead of thinking, well, I'm going to find one
(37:30):
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 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, Ben,
(37:51):
I was interested if you would like to hear some
listener mail. All right, so listener mail today, we have
some corrections, ladies and gentlemen come to us courtesy of
Stephen Kay. And Stephen Kay pointed out a huge goof
(38:11):
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
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
(38:33):
and we we appreciate it. We appreciate your time there. Okay,
we've got a little bit of time. Let's do one
more alright. This message comes from Corey. He says, Hey, guys,
really enjoy your show. Thanks dude. I was listening to
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
(38:54):
mentalism community. While you mentioned Darren Brown, take a look
at Anthony Wakin's hypnotism some in ours and products. He
has one called reality is Plastic, and the Trilby connection
and the Manchurion approach all sound interesting. In addition, there
are some other magic esque products out there on the market,
(39:14):
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.
It's based on routines that are psychological and aid and
assisting people to believe. Perhaps you can do a show
(39:34):
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,
I did a piece for brain Stuff on hypnotism earlier,
(39:54):
and this state of suggestibility concept does it does have
some sand to however, it's the the idea that you
could mentally overpower someone, put them in a trance and
make them do something insane. It's not that simple, nor
(40:16):
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
moment with Noll. Hey buddy, Hey guys, how's how's it going?
(40:37):
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 earbudonh nice you your 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 just
want to get into it. Just if that's okay? Do it? So?
(40:58):
I have now seen both of you form live in
front of audiences 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? 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
(41:22):
a keyboard, You're a composer, you are a multi instrument
and it 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 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
(41:46):
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 that like,
you know, I mean, I can improvide as 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.
(42:08):
So everybody been, I thank you for asking, Thank you
for asking. I primarily, uh I, I primarily count on mescaline.
You know, That's how live performances, yeah, is you know,
I mean, just take a bunch of mescaline, right, and
(42:30):
then the spirit is with you and then it's a
spirit journey whatever you're doing. Just in all in all fairness,
I have never tried mescaline. I'm not that. I'm not
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.
It's like you gotta tap a cactus or something nice.
(42:52):
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 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
(43:13):
performance really well, any safe your work performance. Don't crack
it up a little bit there. You know what I've
been revisiting lately. I don't know if you guys into this.
Have you heard of the group Destroyer's Yes, they were
big on album eight for All Time. Yeah, let's this guy,
Dan b b har B Jr. It's a Janito anounce
(43:35):
but he was also on 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
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 something.
(43:56):
There's something that I felt like maybe I would have
wanted to hear you guys touch Shohn 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
fact not going to be resuming his post. Really, Brian Williams,
didn't he get in trouble for uh exaggerating right this
(44:20):
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,
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 was a regular Anderson Cooper, So it really starts
blurring the lines and you're talking about like reporting celebrity gossip.
(44:42):
And then you have these reporters who themselves are celebrities
doing a performance, so I don't know. Yeah, uh that
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 at least, and gentlemen,
what do you think are some of the most often
(45:04):
censored or suppressed news stories? What do you what do
you think is dishonest about the media today? And why?
If 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.
(45:28):
I just I mean the biggest pancake you can imach
shore on top. And you can tell us about this
on Facebook and Twitter. You can visit our website deep
Breath Stuff they Don't Want you to Know dot com
for more information. We've got every podcast we've done up there.
We have a lot of our videos up there as well.
And if you'd like to email us directly, you can
answer these questions, or you can literally just say hi,
(45:50):
I'm fine, then drop us a line. We are conspiracy
at how stuff works dot com from one on this
topic and other unexplained phenomenon. Visit YouTube dot com slash
conspiracy stuff. You can also get in touch on Twitter
at the handle at conspiracy stuff
From UFOs to ghosts and government cover ups. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Victory
America as one large, unblinking According to a two thousand
(00:24):
thirteen ball of pole, about fifty five percent of this
eye gets its news about current events from television. The
Internet is a distant second at about twenty one percent.
A smaller bit of the eye, maybe nine percent, still
reads print and newspapers, while that last six percent the
(00:45):
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 producer know the spin, Dr Brown. So most
(01:07):
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, one outlet is just
(01:27):
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 outlets have
(01:48):
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 at here, Matt that you and I and I
assume Noel as well as on board with this. We
are not picking sides. We're not here to say that
(02:09):
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 media to
(02:34):
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,
(02:55):
you know, kind of the originator, let's say, of some
of the techniques that are in use 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, which
(03:19):
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 Burnet's
and we even because we got really into this guy,
and which is strange because he is sort of a
Darth Vader of manipulation. But or is he an Emperor Palpatine.
(03:41):
I'm not not sure right in and let us know
what you think. But but we actually had gotted 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 side entist maybe in
in how stuff works currently. Oh yeah, I can see
(04:04):
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 line between commercials, professional advice, and
(04:26):
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. Right, But this doesn't necessarily mean
that any given TV channel is going to lie or
misrepresent the story. Um. It just means that maybe they're
(04:48):
not reporting on it, maybe they're focusing and said on
something else, something I don't know a little more on
the surface, like let's say a celebrity's latest faux pas.
Celebrities later stumble Kanye West's latest out trace statement, or uh,
let's see bibs in there all the time? Sure, yeah,
(05:08):
or Cyrus Clint Eastwood says 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,
(05:29):
international crimes, these things 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
(05:51):
here and say, I don't think those celebrity stories are
important whatsoever. You don't think so, I don't think so.
Even if it's a person, you could make the argument
at their opinion shapers. Sure there that when they when
their opinion is adverse to let's say, the progressive views,
the current progressive views. I can see that being harmful
(06:13):
in some way. 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
(06:35):
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
(06:58):
to know who you are and be caught up on
your stuff. Have something changed, No, I'm just say it's
it's an ongoing process. But 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
(07:20):
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
(07:42):
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's some
nefarious scheme, or is this simply a sincere decision that
(08:07):
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,
(08:31):
or the blogger for instance, would decide to do to
preserve their career longevity. Right. There's a great book called
The Business of Media, Corporate Media, and the Public Interest
by these authors named David Korteaux and William Hoyn's and
they and I may be mispronouncing your names, guys, sorry,
They argue that this, this act of self censorship is
(08:55):
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 that 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 will watch. Not just in the States,
(09:17):
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 shut down? Has there been something that
(09:38):
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 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
weird one because we we always try to be respectful
(10:01):
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 he said that, just to see his reaction. So
we did a video on and a podcast on operations
(10:22):
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 you're interested in that story and you for
some reason, I haven't seen it yet, and Matt, you
(10:42):
and I found that we were pretty fortunate. The folks
at how stuff works in general are are pure. Podcasts
are are pretty fortunate as well, because we haven't had
someone come down like a hammer. But if someone is
manipulating the media, here are the three entities that are
most likely to be responsible. The first one is the money,
(11:07):
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, 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
(11:28):
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, 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
(11:50):
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 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
(12:12):
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. What's Richie's
last name? Jacobson? So, uh, doctor Richie Jacobson from the
(12:34):
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 keep naming
them all because I want to be fair. And the
interview is about the health benefits of butter. Are people
(12:56):
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 big companies
start eating each other and creating leviathans. It's that they
(13:17):
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,
they're beefing pretty harder. They were beefing a lot harder
like this previous year before that. But there's there's lots
(13:41):
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
can you can follow the breadcrumbs to to learn how
(14:02):
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,
you know this is my favorite one, right, Yeah. I
love stories where an unnamed official reported but they couldn't
(14:26):
make they 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
when that happens, we would caution you to be hypersensitive
(14:49):
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 swayed. Yes, and we're yeah,
to to provide a counterpoint, perhaps to something that's being
(15:11):
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
legal at this point, right. We know it's legal if
it's sanctioned by the actors. But then state level actors,
(15:35):
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
they think would be damaging you. Often hear this associated
with the phrase national security almost always the great boogeyman. Yeah,
(15:58):
if you can get away with preventing a story coming
out in the news that 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 think there's a big gray area here too,
because if publishing some sort of information harms people when
(16:21):
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 a democracy. Should the media be a
merciless reporting machine? Right? Should it exist not to help,
(16:43):
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 we've mentioned on the show before,
is a nonprofit entity that does you know, in depth
(17:05):
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. I think sometimes yeah, no kidding.
Another thing One thing that I don't think Pro Publica
has done, but that a lot of countries work with
(17:28):
media outlets to create are 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 RTIs
stood for before it pulled a TLC, right, and what
(17:48):
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 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. RT
(18:11):
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 and really paying attention, you'll see some
of the the hints at that stuff, right, Yeah, that
(18:35):
the government is is writing the think pieces or the
drug sometimes, well, I would say it's pretty often in art. 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 for propaganda purposes, and that leads us to another
another entity that can control these things the third one.
(18:58):
So we did the money right, the corporate sponsorship, we
did the state level interference. And there's something here that's
very individual, you know, very John Galt, I guess the
the ideology of the owner. Yeah, it's no surprise. These
are corporations. If you're a large news entity, you're a
(19:18):
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.
Whether you agree, whether you agree with what he thinks
(19:42):
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
actions of his audience. And it is totally legal. I
(20:04):
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.
So we have we have a quote for another example,
(20:27):
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 Koke brothers, specifically David Coke.
In the nineteen eighties, he began expanding his charitable contributions
to the media, donating twenty three million dollars to public
(20:49):
television over the years. He began serving as a trustee
of Boston's public broadcasting operation w g b H, and
in two thousand and six he joined in the board
of New York's public television outlet w n ET. Recent
news reports have suggested that the Koch brothers are considering
buying eight daily newspapers owned by the Tribune Company, one
(21:11):
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.
Clarence Page, a liberal Tribune columnist, recently said that the
(21:32):
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,
and and it should be noted that is a big
(21:53):
what if. That is a speculation on what might happen
if this goes through. It is not speculating shion that
he did take those actions, 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, right
(22:16):
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 seven, journalist named
Jane Akre and her then husband and partner, Steve Wilson
were journalists for a little station called w t VT
(22:38):
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 at 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,
(23:00):
this r B g H was 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
(23:21):
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
(23:45):
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
(24:05):
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,
(24:27):
w t VT there in Tampa, Florida killed the report,
and they said officially they killed it because this was
not breakthrough journalism, snow or looking for you guys, jeez.
So Wilson and Acre then claimed w t v T
was a lying and the channel said that this decision
occurred for the sake of fairness. I at fair and balance,
(24:48):
show both 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 revisions. Then w t v T fired
them without just cause or did not renew their contracts
(25:10):
which would have been up for renewal in the channel.
W t VT then later ran a report about Monsanto
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
(25:30):
you know, 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
shut down, this is not real journalism, this is unethical. Uh.
They had a long court battle, they went through appeals.
(25:51):
They finally lost the case in two thousand seven, their
final challenge with the f c C because the FCC
called the conflict and ed ptorial 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
(26:15):
a story? You know what I mean? 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
ninety four. United Fruit Company, great company. You should really
(26:35):
learn as much as you can about 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
(26:57):
of Guatemala and large in power, 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 linked in Congress
(27:21):
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 the coup
(27:43):
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 ye? What do
I gain from this action? But it worked and the R.
(28:05):
Bens government was overthrown thanks to this, uh, this series
of reports. So that was a while ago. 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 brand new world,
(28:30):
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 flop. There's four billion down the drain. Yeah,
(28:55):
Apple socked tank. There was a massive sell off. And
then Apple quickly notified 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. H Then there was a video,
an alleged video of Shell executive celebrating a new drilling venture.
(29:16):
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 with a
documentary that they made about what they were doing, where
they would impersonate an official from some giant corporation and
(29:37):
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
they would say, we apologize for whatever, we're going to
(30:00):
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 Pall spill and disaster. Uh,
and they said they were gonna pay I think I
think they said they were going to pay people in
Bo Paul for all the harm that they caused. Oh right, yeah.
(30:24):
This was in two thousand and four, twenty 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
harms in that incident because they were gonna liquidate you
and Union Carbide for like twelve billion dollars. Dal quickly said,
(30:45):
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 that we'd like to introduce you
guys to. Here in the West, a lot of possibly disruptive,
unfavorable or unpopular stories are issued on a Friday afternoon
(31:10):
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 if you just sproll 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
(31:30):
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 some stuff for you to check out if
you would like to delve into the strange world of
(31:52):
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 day of a Quoteaux and
William Hoyns. That second one is the essay we mentioned
by Edward Burns called Engineering Consent. And also I would
say maybe even first read Propaganda. Yes, Propaganda. Wow, what
(32:15):
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 owns. I'm gonna check my sholds when
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
(32:36):
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
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
(32:59):
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
is a stranger you are supposed to know for doing anything,
(33:21):
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 a US at
least that is consumed by its own illusions that sort
of fee on themselves, and how difficult it can be
(33:42):
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 media strategist, but the media manipulator is
(34:06):
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, leaning someone's
career that way, someone all this is some product or
celebrity becomes a viral sensation. But he says this doesn't
(34:30):
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 or huff Po, Huffington Post or BuzzFeed. These sites
they've spit out so much stuff and they are meant
(34:54):
to bait you into clicking. Right, you won't believe what
how linkable they are. Keyboards hate them, write something like that.
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
(35:15):
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
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.
(35:39):
Number three manipulators wield these levers to shape everything you read,
everything you see and watch online and sometimes offline. Right.
The Bernese legacy continues and in these in these books
you can learn more about the behind the scenes and
now be on at some of it's pretty dirty, uh,
(36:02):
the behind the scenes behavior that goes into the the story.
You all of a sudden saw the Internet go nuts
over like 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?
(36:25):
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 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,
(36:47):
ours included, perhaps has an agenda, then what you find
is that the best way to learn the objective facts
or truth about something is not to rely on one source.
Absolutely absolutely spread it out a little bit, because you're
those points of perspective from all these different outlets are
(37:09):
going to give you better perspective, right exactly. So it's
true that r T and maybe the Washington Post will
publish very different accounts of maybe the same events, right
And instead of thinking, well, I'm going to find one
(37:30):
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 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, Ben,
(37:51):
I was interested if you would like to hear some
listener mail. All right, so listener mail today, we have
some corrections, ladies and gentlemen come to us courtesy of
Stephen Kay. And Stephen Kay pointed out a huge goof
(38:11):
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
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
(38:33):
and we we appreciate it. We appreciate your time there. Okay,
we've got a little bit of time. Let's do one
more alright. This message comes from Corey. He says, Hey, guys,
really enjoy your show. Thanks dude. I was listening to
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
(38:54):
mentalism community. While you mentioned Darren Brown, take a look
at Anthony Wakin's hypnotism some in ours and products. He
has one called reality is Plastic, and the Trilby connection
and the Manchurion approach all sound interesting. In addition, there
are some other magic esque products out there on the market,
(39:14):
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.
It's based on routines that are psychological and aid and
assisting people to believe. Perhaps you can do a show
(39:34):
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,
I did a piece for brain Stuff on hypnotism earlier,
(39:54):
and this state of suggestibility concept does it does have
some sand to however, it's the the idea that you
could mentally overpower someone, put them in a trance and
make them do something insane. It's not that simple, nor
(40:16):
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
moment with Noll. Hey buddy, Hey guys, how's how's it going?
(40:37):
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 earbudonh nice you your 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 just
want to get into it. Just if that's okay? Do it? So?
(40:58):
I have now seen both of you form live in
front of audiences 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? 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
(41:22):
a keyboard, You're a composer, you are a multi instrument
and it 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 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
(41:46):
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 that like,
you know, I mean, I can improvide as 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.
(42:08):
So everybody been, I thank you for asking, Thank you
for asking. I primarily, uh I, I primarily count on mescaline.
You know, That's how live performances, yeah, is you know,
I mean, just take a bunch of mescaline, right, and
(42:30):
then the spirit is with you and then it's a
spirit journey whatever you're doing. Just in all in all fairness,
I have never tried mescaline. I'm not that. I'm not
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.
It's like you gotta tap a cactus or something nice.
(42:52):
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 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
(43:13):
performance really well, any safe your work performance. Don't crack
it up a little bit there. You know what I've
been revisiting lately. I don't know if you guys into this.
Have you heard of the group Destroyer's Yes, they were
big on album eight for All Time. Yeah, let's this guy,
Dan b b har B Jr. It's a Janito anounce
(43:35):
but he was also on 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
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 something.
(43:56):
There's something that I felt like maybe I would have
wanted to hear you guys touch Shohn 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
fact not going to be resuming his post. Really, Brian Williams,
didn't he get in trouble for uh exaggerating right this
(44:20):
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,
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 was a regular Anderson Cooper, So it really starts
blurring the lines and you're talking about like reporting celebrity gossip.
(44:42):
And then you have these reporters who themselves are celebrities
doing a performance, so I don't know. Yeah, uh that
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 at least, and gentlemen,
what do you think are some of the most often
(45:04):
censored or suppressed news stories? What do you what do
you think is dishonest about the media today? And why?
If 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.
(45:28):
I just I mean the biggest pancake you can imach
shore on top. And you can tell us about this
on Facebook and Twitter. You can visit our website deep
Breath Stuff they Don't Want you to Know dot com
for more information. We've got every podcast we've done up there.
We have a lot of our videos up there as well.
And if you'd like to email us directly, you can
answer these questions, or you can literally just say hi,
(45:50):
I'm fine, then drop us a line. We are conspiracy
at how stuff works dot com from one on this
topic and other unexplained phenomenon. Visit YouTube dot com slash
conspiracy stuff. You can also get in touch on Twitter
at the handle at conspiracy stuff
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com