VOA To Do Propaganda?

[TheBigA]

Like this morning I saw X in the Times (or Washington Post or USA Today or Guardian) website and NPR had nothing on it.

Those would all be typical primary sources for NPR. If it's in any of those papers, chances are good that it's also on NPR. Also the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and Chicago Tribune. And it's pretty typical for NPR to then interview the reporter who covered the story for that paper.

 

[Avid Listener]

Avid, I know. But all you need to do is offer a for instance now and then. Like this morning I saw X in the Times (or Washington Post or USA Today or Guardian) website and NPR had nothing on it.

Those who agree with me don't need to be convinced, while no amount of examples would persuade people like TheBigA. Life's too short to waste time digging up examples that won't matter.

 

[TheBigA]

Those who agree with me don't need to be convinced, while no amount of examples would persuade people like TheBigA. Life's too short to waste time digging up examples that won't matter.

The biggest criticism I hear about NPR, and one that I'd agree with, is that it draws too much of its news from America's biggest newspapers, rather than generating it's own stuff. And that's a criticism I'd agree with. No one's said that here yet.

 

[FredLeonard]

Those who agree with me don't need to be convinced, while no amount of examples would persuade people like TheBigA. Life's too short to waste time digging up examples that won't matter.

Boo! Cop out!

The biggest criticism I hear about NPR, and one that I'd agree with, is that it draws too much of its news from America's biggest newspapers, rather than generating it's own stuff. And that's a criticism I'd agree with. No one's said that here yet.

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end. Amen. Everybody gets almost all their news from newspapers. NPR and the commercial networks. NPR is somewhat less slavishly attached to the front page of the Times in making news judgements than the Big 3 commercial networks. Broadcasters package news; they don't originate, generate or gather it.

 

[TheBigA]

Broadcasters package news; they don't originate, generate or gather it.

If they did, then they'd be attacked for being biased.

 

[FredLeonard]

If they did, then they'd be attacked for being biased.

You mean they are not now?

Nobody wants unbiased. People want agreement and confirmation. The news business started going to the rat hole when they started marketing faux "objectivity" to appeal to advertisers and broaden the audience base. Only Fox seems to realize this.

NPR panders to corporate underwriters and the right-wing appointees to the CPB. It panders to activists in victim/entitlement groups. They figure if they annoy everybody sometimes, they are being objective.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, and those are pretty good odds." - Pappy Maverick

 

[TheBigA]

Nobody wants unbiased. People want agreement and confirmation.

Some people do. But I really think some people want reporting they can trust and believe. Not everyone wants the same thing.

 

[FredLeonard]

Some people do. But I really think some people want reporting they can trust and believe. Not everyone wants the same thing.

I guess you never took social psychology or communications theory in college. What people "trust and believe" is what they agree with.

Confirmation - not information.
Selective attention. Selective perception. Selective recall.

Of course, you won't believe it because you don't agree with it, which makes the point.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess you never took social psychology or communications theory in college.

I never took BS courses in college.

 

[Avid Listener]

You mean they are not now?

Nobody wants unbiased. People want agreement and confirmation. The news business started going to the rat hole when they started marketing faux "objectivity" to appeal to advertisers and broaden the audience base. Only Fox seems to realize this.

NPR panders to corporate underwriters and the right-wing appointees to the CPB. It panders to activists in victim/entitlement groups. They figure if they annoy everybody sometimes, they are being objective.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, and those are pretty good odds." - Pappy Maverick

Most people are unaware that the concept of "unbiased journalism" was a marketing gimmick Joe Pulitzer came up with in his newspaper circulation wars with William Randolph Hearst. Pulitzer attempted to compete against Hearst under the banner of "unbiased reporting". As gimmicks go, it worked for a while, but didn't really last.

For the most part, the people who still beat the "unbiased journalism" horse are journalism professors in liberal colleges.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What people "trust and believe" is what they agree with.

Confirmation - not information.
Selective attention. Selective perception. Selective recall.

I took psychology courses at Indiana University until they called me in and said: "No More. If you take any more we will not allow you to count the hours even as elective hours."

I guess I slept through the one that proclaimed what you are claiming.

In one of these threads I have made note that SOME PEOPLE have a personal trait of that nature... but not as a general psychological truth that affects all people universally.

 

[FredLeonard]

I took psychology courses at Indiana University until they called me in and said: "No More. If you take any more we will not allow you to count the hours even as elective hours."

I guess I slept through the one that proclaimed what you are claiming.

In one of these threads I have made note that SOME PEOPLE have a personal trait of that nature... but not as a general psychological truth that affects all people universally.

Psychology is a broad field. They would not cover in this in "abnormal psych," for instance. I won't bite on "universally." Few things in human behavior are. But what I describe has been documented as "human nature." The fact that you want to cling to the misguided and misapplied concept of objectivity tends to support the idea. Also supporting the idea is that objectivity is so rarely (if ever) found.

Pulitzer was far from a practitioner of objectivity (but then neither is "fair and balanced" Fox). The idea came from the business side. Not from journalism professors.

 

[boombox4]

I don't mean to veer the thread away from its original topic, but I remember when the AFRTS covered the SW spectrum (well, the word "covered" is an exaggeration... but they used to have several frequencies that were running nearly 24/7), and they would play news and programming from all the radio networks, be it CBS, ABC, NBC, Mutual, NPR, etc....

I always thought the AFTRS broadcasts presented the "American" perspective of the news as well as the VOA. Of course, it was intended for US servicemen, and it was all in English, so obviously it left a large portion of the world out of its potential listenership.

 

[FredLeonard]

I don't mean to veer the thread away from its original topic, but I remember when the AFRTS covered the SW spectrum (well, the word "covered" is an exaggeration... but they used to have several frequencies that were running nearly 24/7), and they would play news and programming from all the radio networks, be it CBS, ABC, NBC, Mutual, NPR, etc....

I always thought the AFTRS broadcasts presented the "American" perspective of the news as well as the VOA. Of course, it was intended for US servicemen, and it was all in English, so obviously it left a large portion of the world out of its potential listenership.

AFRTS used VOA short-wave transmitters to relay programs. Those short-wave stations were used to feed programs to AFRTS stations or command-wide networks. It's not what the troops heard (unless some GI had his own short-wave receiver). And AFRTS was a propaganda service. "The voice of the commander." It was there to motivate troops and build morale. It also had to placate the local government (or dictator) of the host country. Programming reflected the tastes and biases of career (lifer) NCOs who ran things. I worked there. And watch "Good Morning, Viet Nam" if you don't believe me.

 

[TheBigA]

It's been a few months since this thread, and I just saw that the House of Representatives passed the bill that would make significant changes in the Voice of America. Not surprisingly, the VOA itself isn't pleased by the decision:

http://www.voanews.com/content/hous...ul-us-international-broadcasting/1967013.html

However, as the article points out, the issue hasn't even been brought up in the Senate, and that would have to happen in order for the bill to become law.

 

[Small Market Guy]

However, as the article points out, the issue hasn't even been brought up in the Senate, and that would have to happen in order for the bill to become law.

Which won't happen. Harry Reid has shut down the Senate. Unless he personally signs off on this bill, it won't even get a vote.

 

[FredLeonard]

Which won't happen. Harry Reid has shut down the Senate. Unless he personally signs off on this bill, it won't even get a vote.

Are wing-nuts pathological liars or just incapable of getting their facts right? Both houses have recessed. They do it every year at this time. No single senator can "shut down the Senate."

Or single-highhandedly block legislation. In the house, yes. This is the senate. Try keep the two straight.

Is this the kind of bull you feed the rednecks and miners who never made it to middle school civics? Did you ever make it to middle school civics?

 

[umfan]

Um, Fred, do your homework. A Senator can put a hold on any bill stopping its progress. Any Senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold

 

[FredLeonard]

What you are referring to is like a "black ball." It's done in secret. Any senator can do it. The name of the senator is not made public. Nothing happens. It is not what King Gillette described and there is no indication such a hold has been effected or that Harry Reid was involved. The senate leaders do not need to "sign off." The procedure he describes applies to the chairman of the house rules committee, not a senate leader.

 

[RadioFan2J3]

VOA also operated transmitters for AFRTS, which was pure, brainwash-the-troops propaganda and made no bones about it.

Yes, it was true VOA operated transmitters for AFRTS, but in the years that I monitored the AFRTS programming on VOA transmitters, I don't recall perhaps more than a few moments of AFRTS originated audio, other than the AFRTS IDs between programs. If there were other pieces of AFRTS originated audio, it was to block a commercial announcement from the networks.

Bear in mind, it has been nearly 25 years since I've listened to any AFRTS broadcasts on VOA, and more to the point, they've not been on VOA transmitters for pretty much that same amount of time, but my memory of the AFRTS programming was pretty much the 5 minutes news casts during the first 30 minutes of the hour - AP Radio was live or maybe delayed a few seconds, then the major five minute news casts were delayed, running to the bottom of the hour.

The second half hour may have been devoted to the longer (but also delayed) news programs, but it always depended on which hour. I seem to recall AFRTS ran two hours of NPR in the morning (6-8 AM ET Morning Line) and one to two hours of NPR in the afternoon (All Things Considered). I don't remember the time slot in the afternoon ET.