|
In-House Memos on
Television And Print Media News Presentations
To see prior Installments of "Controlling the
News" click
here
During the middle of March, 2003, tbrnews received an email
from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive with a major
American television network. He stated in this, and subsequent,
emails that he was in possession of “thousands” of pages of
in-house memos sent from his corporate headquarters in New York
City to the head of the network’s television news department. He
went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what
material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of
the network.
This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts
about the strict control of media events and decided that he would
pass this material along to someone who might make use of it.
There was the question of his job security. If someone
published his name, it would be certain he was not only fired but
blackballed throughout his profession.
If tbrnews.org would agree to protect his identity, he
would send us these alleged thousands of pages of notes, going
back to 2001.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating so we accepted
his caveats and he then sent to us by disk the pages he spoke of.
All are on corporate stationary, signed or initialed by the
senders and again, signed or initialed by the recipients in the
news division.
It was always possible that this material consisted of a
very involved hoax or was something designed for the news site to
use and then have it revealed that it was not original. It would
not be the first time that spurious disinformation had been sent
to us in the hopes that it would be used.
There were not “thousands of pages” of memos but a
total of 1,497 separate pages involved. Many of them consisted of
short memos while others ran to a larger format.
Naturally, someone could easily have obtained correct
in-house network letterheads, made copies of them and prepared
false memoranda but the sheer size and depth of the collection was
impressive.
If these memos were true, they showed with a terrible
clarity that at least one part of the American mass media was
strictly controlled and that the news was so doctored and spun
that it might as well be official news releases from the White
House and Pentagon.
The best way in which to ascertain whether or not these
documents contained original information was to check the dates of
issuance and compare the information with subsequent news stories.
This was a terrible, time-consuming chore but by selecting
random memos and looking through the archives of various national
newspapers, checking AP releases and so on, the results indicated
that indeed, news was being managed.
However, it was also possible that someone else did this
and was preparing these after the fact and making the memos
conform to published material.
That having been said, we insisted on absolutely current
memos so that we could then check these against future
publications. If, for example, a corporate fiat was to show
certain pictures or spin a story in a certain way, it would be
relatively simple to simply read the press or watch television
news to see if these suggestions were implemented.
It was both shocking and gratifying to note that this
proved to be the case in a preponderance of cases and so we began
to put these up, either in toto or, more often, in excerpt
and watch as ordained news was created before our eyes.
When a corporate order states, for instance, that certain
pictures should be shown with accompanying commentary and the memo
predates a published story by a week or more, then it is more than
likely that the memos are not inspired guesswork but genuine.
When tbrnews put up the first two pages, there were two
basic forms of public response. One was to thank us for exposing
something many people believed; that the American media was
controlled and not free. (That much can easily be ascertained by
reading the websites of various reputable foreign publications
such as the Swiss NZZ, the British Guardian, the Canadian Toronto
Globe and Mail, Reuters News Service, AFP and the Jerusalem Post.
What any viewer can see on these sites is certainly not reflected
in the American media.)
The second response consisted of irate, and literate,
statements to the effect that all of these items were just stupid
hoaxes and should not be believed. “I believe,” one writer who
claimed to be a Professor of Journalism at an Ivy League college
said, “these are just disinformation designed to discredit
American journalists whose reputation for honesty and integrity is
certainly beyond question. You are performing a great disservice
in repeating these politically-motivated fictions…”
This is certainly a true statement because if it became
generally accepted that the American media was only a mechanical
parrot for various political organizations, it would no longer be
either believed or watched. If viewers turned off their television
sets, the networks would lose huge amounts of advertising revenue,
reporters would be laid off and people would turn instead to the
Internet for their news.
The file, “Controlling the News” has proven to be the
most durable and viewed section of tbrnews. As the result of our
earlier postings, we have been receiving a significant amount of
input that extends far beyond the scope of our original informant.
These sources include, but are certainly not limited to; an
employee of a major American news magazine, a source inside the
corporate offices of a major media conglomerate, various military
sources, foreign press and intelligence individuals and persons
connected with official agencies who are greatly disturbed by the
machinations of the current Administration.
That these sources have requested anonymity is
self-evident.
In the final analysis, it is always up to the reader to
make up their own mind as to the truth, or fiction, of what they
read. The media has an opposite view of this.
It is fairly obvious that the average Americans get their
news either from TV, mostly, or, to a shrinking number, from the
print media. If someone in East Peoria, Illinois sees something on
CNN, the Voice of the White House, they have no reason to question
it. And don't. The establishment does not worry about a website
that, as in our case, reaches perhaps 100,000 people at a time
when they have control over NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN that can, and
do, reach millions a day.
What do they care about people who email messages back and
forth? Even if a Pentagon plan to nuke North Korea were up on
the net, all that would happen is that some would say, "See,
I told you so!" while others would say "Oh shame! You
are questioning our Glorious Leader (appointed to his high office
by Almighty God Himself!) and putting our Brave Troops in
danger!"
If the honesty of the American mass media is finally
brought into serious question, perhaps the ruling Establishment
cannot jam their lies down the public's throat with such ease.
Walter
Storch
Part 28
(December 15, 2003)
Great rejoicing over the capture of
Hussein but realists inside the Beltway know that it is purely
symbolic. S. wasn’t doing anything but hiding in holes in the
ground while others, many not even connected with or sympathetic
to him are now running the resistance. He might even be viewed as
a martyr because, if the truth is ever known, Saddam used to work
for us and never attacked the United States. Well, the neocons had
to have their empire and the Bush supporters had to have their oil
so off for a nice, shock and awe war with lots of medals and big
military rallies George W. could strut his stuff at. God what an
unholy mess he dragged us into! The media now has to express its
very own shock and awe over the superb brilliance over the
capture. The SPCA could have done just as good a job. Now we all
expect the Pentagon to fly in planeloads of WMD and “find”
them where Saddam told us they were hidden. The question here is
who will they get to unload and bury them? GIs are liable to spill
the beans, the CIA is too stupid so that leaves George W. and his
Bible Buddy Karl Rove to do the work. Another mysterious trip to
Iraq, shovels out and here comes the election!
Law Enforcement and Intelligence Access to Information
|
|
Credit
History
|
Financial
and Credit Card
|
Medical
|
Educational
|
Video
Rental
|
|
Notice of Government Collection/Access
|
No - FCRA 625, 626 prohibit notice
|
RFPA 12 U.S.C. 3404-3408, 3414, 3420; delayed notice permitted,
3409
|
No notice of individual disclosures under HIPAA regs; Patriot 215
prohibits notice
|
No - FERPA 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(J), (j), FERPA regs, 34 C.F.R. 99.31
|
Yes - 18
U.S.C. 2710(b)
|
|
Standard for Government Access
|
Very weak - FCRA 604(a)(1), 608, 625 and 626
|
Very weak - GLB 15 U.S.C. 6802(e), RFPA 3402, 3405-3408, 3413,
3414, Patriot 215
|
Very weak - HIPAA regs, 45 CFR 164.512(f), (k), and Patriot 215
|
Need specific and articulable facts, FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g(j)(2),
or grand jury subpoena, 1232g(b)(1)(J)
|
Yes, need probable cause to
obtain video rental information - 2710(b)
|
|
Use and Disclosure Limit
|
FCRA 625 has limit but no limit if obtained via 626
|
RFPA 3412 & 3414 provide some limitations
|
No, Privacy Act routine use exception
|
FERPA 20
U.S.C. 1232g(j)(1)
|
No, Privacy Act routine use exception
|
|
Data Quality/
Right to Correct
|
Normal accuracy requirements, Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k)
|
Normal accuracy requirements, Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k)
|
Normal accuracy requirements, Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k)
|
Normal accuracy requirements, Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k)
|
Normal accuracy requirements, Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k)
|
|
Security
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
|
Access (Can Individual See What Has Been Collected About
Himself?)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k); FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k); FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k); FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k); FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k); FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
|
Accountability/
Enforcement
|
FCRA 625
|
Motion to quash, RFPA 3410; civil action, 3417, 3418
|
Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a(g)
|
No - FERPA 20
U.S.C. 1232g(j)
|
Civil action & exclusionary rule, 2710(c), (d)
|
Cont.
|
|
Cable
Viewing
|
Telephone/Internet/
Email Content
|
Telephone/
Internet/ Email Transactional
|
Other
Business Records
|
|
Notice of Government Collection/Access
|
Yes - 47
U.S.C. 551(h)
|
18
U.S.C. 2703, 2705 - notice
sometimes required (stored); 2518 - delayed notice
(real-time)
|
18
U.S.C. 2703, 2709 - no notice required
(stored); 3123 - notice prohibited (real-time)
|
Notice prohibited, Patriot
215
|
|
Standard for Government Access
|
Yes, need clear & convincing evidence to
obtain cable viewing information, 47 U.S.C. 551(h)(1)
|
2518 - need probable cause
(real-time), 2703 - sometimes need probable cause (stored)
|
2709 - relevance standard (stored);
3123 - relevance standard (real-time)
|
No - "sought for"
standard, Patriot 215
|
|
Use and Disclosure Limit
|
No, Privacy Act routine use
exception
|
Disclosure permitted in many
circumstances - 2517 (real-time)
|
No, except 2709(d)
|
No, Privacy Act routine use
exception
|
|
Data Quality/
Right to Correct
|
Normal accuracy requirements,
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k)
|
N/A
|
Normal accuracy requirements,
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k)
|
Normal accuracy requirements,
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5), subject to LE/intel
exception, (j), (k)
|
|
Security
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
CALEA Sec. 105; E-Gov Act,
Title III (44 U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
CALEA Sec. 105; E-Gov Act,
Title III (44 U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
E-Gov Act, Title III (44
U.S.C. 3541-3549)
|
|
Access (Can Individual See What Has Been Collected About
Himself?)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy
Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k); FOIA
exception (b)(7)
|
Judge may permit access,
2518(8)(d) (real-time); Privacy Act exceptions (j), (k);
FOIA exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy
Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k); FOIA
exception (b)(7)
|
Normal access rights, Privacy
Act 552a(d), subject to LE/intel exception, (j), (k); FOIA
exception (b)(7)
|
|
Accountability/
Enforcement
|
Can contest gov't attempt to access - 47
U.S.C.
551(h)(2)
|
Civil action, 2707, 2712
(stored); exclusionary rule, 2518(10), & civil action,
2520-2521 (real-time)
|
Civil action, 2707, 2712
(stored); penalty for knowing violation, 3121(d) (real-time)
|
No
|
|