台南阿翰 wrote:
你們就保佑越唱票越多(恕刪)
小弟我就是希望民進黨永續執政.....
這代的風風雨雨，就在這一代徹底解決.....
所以大家繼續傳唱吧~!!!
讓民進黨永續執政，讓大家再一次看看大陸的文攻武嚇，是多麼的虛假~!!!
不怕中共打來，就怕中共不敢打~!!!
個人積分：770分
文章編號：83046586
個人積分：2033分
文章編號：83046860
個人積分：5951分
文章編號：83047277
中天不就是因為批評民進黨政府被關台嗎?一個民主國家居然不能容忍不同聲音樓主說的邏輯已經不成立了 中天被關台就能證明民進黨是獨裁政府[100分][100分][100分]
個人積分：980分
文章編號：83047562
你看看
美國的媒體報導新聞前
都要送美國政府國家安全官員審查
批准後才能報導
幾乎所有的媒體都跟CIA合作
這就是所謂的民主國家
難怪美國最新民調
只有29%的美國人
相信他們的媒體
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/24/new-york-times-media-us-government-approval/
new york times building
NY Times admits it sends some stories to US government for approval before publication
BEN NORTON·JUNE 24, 2019
The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to the US government before publication, to make sure “national security officials” have “no concerns.”
By Ben Norton
Puedes leer este artículo en español aquí.
The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.
This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.
On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”
In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”
The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.
“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said. “We described the article to the government before publication.”
“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.
Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.
‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials
The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, “We help run #TheResistance,” responded by calling Trump “Putin’s puppet”). The rest of the corporate media went wild.
But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the New York Times’ statement: The newspaper of record was essentially admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.
In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a journalist.
In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange is “not a journalist”; rather, he is a “spy” who “deserves prison.” (Thiessen also once called Assange “the devil.”)
What was the Post columnist’s rationale for revoking Assange’s journalistic credentials?
Unlike “reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the U.S. government an opportunity to review the classified information WikiLeaks was planning to release so they could raise national security objections,” Thiessen wrote. “So responsible journalists have nothing to fear.”
In other words, this former US government speechwriter turned corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the government, and censoring your reporting to protect so-called “national security,” is definitionally what makes you a journalist.
This is the express ideology of the American commentariat.
NY Times editors ‘quite willing to cooperate with the government’
The symbiotic relationship between the US corporate media and the government has been known for some time. American intelligence agencies play the press like a musical instrument (specifically a “mighty wurlitzer,” boasted CIA co-founder Frank Wisner), using it to selectively leak information at opportune moments to push US soft power and advance Washington’s interests.
But rarely is this symbiotic relationship so casually and publicly acknowledged.
In 2018, former New York Times reporter James Risen published a 15,000-word article in The Intercept providing further insight into how this unspoken alliance operates.
Risen detailed how his editors had been “quite willing to cooperate with the government.” In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was, “How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?”
There is an “informal arrangement” between the state and the press, Risen explained, where US government officials “regularly engaged in quiet negotiations with the press to try to stop the publication of sensitive national security stories.”
“At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations,” the former New York Times reported said. He recalled an example of a story he was writing on Afghanistan just prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Then-CIA Director George Tenet called Risen personally and asked him to kill the story.
“He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA officers in Afghanistan,” Risen said. “I agreed.”
Risen said he later questioned whether or not this was the right decision. “If I had reported the story before 9/11, the CIA would have been angry, but it might have led to a public debate about whether the United States was doing enough to capture or kill bin Laden,” he wrote. “That public debate might have forced the CIA to take the effort to get bin Laden more seriously.”
This dilemma led Risen to reconsider responding to US government requests to censor stories. “And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times,” he said.
“After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the press to kill stories more frequently,” Risen continued. “They did it so often that I became convinced the administration was invoking national security to quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing.”
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Risen frequently “clashed” with Times editors because he raised questions about the US government’s lies. But his stories “stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether.”
The Times’ executive editor Howell Raines “was believed by many at the paper to prefer stories that supported the case for war,” Risen said.
In another anecdote, the former Times journalist recalled a scoop he had uncovered on a botched CIA plot. The Bush administration got wind of it and called him to the White House, where then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ordered the Times to bury the story.
Risen said Rice told him “to forget about the story, destroy my notes, and never make another phone call to discuss the matter with anyone.”
“The Bush administration was successfully convincing the press to hold or kill national security stories,” Risen wrote. And the Barack Obama administration subsequently accelerated the “war on the press.”
CIA media infiltration and manufacturing consent
In their renowned study of US media, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Chomsky articulated a “propaganda model,” showing how “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them,” through “the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”
But in some cases, the relationship between US intelligence agencies and the corporate media is not just one of mere ideological policing, indirect pressure, or friendship, but rather one of employment.
In the 1950s, the CIA launched a covert operation called Project Mockingbird, in which it surveilled, influenced, and manipulated American journalists and media coverage, explicitly in order to direct public opinion against the Soviet Union, China, and the growing international communist movement.
Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled “The CIA and the Media: How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.”
Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Bernstein wrote:
“Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”
Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
However, he added, “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”
These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto spokespeople for the government — or at least for the US national security state.
個人積分：153分
文章編號：83048152
cll2005 wrote:
中天不就是因為批評民...(恕刪)
批評跟造謠差那麼多，就像有人造謠王小姐一樣，還不是求饒求道歉，中天迄今完全沒有道歉，硬拗到底了，那NCC還需要給他面子嗎？總統又不是姓馬⋯
中天新聞台屢次違規及遭民眾申訴，未能落實新聞專業
NCC說明，中天新聞台執照效期內（103.12.12～109.12.11），截至決議日中天新聞台違規情形，共計違規25次，受警告處分2件，受罰鍰處分23件，核處金額共計1153萬元。受核處事由包含：違反事實查證12件、妨害公序良俗5件、妨害兒少身心健康4件、節目廣告不分2件、違反兒少法1件、營運不當1件。
依該會受理人民陳情及申訴案件統計，民眾申訴案件由106年72件(占本會受理電視類人民陳情及申訴總量4.71%)增加至108年962件(占本會受理電視類人民陳情與申訴總量31.55%)。
中天新聞台雖有部分節目獲得獎項肯定，但其核心節目每日新聞與政論節目卻屢屢違反法律規範，顯示該台的新聞專業難以落實。
107年評鑑後，中天新聞台內控與自律機制失靈
NCC表示，該台制定之相關內控及自律機制與其他新聞台相仿，尚稱完善，此由該台前次評鑑期間查無違規紀錄，可見其有能力落實新聞專業。
但自評鑑後，該台即累積大量違規，其倫理委員會對觀眾申訴幾未提出實質有效討論，失去批判矯正功能。教育訓練規劃亦未能有效連結民眾申訴、裁罰案件，且內容常與新聞專業無關，有淪為表面功夫之嫌。另該台亦未遵守自訂之「中天專業倫理規範」及「中天涉己事務新聞製播規範」，且有新聞部主管長期未予補實之情事，顯見其內部控管與自律機制運作失靈。
新聞製播遭受不當干擾，違反「中天電視新聞自主公約」
NCC補充，針對中天新聞換照案，先前已經109年8月21日申設及換照諮詢會議第142次會議審議，並作成建議不予換照之初審決議。
為使該公司能充分與本會及社會展開對話，該會召開聽證會，惟該台未能就其「內控與自律失靈之原因」及「如何排除上層股東干預與解決機制」，提出有利之說明。且依聽證會上中天公司董事林柏川先生與大股東蔡衍明先生之陳述證實大股東蔡衍明先生、非中天公司人員邱佳瑜女士直接或間接介入中天新聞台製播之情事，明顯違反該公司所訂「中天電視新聞自主公約」，新聞部相關主管均未表示異議，亦未見自律內控機制對此提出檢討與反省，印證該台營運不善。
中天新聞所提補充意見與承諾，未能具體說明改善可能性
NCC表示，換照過程中，中天公司提出多次補充意見陳述及承諾，包括：
1.增加1名專職編審。
2.落實新版教育訓練計畫。
3.強化新聞台考核制度。
4.確實履行評論性節目的風險控管。
5.強化申訴案件處理。
6.確實執行倫理委員會決議及增加倫委員成員。
7.配合主管機關指導執行獨立審查人制度。
8.落實中天新聞台人事由中天電視董事會及總經理管理的制度。
惟此8項措施仍未能有效說明其如何排除上層股東不當干預。該會補充，103年審理中天新聞換照案時，尚盼中天公司依各項要求改正，該台雖受到該會多次警示與要求落實附款，卻未能如實執行。綜上所述，中天公司未遵守自定之新聞製播規範、多次虛偽陳述、選擇性執行自訂之相關自律規範，使該會認為未改善過往違規情事，更難以落實未來6年營運計畫，因此依衛廣法第19條規定駁回其申請，不予換照。
個人積分：27分
文章編號：83048619
個人積分：536分
文章編號：83048736
個人積分：2496分
文章編號：83048758
說起造謠 誰比得上 塔綠班?光看 3+1 事件,時鐘說了幾次謊,造了多少謠?[100分][100分][100分]
個人積分：2496分
文章編號：83048789
