“News
is something someone wants suppressed. Everything else is just advertising” – Lord Northcliff.
There
are several ways of manipulating the news, if one has either the money or the
power to do so. The government, evidently, has both. This is why one should
cast about to see different news sources and to keep a healthy dose of
suspicion when reading something that appears improbable. For North American
news, there’s Snopes (here) to help winnow out the silliness.
Unfortunately,
as more people begin to distrust the mainstream news, they become attracted to
news-sites that can guarantee to serve them the news that attracts their
particular prejudice (see Fox News, Breitbart or OKDiario for far-right examples, The Express for pro-Brexit, Rapture
Ready for Christian end-of-times news and Mother Jones for the far-left).
Newspapers
have the biggest problems today. The falling sales and the rising costs of
production mean they must take any income they can find. These days, it costs
at least one euro per copy just in print bills. Free newspapers (we have a few
in Spain) are even more sorely placed – the English or German language ones
can’t even distribute by mail-box, so are obliged to add editorial in the hope
of making them attractive to the reader. But – who pays the printing bill?
The
Spanish government, which apparently spends 60 million euros a year in
‘institutional advertising’ (‘Eat Andalusian food’, ‘Visit Galicia’ etc), plus
all the autonomous and local governments with a similarly vast sum (we wonder
how much Catalonia spends?) expecting one thing in return. Keep the editorial
more or less treacly.
El País in
English
has an astonishing article flatly refuting this here. They deny calls ‘...to say that this newspaper is acting
under the orders of the central government during this Catalan crisis. And that
is a serious affront, because the independence of this newspaper and its
professionals are completely protected from any interference from the
powers-that-be by a charter that is an example among the European press...’.
You should see the ‘comments’ to the article...
Only
a week before, El País had fired John Carlin for writing a pro-Catalonian viewpoint in
the Times of London.
A kind of media manipulation
is called astroturfing in the USA. ‘Grass
roots opinion’, if you like, but contrived yet sold as genuine. An article in Vozpópuli
considers how the Government in Spain employs this technique: fake news items are
placed in smaller outlets and are picked up on the social media (perhaps with a
little help) to then become huge. Venezuela
anyone? Esperanza Aguirre, the regional boss of the PP in 2009, had 45,000
Twitter accounts, apparently.
How much is a full page advert in El País? 50,000€. The Government with its regular campaigns, will of
course be getting it much cheaper (who, we wonder, gets the rápel – the cash kickback on all major campaigns?).
Here’s a recent example.
You can find these and similar adverts in any newspaper from La Voz de Almería to El Mundo. Does this all make El País a bad newspaper? Of course not. Some of Spain's best columnists write for it and it is considered as the leading opinion maker.
Which makes it all the more important that its opinions and information are accurate.
Which makes it all the more important that its opinions and information are accurate.
As for Government-owned
media, like the national RTVE, things are even easier. Here’s ‘23 examples of Manipulation on the TVE news over
Catalonia’ from VerTele (or, should
we believe it anyway?)
Here’s another problem with
today’s news: ‘...Real investigative journalism – the kind that blows the lid
off criminal or unethical activity and goes deep in the trenches was done at a
loss – as a public service, to establish credibility and fulfil its duty as the
Fourth Estate. The monetary gains from this kind of journalism aren’t
immediately apparent – the profits are intangible, and can’t easily be put on a
spreadsheet. So, when the news outlets were bought by larger corporations, the
value of this intangible was lost. The overseers are interested in the bottom
line, and if it can’t be directly linked to dollars, they trim the fat. Bye-bye
in-depth investigative reporting, hello gotcha journalism...’. From Flashback here.
And lastly:
'Censorship is not always
committed by an individual in some secret totalitarian government room, editing
uncomfortable truths out of reporting and books. In a democracy where the vast
majority of the news is financed by advertising or corporate sponsorships, the
subtle censor sits in the back of a journalist's, producer's, editor's or
owner's mind.
Censorship in a corporatized
democracy is a tacit understanding not to offend advertisers, which means that
that the nation sees reality through the distorted lens of business or
political interests' (no attribution).