Hillary, Obama, Bilderberg, ethical journalism, balanced news gathering and effective communication

I’ve pasted a response to a friend’s political forum below this explaination.

The response and this post were prompted by a link from that forum to an article, Hillary and Obama in secret Bilderberg rendezvous, on Alex Jones’ Infowars.

The article accused the Associated Press, and all ”corporate media” of failing to report that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were meeting at the 2008 Bilderberg Conference in Chantilly, Va., Thursday night.

According to the AP article in question, Obama and Clinton met to discuss uniting Democrats, though the journalist’s source only smiled when asked to disclose the whereabouts of the meeting, leaving the location to the writer’s imagination.

Please recall: journalists shouldn’t report on their wonderings in the news, unless it’s on the Op-Ed page.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama did meet at the Bilderberg Conference Thursday night and are still hanging out there, huddled with the world’s muckety mucks, blueprinting the future. Would it be shocking if they were? No.

The bottom line to this journalism student: a good, ethical journalist wouldn’t report they were at a meeting if they did not have confirmation they, in fact, were.

However, and what’s especially unfortunate, even if the journalist– note there isn’t a byline– attended the meeting and saw Hillary and Obama there themselves, the nature of this type of meeting and the relationship between top U.S. news organizations, their editors and politics would likely keep the news out of the public eye; which is a damn shame because that’s the opposite of what the media is charged with in our country.

The Bilderberg “Blackout” The press corps’ noncoverage of that weekend conference in Chantilly, Va. (Slate)

We absolutely deserve better, but are we going to get it? Probably not. Not unless we, as a people, inform ourselves and stand up for our rights. The problem: most of us aren’t informed or willing to stand up because, as a lot, we’ve grown lazy and dull.

So, will things change? It’s not likely, but it is possible.

The main points in my forum response, and I hope I communicated them, are:

• We should not rely on one-sided news.
• We should, as intelligent citizens, expect editors to be in bed with politicians.
• This story is not an example of good journalism; the media should lift the political veil for a country’s citizenry, not staple it to the floor.
• As citizens, if we want the truth, we’re going to have to actively seek it by looking at important issues from all angles and by sharing information with each other– effectively, with more logic than emotion.

 With that, here is the text of my response:

I looked up “Bilderberg” in my on-line AP Stylebook. There is no listing. So, I e-mailed the editors and asked. I sent them the link from InfoWars.com as well as from the blog linked in that article. I’ll let you know if I hear anything back. (click here for the response)

The Associated Press, by the way, isn’t about snowing the public, at least not at its core.

Here’s their mission statement:

“AP’s mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with more than 4,000 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus. AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. “

That doesn’t mean they don’t have political puppets in their ranks, they do. For proof, click here for a list of their board members.

Recognize any names, or names of news organizations? Now, re-read the AP’s mission. Make sense why they don’t cover secret, high-powered meetings? Why the name of that group isn’t in their Bible? Why they (probably) won’t respond to my e-mail?

Here’s a quick bit of history:

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two gents, one of which went on to be the first director of the AP. The Gray Lady (the Times) was sold to a serious news man from Tennessee, son of German-Jewish immigrants. The money for the 1896 sale, $75K, came from the Democratic Party although, earlier, in the 1880s, the Times decided they would be a-political. Though considered a newspaper of record, they are frequently accused of being liberal.

I tell you this because it is crucial to remember the mainstream American press is almost entirely owned by a very small handful of people. For instance, the Och family– the one that borrowed $75K– has owned The New York Times since the late 1800’s; Och’s grandson is the current board chairman and publisher.

That is one paper, whose parent company also happens to own The Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune, WQXR-FM, Answers.com, etc. I’m telling you about the Times, instead of another, because it’s the most widely circulated American news source, but the list goes on.

For example, Fox News, a whole other nightmare, has spilled into the once esteemed The Wall Street Journal, which is a sad shame.

Always keep in mind:

Editors and politics are difficult, if impossible, to disentangle. You better believe news is spun in most major news rooms to some degree. You also better believe its spun elsewhere– if not everywhere.

However, spinning news and ignoring major events, issues, decisions, actions, etc… is not what American journalism is about.

There are plenty of writers, reporters and editors who don’t spin the news, who do report in an unbiased way so readers can make up their own minds; as unbiased as humans can be about important issues anyway.

Because of spin and bias potential, no one should rely on news from only one source. In fact, we should look to the left, the right and the middle and recognize the truth is probably a mix of all sides.

It is because there is so much information out there on such a large variety of issues that it is imperative we have groups, just like this one, where we share information. And, sharing it isn’t the only part; sharing with out anger, ridicule, accusation, etc… is what we should strive for.

People can share information without backing it, true? People can share without promoting, right? People can also share with ingrained belief they feel is central to their person. It’s difficult to tell at times, which is why understanding and effective, reasonable communication skills are something to cultivate.

I mention this last part, about understanding and communication styles/ skills, because it’s been my recent experience that, instead of conversation, people are so hot and bothered by today’s issues they aren’t interested in opening their mind to anything past what they already hold to be true. (I’m not talking about any one in particular here; no pantie wads please.)

Point is, you can’t believe everything you read/ see/ hear in the news (obviously) and, ideally, if you truly want to be informed, you should try to get as many angles on a story as possible– right, left and in the middle, top, bottom,  and first hand account (people love to talk about themselves and what they’re in to, so call and ask).

Like the old adage: keep your enemies closer. Liberal? Check out The National Review. Conservative? Switch from Rush to NPR for a couple of days. I promise, it will only hurt for a second.

Oh, and keep sharing!

Our First Amendment rights are an essential part of what it means to be an American.

Speak up, listen up, act up.

My $2. (Stagflation, you know).
Rhi B.