By Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
Fascinating book out by NPR media reporter, David Folkenflik, entitled Murdoch’s World: The Last of the Old Media Empires that explores the strange world of publisher Rupert Murdoch. Gobbler of such English-speaking newspapers as The News of The World, The Sun, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times, Murdoch is mostly known for his media collaboration with Roger Ailes in the development and promotion of Fox News, the Right’s mouthpiece of choice. Until his inglorious dismount from credibility in the London Phone Hacking scandal where a Murdoch newspaper employee was convicted of hacking the telephone voice mails of murdered British teenager, Milly Dowler, Murdoch had personified all that is unseemly about tabloid journalism. The personification of Charles Foster Kane, Murdoch fed the Right the red meat of dissention blending news with opinion and relying on practices that were criticized by honest journalists (even conservative ones) around the world calling it right-leaning tabloidism (here).
His right-wing pabulum had the desired effect when a media study by researchers at the University of Maryland found that regular Fox News viewers were more misinformed about American politics than viewers of any other channel. (here). Fox News immediately responded with this “substantive” reply about the merits of the study:
“The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”
As the Huffington Post notes, “For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the ‘Best Northeastern Colleges,” Stelter notes. “It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of ‘Best Party Schools.” (here). Misinformation,it seems, extends beyond the viewership and all the way up to the executive suites at Fox News.
For his part, the foreign-born Murdoch calmly states his place in American politics as the savior of the GOP. In an interview with Fortune magazine, Murdoch makes that point (here):
Fortune: “Does it bother you at all, Rupert, that there is a view that Fox News has contributed in a big way to the political discontent in the U.S., degraded the political process, and maybe, in spotlighting the Tea Party, even hurt the Republican Party?”
Murdoch: “It has certainly given voice and hope to people who didn’t like all that liberal championing thrown at them on CNN. I think it has absolutely saved it. It has certainly given voice and hope to people who didn’t like all that liberal championing thrown at them on CNN. “
Voice, indeed, as in Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and the myriad of right-wing pundits who keep up a very public drumbeat of Republican position points. Nothing much new there but the fascinating part of Folkenflick’s book is not the public manipulation of stories and ideas but instead the shadow war being waged on fair-minded internet blogs and their like-minded commenters by the paid flacks from Fox News and other Right-wing organizations. Folkenflik says shills in Fox’s online PR staff maintained between twenty and a hundred fake profiles on each social media account. The fake commenters then used the accounts to promote right-wing agendas.
And it’s not just the hacks on the payroll at Fox News that get into the act but piece workers are recruited into the slime as well. Freelance writer Randa Morris describes the recruitment process:
I have encountered hundreds of help wanted postings for fake right-wing bloggers, paid commenters and bogus survey takers. Most of the positions pay between five and ten cents a post. The “paid commenters” ads usually appear on international freelancing sites, meaning you do not have to live in the United States to help push the tea party agenda here. (here)
Here’s an example of a Craig’s List ad purporting to seek out paid commenters to hawk right-wing talking points (Right click and Use the “Open Image In New Tab” for a better view):
Could this be fake? In the ether of internet guerilla warfare, everything is dubious but we have to admit the possibly it’s true in view of Folkenflik’s book. The placement in a Canadian Craig’s List lends some credence to Randa Morris’ proposition that foreign recruiters are alive and well in the blog-o-sphere seeking paid commenters.
Folkenflik details that right-wing commenters are using fake profiles and they are getting paid. He also notes the shadowy tactics used to hide true identities such as wireless broadband connections to block tracing the comments back to their sources. It’s long been known that so-called reputation management firms garner up to $10,000.00 per month to scrub unflattering (and often true) stories about its clients off the internet. (You can read a great exposition of this in the New York Magazine here). It’s no long stretch to conclude that what can be taken away can just as easily be injected into the dialog.
Folkenflik explains that the paid commenters don’t just stick to Fox News blogs but spread out through the internet to spew the talking points and drive off real commenters. The tactics are vicious personal attacks with the goal of stifling liberal or moderate points of view. The attacks usually come in packs and are both immediate and bullying. And since many liberal to moderate voices are well-educated folks with little desire for direct verbal confrontation, the tactics work:
“They respond to normal people in the comments sections of any number of web-sites, often with aggressive and insulting attacks.Gawker reports that its site is one of many that has been targeted by Fox’s paid commenters, otherwise known as social media trolls. According to Gawker, Folkenflik said that when he was at Fox “even blogs with minor followings were reviewed to ensure no claim went unchecked. The point of these fake commenters is not just to push a specific agenda. It’s also to deceive the unsuspecting public about the actual amount of support that exists for that agenda. Paid commenters use vicious attacks against anyone who posts an opposing opinion. Eventually the attacks have the effect of driving people with opposite views away from the targeted sites. This allows them to dominate the web with their fake profiles, while at the same time discouraging real people from participating in the discussion.” (here)
Armed with this info how do we spot a paid troll versus an ideologue? Here’s my checklist:
1. Immediate response to contrary views.
2. Huge volume of comments.
3. Provocative personal attacks.
4. Gloating over driving people away from the blog.
5. Fawning deference to the blog host to ensure continued ability to post.
6. False professions of fair mindedness as shown over time.
7. Ganging up with other trolls to intimidate.
8. Avoiding the merits of a piece to attack the author or supporter.
9. Similar postings across the web on other sites
10. Stalking opposing commenters to obtain personal information and revealing that information.
You think ISIS is a direct threat to our democracy? Look closer to home.
Sourced Throughout
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
Kudos to Gene Howington for educating me on the perils and politics of propaganda with his contributions on this blog and sparking my interest.
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
Analysis
October 21, 2014
Political Polarization & Media Habits
Pew Research Journalism Project
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/
Excerpt:
Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:
– Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
– Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
– Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
– Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
*****
By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:
– Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
– Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
– Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
– Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.
“I think her and Chris Matthews have a thing going on”
Somewhere, a Catholic English schoolteacher is spinning in her grave
Somewhere, a thousand kids are glad someone is no longer teaching history.
Nick Spinelli
They will have to be careful about attacking Attkinson, because of all that “war on women” blather. More likely they will just call upon the loyal cadre of Democratic party shills and hacks to put out stories about how the right wing is the group really manipulating public opinion,. All while they sit on their immigration plans to manipulate public opinion. And race bait about Ferguson in Georgia to manipulate public opinion. etc. etc.
I learned a lot from that Salon article. What explanation could there possibly be for conservatives’ distrust of the NYT and CBS other than Fox News?
Those of you who love peer-reviewed science should take a look at the work of Tim Groseclose on the subject of media bias. Then you can come back here armed with all the denialist criticisms of his work that you read on HuffPo.
Chip – could you hook me up, dude. I could use some extra pin money. 😉
It is nothing new, these agents of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) have always sought for the military intelligence to control media
(Turley Blog).
Penelope, Gee. I wonder if the MSM will savage Attkisson?? The Rhodes brothers conflict of interest and collusion is unbelievable. But, few people know of it. I wonder why?
This is a brilliant parody. The guy that posted this is a very funny man. He should have his own show. It would be a hoot.
Here is a likely scenario. This is what is currently on the Drudge Report, with its billions of viewers:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81S9l8n9IJL.jpg
Then, we get a panicked White House which orders its flying monkeys to come to its defense with stories about how it is really the right wing which is manipulating public opinion. There is no defense like a good offense!
I’m glad someone is finally taking a stand against Faux News.
Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon, appears on MSNBC obsessively. I think her and Chris Matthews have a thing going on. I get paid double for comments like this. Total so far, just for this thread, $122.54
Murdock must have written the book for the government agent trolls, on a nice public trough contract of course:
(link in my previous comment)
ChipS, Who are you billing on this thread, Koch or the GOP? Koch pays much more quickly.
Elaine M:
Here’s an excerpt from that article that’s truly telling:
Fox News is one of the main factors, possibly the main factor, driving political polarization in this country. Huge chunks of this country listen mostly or solely to a relentless stream of misinformation coming from Fox News, coupled with warnings, implied or even baldly stated, to avoid listening to other, more factually accurate news sources. Unsurprisingly, then, more people are becoming conservatives and people who were already conservative are becoming more hardline about it. If you have any Fox viewers in your family, you probably already suspected this, but now Pew has given us the cold, hard facts to confirm your suspicions.
mespo – not exactly like Salon took as stand. Are they butthurt more people are not reading them? When you read the actual poll it is fascinating. Try reading it and then get back to me.
Salon is incredibly objective. LOL.
Elaine M:
Thanks, Elaine that was worth the effort.
The whistleblower Snowden also pointed out another branch of the troll team:
(Gov’t handbook for Internet trolls uncovered).
I think it is important that those of you who are here working on behalf of some unit of the government. any government, should come forward and tell us. A shill is a shill. Also those who are here to support another blog should also let us know.
mespo,
I just got up off my recliner to post this:
Why conservatives prefer propaganda to reality
A new Pew study on America’s media consumption offers a window into the right’s collective mindset
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/why_conservatives_prefer_propaganda_to_reality_partner/
Excerpt:
The fact that conservatives are this paranoid should be alarming enough, but it becomes even more frightening when you consider who conservatives do trust in the media. Consistent conservatives only trusted 8 media sources–compared to the 28 liberals trusted–and of the eight, only one has anything approaching respectable reporting or reliable information. And that one, the Wall Street Journal, has good straight reporting but has an op-ed page that is a train wreck of right-wing distortions and misinformation. Most conservative people were a little more open-minded, trusting USA Today and ABC News, but still were supportive of openly distorting sources like Fox News or the Drudge Report.
The trust conservatives put in conservative media is utterly misplaced. For instance, both consistent and mostly conservative people love Glenn Beck, though he’s a well-known purveyor of outrageous conspiracy theories that percolate up to him from fringe characters. Breitbart and Sean Hannity also rated high, despite their shared history of championing right-wing fringe characters like Cliven Bundy.
@Leadville, you’re astounded by a 10-pt checklist that was made up by the poster as a caricature of Spinelli?
That’s the way witch-hunters roll.
Full Disclosure, I have made $85.63 so far on this thread.
Mark
Too often I am brought up short by my niaevete. Your fine post provided another such instance. While I’m not convinced by the Craigslist evidence the ten point checklist was astounding.and very disheartening.
Fits the Lead Commenter to a T.
I wonder if the Professor cares?
Leadville – and would you care to expound on your comments on the the lead commenter?