How Fake News Happens Through Transactional Journalism - What Happened To Real Investigative Journalism?

If you see the anti-fake news campaign as I do, an effort to control certain information and censor other information with the media's help, it's an extension of a phenomenon that I call transactional journalism or the black market information trade. What do I mean by that?

What Is Transactional Journalism?

I mean the friendly, mutually beneficial relationships that have developed between reporters and those on whom they report. It's when relationships cross a line beyond chumminess and the players strike clandestine business deals, whether formally or implicitly, to report on people and topics in a certain way.

Reporters may offer favorable treatment in exchange for what they call getting a scoop. They may agree to let an interview subject dictate terms and topics and timing of publication. They may promise to ask some questions and avoid others. They may carry on cozy relationships that allow reporting to be influenced in ways they don't disclose to the public. Usually reporters are favorable with those with whom they're ideologically in sync.

All of this crosses an ethical line in my opinion.

Transactional journalism results in a perverted dynamic. Public officials basically manipulate those in the press into competing to be first to receive the government and political propaganda; self-serving rumors or press releases promoting agendas and smearing opponents.

The way it works in the newsroom is the reporter who's first to reporting these handouts gets a hardy pat on the back from colleagues and their bosses. Great get!, they say. In the news business great get used to mean that the reporter got an exclusive story as the result of their ingenuity and shoe leather journalism and persistence. Today it simply means that you're the recipient of a White House or political party leak.

Transactional journalism is basically a vehicle that serves as a smokescreen. It makes narratives appear to be organic, hard-nosed journalism when they're the exact opposite. Topics and people make news now because it's all been prearranged, pre-planned, and agreed upon.

Many of the stories the public are spoon fed are not the result of hard work and digging, at least not on the part of the journalist. The reporter was simply willing repositories of propaganda by operatives and smear artists who literally call them on the phone and leak information they want reported as if it's somehow news rather than propaganda or a press release. Simple as that. It's hardly reporting in my book.

What Is Real Investigative Journalism?

A former investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson, who resigned from CBS News after 21 years with the network after alleging that CBS News failed to give sufficient coverage of Obama controversies, such as the 2012 Benghazi attack said,

When I went to journalism college at the University Of Florida one that that really sticks in my mind is, they told us a lot of people will come to you with press releases and talking points and things they want you to report. You do not report that.

If it's something that's interesting it may be a starting point for a story and then you have to ask yourself which part of the story do I have, what else do I need to confirm to get the whole story? Maybe you got part of it, maybe part of it's true and maybe it isn't, but it's not something that you publish. That's called propaganda.

source

Today, instead of recognizing these so called exclusives for what they really are, handouts from players advocating for their interests or smearing opposing views, the news media covets and perpetuates them and encourages this whole syndrome.

Managers of these news outlets, seeing their competition getting these "news stories", don't care that they are little more than press releases that certain special interests want publicized for their own advantage.

Even more troubling, many news organizations are overtly in the tank for one political candidate or another, actively shaping the artificial reality that the public sees. The news organization's attempts to influence votes go far beyond the typical comment or endorsement on the editorial pages, they use their news stories to construct a desired reality.

In the U.S. there's always been a questionable relationship between some reporters and the interests they cover; whether democrat, republican, or corporate interests, but thanks to the persistent nature of email, we actually have some documentary evidence that exposes the black market information trade in some specific cases.

They basically reveal the transactional relationships between newsmakers in the media that show that deals are being cut in secret, backs are being scratched, and one hand is washing another. It makes it easy for a special interest group to accomplish a smear or put forth their agenda.

Emails dating back to Obama's first month in office unmasks transactional journalism conducted by Washington reporter Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic. He's also written for the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Vice, Hotline, ABC News and CBS because, I guess, his brand of journalism is what they want.

This particular example takes place on July 15, 2009, as Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton is set to make a speech. Under normal circumstances this type of speech isn't considered very newsworthy, it's sort of a boring speech, a think tank type of thing. Her aide, Philippe Reines, might normally have to work pretty hard to get anyone interested in covering it, but in today's dynamic, an advance copy of Clinton's speech would be heralded as a great get.

And so Ambinder once said what is he willing to do to get it? In an email exchange, the Clinton aide tells Ambinder, the reporter, there are certain conditions he must meet in order to get the text of the speech. Ambinder replies, OK.

So, Hillary's aide dictates in a numbered list.

1. You in your own words describe Hillary's words as muscular
2. You note that a look at the audience seating plan shows that all the envoys are arranged in front of her which in your own clever way you can say is certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something.
3. You don't say you were blackmailed.

This is all in writing. Now does Ambinder say, I'm sorry but I'm a journalist and I can't be dictated to like that, we're just going to have to take a pass."?

No, he emails back, "Got it."

Here's an excerpt from Ambinder's final article.

When you think of President Obama's foreign policy think of Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton. That's the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council On Foreign Relations.

He also noted the seating arrangement the way Clinton's aide has demanded.

Once these emails became public around February 2016, The Atlantic issued a statement saying this is not typical and it goes against our standards.

Ambinder insisted the emails did not capture the totality of his communications and were not indicative of his normal reporting techniques.

He said, "The way Reines had described Clinton's speech it was muscular so I found the adjective appropriate. Muscular was my word. No one fed me anything period."

Well, I did a little searching on Google. It must be a coincidence then that I found other reporters who thought up the exact same unusual adjective when describing the same Clinton speech. Washington fixture, Michael Allen of Politico, formerly of The New York Times and Time, also called that same speech muscular and noted the seating arrangement the way Clinton's aide had instructed Ambinder to do. Likewise, a headline in New York magazine used the word muscular and the article actually had a cartoon of Clinton with bodybuilders arms in it.

source

How Transactional Journalism Is Weaponized

Today, the FBI, Justice Department and the Department Of Homeland Security are all "leaking stories" to the press concerning Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia.

When emails were uncovered showing the lead investigator who drafted and approved the originating document to start the investigation, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, cannot answer any questions under oath that Congress asked concerning how many people he interviewed before coming to the conclusion that Trump is guilty, because it's an ongoing investigation, but has no problem having the allegations "leaked" to the press, it calls into question the validity of the entire legal process and the investigation, especially when that same person worked for the Clinton's.

I can't think of a better example of a conflict of interest. Regardless of what you think about Trump personally, this should be troubling. There is no evidence directly linking Trump to collusion with the Russians but the newspapers keep printing there is without any evidence. This is an ongoing investigation and should not be on the front page of newspapers for the same reasons the investigators cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Why is it then OK for those same investigators to give stories to the press about those same investigations while not answering questions to Congress when they are subpoenaed to answer questions to see if there's a bias or conflict of interest? That is crazy.

Conclusions

Today, the news bombards us with the same messages over and over again and when they do that I can't help but question the validity of what they are saying. Was it really investigative journalism that leads to the stories we're reading on the front pages or were they spoon fed to reporters to control the narrative and shape public opinion towards a conclusion regardless of whether the facts support the story? All too often, it seems, there are no facts to back up many of the stories we're reading.

Our media is a business that looks out for the interest of their advertisers and panders to the special interest groups, political and corporate, at the expense of the people they are supposed to be informing.

When you notice the news pundits all seizing upon similar terminology it's reasonable to suspect it might be an orchestrated effort.

When you watch the news I recommend you as I do and ask yourself; Who wants me to believe that and why?

---

Luzcypher's Announcement For Steem Witness