As a journalist, I loved PRs who sent me interesting stories pitched at my interests and publication. Yes please - send them in. That didn't mean that I didn;t then do my job; speak to competitors, treat the pitch with a fair degree of scepticism, etc.
What's being described in the article is quite different - deliberate corruption of the editorial process.
Not giving details on HN but happy to send a bunch of email proving this if you're from a noteworthy publication.
The copy that a business would send us rarely made air. I know, because I was often the person who rewrote it.
Example: At a talk radio station I worked at a number of years ago, we received a press release from a person who was protesting John McCain's policies in a very particular way. It was very positive, and spoke of his mission, and blah blah blah. We had no clue who this guy was, but it tipped us off to a great story; we didn't cover it in the news portion of our broadcast, but the talking heads that evening had a very good time pointing out how ridiculous it was.
This is how news works. PR helps a producer by bringing their attention to something, because let's face it, omniscience is not a trait of local news producers. The producer might help PR with a bit of coverage, or very likely doesn't. (The fax machine at a local newsroom is hilarious to watch.) The angle that gets covered is occasionally not what PR wants. This relationship is push and pull.
However, having pre-written copy introduces vast amounts of bias by shifting how people are thinking about an issue. Thus, you can't rewrite it without first being influenced to think along similar lines. Now, one option is a simple firewall that prevents the person writing the story from reading original copy. More effort in the short term, but companies would have less incentive to try and shape the news for free press.
PS: Really, pink elephants, now where you thinking about elephants or did I suddenly change your thought process... It is possible to minimize bias, but failing to take obvious steps suggests they are not even trying.
As a PR I was initially astonished that my releases would be duplicated verbatim by journalists - and yet it happened, so I was clearly doing both my job and helping them out.
Sorry, I'm not clear what you are suggesting is unethical.
Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribed? Care to clarify?
Quoting the article, "Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the [CIA] set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.".
This played in synergistically with the Congress for Cultural Freedom [2] which was another government organization acting like an independent organization, but was just a CIA propaganda tool. Anyhow, this stuff takes decades to be declassified. It should be interesting seeing things like what was happening behind the scenes to build up the Iraq war. The ironic thing is by the time that's declassified - probably in the 2040s - people will think that it happened so long ago that it's no longer relevant to their issues of the day. Of course it is, and will be -- perhaps even moreso than today. As the apparent desire for governments to gain ever greater control and ever greater power -- mingling with media (in the general sense -- not just news) in covert ways will be ever more part and parcel of our brave new world.
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
If your government buddy in the State Dept. (who may himself just be a CIA agent) essentially does a lot of the "investigative work" on a major story for you by serving it on a platter, and there's an implied understanding that reporting against your buddy's narrative would end future help from the buddy, you're going to do write what he wants.
Among countless cases, some uncovered, some unknown: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/washington/09cuba.html
It's no new either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
And not just in news either: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/hollywood-and-the-pentagon/
that's a different poster.
> being "cozy", etc. is not so
it absolutely is... "access" is a form of currency, sometimes an extremely valued one.
the impact of access is such that the behavior of mainstream journalists can be manipulated toward one's preference through reducing or restricting it (or threatening to do so) - provided there is sufficient value in said access, of course.
Sort of similar to this as well [2] (very hard to search for 'government pays NY Times, Post WSJ' or 'Pentagon articles in newspaper' etc.... So many results that are not related in whatever search bubble google has me in
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaga...
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici...
The closest thing to what you suggest (and it is not that close) is probably Judith Miller's Iraq reporting for the NY Times, but that's mostly down to her incompetence.
I disagree, or maybe Im just poor at searching but terms like "NY Times, government, paying, publish, stories, CIA" I get so much non-relevant search returns its impossible to separate the whet from the chafe. It was also many years ago, so Im sure search bubbles these days will tend to return stories that are newer as a default. The story I am remembering is definitely different from the one you recommended. I wish I could find it, it was a fascinating read at the time.
Not sure it's of major relevance right now, when Trump does stuff that is not the common wisdom of the FP crowd, but normal behaviour should resume sooner or later.
See "embedded war correspondents" from anything after Vietnam. Iraq 1 is probably still the war machine's most spectacular TV production.
We would create a Betacam tape of B-roll, have a written synopsis and other relevant details, and after cold-calling news editors (we had a book we purchased yearly with their contact info), we would FedEx them the package of content, and follow up w/ an additional call after delivery conformation.
It worked well. Although this was some time ago.
Macro vision ... Americans get news and updates from two sources:
- "news" entities like the paper, magazines, television news, and their related websites
- advertisements
Only in the latter is it obvious that the viewing audience is being sold a product. In the former, it's absolutely still true, it's just less obvious.