In an interview with NPR this week, President Obama complained that the media is oversaturated with coverage of terrorism. “If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said.
The president’s remarks led to quick condemnation from the right-wing press, but the facts support what he is saying. The Intercept analyzed network news coverage of various topics, using Internet Archive’s TV News Archive search of television captions, and found that terrorism did dominate news.
For example, a search of CNN coverage between November 21 and December 21 of this year yielded 427 hits (instances where an individual show mentioned the word at least once) for the search phrase “terrorism” and 404 hits for “ISIS”; the same search for “poverty” yielded only 34 hits. Here are the terrorism search strings compared to the other topics in chart form (note that the anti-privacy CISA legislation, directly related to terrorism, was not mentioned at all):
Here’s the same search when run for MSNBC:
And here’s Fox News:
Most of what’s called “news” on any MSN outlet is propaganda with a few tidbits of real information amongst the entertainment package, then used as a commercial to sell something. Right now terrorism is selling like hotcakes and they’re going fast. Fear is very easy to be used to motivate people to buy something if the fear is perceived to be allayed. It’s an old propaganda tool, don’t be misled into doing something you normally wouldn’t do, just saying.
Yes cnn,nbc,cubs are all Obama and Clinton news letter to pulling this country down and tearing this once great country apart that why we need Fox News and more like them
Simply because terrorism has taken over the world. Or haven’t you noticed?
Guess why/who owns the media like CNN?
Propaganda. Conservatives instill fear on the public, which in turn helps them out once the elections get here.
We are still mopping up the blood from San Bernardino so terrorism is huge on people’s minds . The Religion of Peace dears have said they are going to butcher us in the Christmas season so the media and people are correct by keeping terrorism center focus.
What about the Christian terrorist a week before San Bernardino? Why did we completely stop talking about him to talk about the brown ones? It’s not cause it’s a threat, it’s fear mongering for the sake of ratings and control.
Why are you trying to deflect the subject matter to skin color?
One could think that the media in the US works for the government. Sad.
You don’t have to do expensive investigative journalism and can make it home by 5 when the government provides you news at regularly scheduled press briefings.
I agree with Obama and this article that the threat of terrorism is way over-hyped. You are more likely to be killed by your next door neighbor or in a car accident or by lightning than by ISIS. In the great scheme of things, the ISIS threat is minuscule. We do, nevertheless, need to squash them.
Mr. Jilani
You must have been seriously bored, Mr. Jilani – as was whoever at the Intercept worked up the numbers. This story is right up there in importance with the Intercept aggressively tackling how Putin controls the Internet in Russia. How many times did CNN mention the Ms. America contest? How many times did ESPN mention Cam Newton in 2015 (and still counting)?
Perhaps you missed the point entirely, Mr. CraigSummers? It’s rather late at this “stage of their game” for the president to speak out. Don’t you think?
Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending package, approves CISA surveillance legislation
Published time: 19 Dec, 2015 01:52
[Excerpt]
President Barack Obama signed a $1.1 trillion spending package which bankrolls the government through next year. While it includes tax breaks for low-wage earners, it also includes a controversial cybersecurity measure slipped in during negotiations.
The omnibus spending package was signed into law on Friday afternoon.
“There’s some things in there that I don’t like, but that’s the nature of legislation and compromise, and I think the system worked,” the president said at his year-end news conference at the White House, reported the Associated Press. “It was a good win.”
(cont.)
https://www.rt.com/usa/326481-obama-signs-budget-cisa-bill/
Winners and Losers in Our New Media Moment | By Tom Engelhardt / TomDispatch [Posted on Dec 16, 2015]
[Excerpt]
The winners of the latest version of the news and election cycle won’t be the American people or the electoral system or a deeper knowledge of how our world works. Those winners will, however, include Washington’s national security state, which has bet its future on American fear, and the Islamic State, for which this media environment is the royal road to a completely irrational, even cockamamie “clash of civilizations.”
In other words, the news is the news, and it couldn’t be worse.
[End]
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/winners_and_losers_in_our_new_media_moment_20151216
Even someone with you political views ought to realize that a competent press is important. News is not like this everywhere. My son-in-law is visiting from London; my wife watches CNN. He did not keep track of the numbers, but he could not believe how it is all terrorism all the time.
We all know that the BBC is not the fine news organization it once was, but it does provide something closer to real news than American TV.
Because the press is fixated on terrorism doesn’t mean they are incompetent. First of all, terrorism sells (and they are private corporations). Reporting on poverty is not going to send the ratings through the roof . People are fascinated with terrorism in much the same way as plane crashes.
Secondly, ISIS defines terror, and there have been numerous brutal acts of terrorism committed by ISIS since they burst on the scene – especially over the past few months against western targets. However, they are not the only terrorist organization in town. Boko Haram has actually killed more people. Terrorism remains a threat to the west.
Couple this with the migration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims to the west (war refugees and for economic reasons), and terrorism has become the hottest topic by far (I’m not saying immigrants are terrorists, but ISIS has threatened to send terror cells with the refugees).
If TV news does not bring you the news, it is incompetent, no matter who owns it.
Let’s see, what are some top Google News stories today? Well, not this story. Might I suggest some good sensationalist headlines, the kind we would see if he were ooh let’s see Muslim for example?
******************
Walnut Creek Wannabe Terrorist William Celli Arrested
Trump Terrorist Cell Member William Celli’s Online Radicalization
Trump Humping White Guy With Working Pipe Bomb Barely Makes National News
*****************
And CNN went on and on about the missing airliner for what seemed like forever.
Water is wet.
So you and Obama are surprised after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino?
That interview is pretty interesting:
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/21/460030344/video-and-transcript-nprs-interview-with-president-obama
–
“INSKEEP: “You referred to ISIL’s sophisticated media operation and also referred to what Americans are seeing in the American media. Are you suggesting that the media are being played in a sense here?
OBAMA: Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”
–
When asked about a comparison made to domestic terrorism and international he said:
“ISIL is more systematic and more effective in their media, in their online presence, and that raises additional concerns. So part of what we have to do in response is to ramp up countering that narrative online”
I wonder what these efforts to counter narratives are. This is how your religion sucks? Change your religion? And where are they?
I doubt potential Daesh recruits only visit Daesh websites.
I wish the interviewer would have asked how their efforts to counter the Daesh ISIL narrative online are going when the US right wing media advertises how legit they are.
I wonder if media and government has considered that this obsessive attention could also inspire terrorist attacks from people that aren’t Muslim.
Hey media, intelligence community, and those that own cable news:
how about trying to give some national attention to legitmate opposition inside of this country rather than make Daesh/ISIL the symbolic poster opposition group to Obama’s/US foreign policy?
Candace: Your source …
[Excerpts]
INSKEEP: What is the public missing about your strategy? And I say that simply because, according to polls, you don’t have very much approval for it.
OBAMA: Well, I think what’s fair is that post-Paris you had a saturation of news about the horrible attack there. And ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. And as a consequence, if you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you.
And so I understand why people are concerned about it, and this is a serious situation, but what is important is for people to recognize that the power, the strength of the United States and its allies are not threatened by an organization like this; in the same way that al-Qaida was able to carry out one spectacular attack, we ended up making some significant changes to harden homeland defenses. It then took awhile for us to ultimately snuff out core al-Qaida in the FATA, and there are still lingering remnants, but at no point was there ever a sense that in fact it could do catastrophic damage to us.
(cont.)
OBAMA: … We’ve been at this for a long time in Afghanistan, Iraq, and places like Somalia and Yemen, where we have gone after terrorist targets. And the key is to make sure that we’ve got sound intelligence. And I make no apologies for us wanting to do this appropriately and in a way that is consistent with American values.
Yes, I read it. I thought the interview was interesting.
But it doesn’t answer what I was asking. He didn’t say what and where to find his administration’s,(the people he trusts who are both Democrat and Republican) online strategy for countering narratives that encourage terrorism.
He acknowledges that the media is giving ISIL/Daesh the attention (advertising) they want which would encourage recruits but you know media pursues ratings. What can you do? It makes Americans jumpy.
The thing is we know that information is strictly under control right now and propaganda is out there. If there was any understanding that the obsessive attention given to Daesh would undermine supposed efforts to counter narratives to discourage terrorism (Islamic or otherwise ) then the intelligence community would tell Republicans and their media hounds to shut it and they would have to. Are they stupid or are they working with ISIL/Daesh?
Maybe the deciders in the oversized intelligencec community don’t recognize how the media is working against these mystery efforts because they believe the source to terrorism is Islam and US Media isn’t Islamic so they don’t make the connection that having Republicans carry on about how the US is losing to these guys, is empowering them and inspiring others who arent Muslim or even political.
Maybe those in the intelligence community that are involved in campaigns see an opportunity to shove Christianity down our throats or get a Republican president as well so they are going to let it failing slide.
Giving so much advertising for a group that uses terrorism as an express ion of opposition to this country’s foreign policy and zilch nothing (maybe ridicule) for any of the other many organizations or individuals in this country that arent violent sends a message that if you want respect – to be acknowledged that you exist from the right wing media that is everywhere: you have to be a terrorist. Period.
Why not try countering that narrative?
Candace: In the Spring 2002, the Bush administration and the Pentagon entered into an exclusive contract with CNN to promote, among other things, the “revolutionary, embedded, 24/7 news” cycle. A dog fight of sorts broke out and even Larry Flynt challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court, essentially crying foul, no fair. Suffice to say, the cable news networks have been “embedded” while broadcasting live feeds, hunting provocative leads, chasing breaking news stories, and engaged in media ratings wars ever since.
To infer the “global war on terrorism” and the 24/7 coverage (social internet media aside) is a recent phenomenon is not only disingenuous but in reality is total bullshit. The ongoing threat of global terrorism has essentially been the so-called new normal (at least in the U.S.) for the past 14 years. And aside from the incompetent, if not corrupt, buffoons presiding in Congress, no other entity has contributed more to the rise and recruitment of the likes ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh than the American cable news (a/k/a mainstream media) networks.
The U.S. has been its own worst enemy for years now. But naturally the war mongers, war profiteers, politicians and cable news executives would much rather not admit they are a large part of this never ending pesky terrorist problem. And, therefore, not a part of any practicable solution any time in our near future. What are we the American voters and consumers to do about it? You may well ask.
How’s about tuning out the cable news networks for starters. Think of it in terms of sanctioning and for the betterment of one’s health. Watch CCTV News out of Beijing and Washington instead :-)
I decided to stop watching cable news (all television actually) in 2004.
I read about what’s going on (internet or books) when I have the time and interest.
I also remember what that 24/7 cable news experience was like.
I’ve often thought that an effective protest would be to organize to turn off the tv or at least when campaign commercials come on.
As far as my criticism of Obama and the attempts to counter narratives that encourage terrorism, I am still wondering what those efforts are.
You’re right 24/7 cable news isnt a recent phenomena so Obama and advisers would/should have taken that into consideration when planning a strategy to counter narratives that encourage terrorism. There’s no way they couldn’t have.
I get the impression that we’re supposed to believe that Daesh/ISIL online media has more influence than U.S media and government presence online and that’s ridiculous.
Hi there Self – you look gorgeous today. And what a shiny beacon of postnessness you got going on there!
So I replied to the JSH, “edit insert” comment because I didn’t notice it wasn’t actually a reply to what I said. It hasn’t shown up yet, though so I guess that worked out.
[Edit, insert ‘of’]
To infer the “global war on terrorism” and the 24/7 coverage (social internet media aside) is a recent phenomenon is not only disingenuous but in reality is total bullshit. The ongoing threat of global terrorism has essentially been the so-called new normal (at least in the U.S.) for the past 14 years. And aside from the incompetent, if not corrupt, buffoons presiding in Congress, no other entity has contributed more to the rise and recruitment of the likes of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh than the American cable news (a/k/a mainstream media) networks.
Terrorism is definitely over-covered on CNN and MSNBC. As are police murders.
Um, you utterly *worthless* piece of “journalist” trash, that is because Muslim terrorism has taken over the reality. And if US cable news or indeed any other media wanted to mention all that is newsworthy regarding countless atrocities that murderous Muslim terrorist thugs perpetrate all across the globe, they would need to cover it 24/7.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Just because you’re incapable of comprehending a reality that doesn’t focus exclusively on Muslim terrorism, that doesn’t mean that other important issues don’t exist. To some people, whether or not they will be able to put food on their table, or whether they will even have a home to put food on the table in, is more important than what a group thousands of miles away and its few supporters here in the US are doing.
You have to understand that Louise is a one topic person, namely Israel. As the current regime, as supported by the majority of the Jews there has declared war on Islam, so must Louise also make war on Islam. It makes no difference to Louise and like mentalities that the risk of being killed by a terrorist attack in the US is minuscule compared to that of being killed by someone else, as proven overwhelmingly by the homicide statistics. Nor does it matter to Louise that other forms of terrorism contribute approximately the same number of deaths as does that practiced by Muslims. Or that the beloved Jewish state itself was founded by Zionist terrorists, who thought nothing of blowing up Christians or Muslims who stood in their way. No, only Muslim terrorism is of concern. One of my operating hypotheses about Louise is that it is a cover name for someone working at Faux Noise or one of our military/intelligence/police agencies.
I had some terrorists over the other day for some terror and all we could talk about was the media. How ironic.
You dumb trolltard.
#?WARONTERROR?
President of the International Association of Veterans of the Anti-Terror Unit “Alfa” Member of the Russian Academy of Problems of Security, Defence and Law and Order Sergei Goncharov says:
“As of today, “black” financial flows are not being controlled by world banks. If someone thinks that people who have taken the helm of the world financial system are interested in controlling these flows, he is wrong. Each one has their dividend. These financial flows reach billions of dollars. Thus, terrorism is the most profitable business now. Terror is impossible without fanaticism, although it is based on reasonable calculation. Earlier big powers often offered aid to terrorists whom they regarded as “ideological supporters”. However, this is not the only source today.”
Would you please post a link to the data that was used to create these charts? There’s a lot of unanswered questions about what this actually shows (e.g. what time frame is assessed? What material is assessed (website or TV)? How was the data was recorded? etc.). Really interesting though if it’s actually supported by good data.
There’s a CLUE about the TIMEFRAMES and MEDIA SOURCES in the TITLES of the CHARTS. TRY READING THEM. He also quite clearly says BETWEEN THE 21sts of Novembererer and Decembererer.
How the data was recorded is irrelevent – maybe they used a little electronic click device each time the words were said, maybe someone obtained the transcripts and did a word count, maybe a trained hamster gave unique and entertaining acrobatic symbols like summersaults or handstands at each word’s mentioning, or maybe they wrote it in scratchy failing red biro on a ripped open Marlboro Red packet whilst chain-chuffing the ciggies- who cares?
You don’t need to check the graph sources. Just turn on mainstream news and you’ll see how obvious it is (now that you’re looking for it). Its the same here with terrorism dominating the news and people eating fear out of the hand of hysteria and throwing their rights away left right and centre. Obama is a puppet. Clinton is a puppet. Even if Sanders got in. He’d be a puppet or assasinated. The war is against the middle class and right now they are getting decimated by the fear and hysteria that has such a ridiculous hold on them.
You just randomly compare those terms to “poverty”?
You’re methodology is utterly flawed. Also, just because CNN didn’t use the term CISA, doesn’t mean they didn’t talk about it.
Example 1: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/cybersecurity-house-senate-omnibus/
Example 2: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/opinions/polis-cybersecurity-legislation-congress/
QUIT BEING A LAZY JOURNALIST!!!
Nate, the queer thing is, with your first link, it contains a video segment. On terrorism. Ironic.
Both link to articles which mention CISA, but it is not clear to me that there were television segments on CISA or just written stories.
That’s really not ironic at all since my point was to prove that just because the term “CISA” isn’t used, doesn’t mean the topic was not discussed.
If this author wanted to test Obama’s assertion, he should have compared several months’ mentioning “terrorism” and “ISIS” (furthermore, the Islamic State is referred to be so many names: ISIS, IS, Islamic State, ISIL, Daesh, that his methodology is further flawed. He is probably under-reporting!
Compare it to what ever you want to, Nate?
*”terrorism” has dominated the ‘news’ in general ever since a relative-handful of Saudi nationals flew planes into bldgs on 9/11 while President Bush was reading My Pet Goat to the youngsters. .. in the future, im actually beginning to think Time itself will be demarcated, like the birth of Christ, as either the pre-9/11 or post 9/11 periods.
Nice idea and comment; however, I have the dreadful feeling something even more ominously demarcating is on its way to make 9/11 look like fumbly foreplay at the student dsco in comparison.
I now live by the seaside so I have plenty of sand in which to bury my head and pretend nothing is happening when it comes.
what, are you going to make a few calls? Some uppities here not getting scared enough?
Well spotted. But hey, it’s “The Intercept” – ‘All hope abandon ye who enter here’.
We already know this about our main stream media. So what the hell are we going to do about it?
Nate, the queer thing is, with your first link, it contains a video segment. On terrorism. Ironic.
Both link to articles which mention CISA, but it is not clear to me that there were television segments on CISA or just written stories.
Sorry that should have been posted in response to Nate.
… not a real surprise as I sometimes watch Tavis Smiley and he has mentioned this sort of thing. I think I’ve seen other similar reports and usually the point is made that poverty is not a “sexy” (read: promoting advertising) issue and therefore gets little coverage.
Tavis also mentioned, I believe, that 4 years ago, not ONE presidential debate question was about poverty. How’s that holding up so far this time (sorry but I don’t have the stomach to watch them anymore)?
That’s the reason I got rid of cable!
Maybe you can find out who is the advertisers are? I certainly try to stay away from corporations that support war, fear and hate. Warner,Fox, Comcast are going to make enough from their advertisers on negative campaign ads already. This is just piling on.
Well, kids do say the darnest things!