Tuesday, August 05, 2014

FBI Now "Rating" News Stories

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
It was discovered this weekend the Federal Bureau of Investigation plans to hire a contractor to monitor media coverage and grade stories about the agency based on content and tone of coverage.

The stories will be rated as "positive," "neutral" or "negative."

I'm no fan of the news media. I personally think most all are biased and are a useful tool in helping to advance the agenda for the most secular progressive president in the history of our country.

But this, along side all the other revelations about government manipulation, domestic surveillance and the collecting of data on regular American citizens, is a bit much.

Are you comfortable with this? Or is it just me?

Why is the FBI "rating" media coverage of itself? At taxpayer expense.

And what are they going to do with the information they collect on writers and publishers?


Today is Primary Election Day in Washington State.

If you have not yet done so, be sure to mark your ballot today and submit it by 8 PM at a drop box or if you mail it in, be sure it is postmarked today.



The Washington Post reports, "The agency won't say why officials need the information or what they plan to do with it."

"In fact," the Times says, "FBI officials won't even reveal how they will go about assigning the grades which were laid out in the contract solicitation."

The contract tells the potential bidders to "use their own judgement" in scoring news coverage as part of their new "daily news briefing" service the agency is seeking as part of this new contractual agreement---which will last for about 5 years.

How does rating news stories and articles about the FBI link up with the agency's main mission of enforcing federal laws?

This is not a new tack for the Obama Administration to hire PR firms to help guide their response to crises situations.

In 2011, Associated Press reported that this administration had paid a PR firm $18,000 to asses the "tone" of news stories about Obama's response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2009, the Obama Administration hired people to grade journalists' work before they were allowed to be embedded with troops.

No one knew for sure what the motives were in that exercise either------- was our government looking for competence or bias? Or simply reporters who were trustworthy?

Stars and Stripes, the military news service, reported that there was major push back from the military on the administration's selection process and ultimately began using the contractor's profile in deciding whether to grant permission for any reporter to "embed."

The Pentagon scraped the program.

You will remember that last month, the Washington Post reported that the NSA is primarily collecting information on ordinary citizens like you and me.

In fact, the Post reported, "Nearly half of the surveillance files, a striking high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to US citizens or residents."

While the NSA had protected some of the information, some of it was not protected at all.

Last week the CIA admitted to spying on US Senate members. CIA Chief John Brennan has apologized to the Senate, but the matter is still under review as to what the proper response should be.

Most of us understand the importance of surveillance and spies and all that in the process of protecting ourselves from those who wish to kill us, but it becomes very difficult when trust is lost.

But where will it all stop?

Cedric Leighton, former NSA deputy director, told Fox News, "As I grew up through this system, it was very clear that certain things were not to be collected, among them data from US persons, unless you have a warrant."

We voted for "change" and we got it. "Change" has come to America.

Some have suggested that this may be an honest attempt on the part of the FBI to do a PR makeover.

Jonah Goldberg said yesterday if they really are trying to get positive PR, "This was a really dumb way to do it."

Agreed.

The issue, at its core, is trust.

Trust is more important than "change" or so-called "progress."

I'm talking about "trust" today on the radio.

Join me live from anywhere in the world at 9 AM PDT or rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT. Here's how

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

3 comments:

  1. As part of strategic media relations work, we do content analysis routinely. It's nothing new. Been around for the past 50 years, based on my knowledge. I don't have a problem with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 8:58 I agree with you, content analysis is not new. I just listened to Gary on the radio where he was emphasizing your point, but saying it is in the context of all the other breaches of trust that the public is becoming more and more skeptical and distrusting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems clear enough to me....The government needs to get back to serving the people...back to the constitution, back to limited government, back to less spending...

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.