Recently we were advised of a group of well-funded lawyerly types mining research information for various clients (assumed) regarding intentional falsehoods (lies) in the media and the people who sell them. People often cite there are too many lawyers with too much free time. ……Perhaps something good is going to come out of this Trayvon tragedy once and for all.
Those of you who have followed the story know the TreeHouse interest in the Trayvon Martin shooting had, and has, little to do with George Zimmerman. Actually, the primary interest that hit our radar screen was how the blatantly false construct of racism was developed, coordinated and then injected into the media narrative.
That specific false narrative peaked interest because less than 10 minutes with a laptop and a few google searches clearly identified the same result the FBI came up with after spending thousands of hours. Which is to say, regarding racism and George Zimmerman, there simply is no “there” there….. The racist construct blown up by the media throughout March was 100% fabricated. Total phony bologna.
But why? And more importantly for current intents, by whom? Who created the term “white-Hispanic” and who willingly sold that racist narrative which has now been identified to have killed at least two people, and led to the physical assault of dozens more under the screaming banner of: “Justice for Trayvon”. (*Note the FOIA requests for 911 call records to Norfolk Virginia in the Virginia-Pilot case are still pending)
We noted very early on it would be easy to see the first layer of deception when we identified a known entity who appeared on the radar before. A media consultant named Ryan Julison of Julison Communications. Julison was/is a man looking to build a bigger brand image and increase his credibility, so we knew it was going to be a simple process of watching his bragging to identify the first circle of media corruption, a la ABC’s Matt Gutman who was well-known to be a major story-teller; “story” being the operative word.
We also knew that Matt Lauer had been a prior conduit for Julison’s narratives, and we knew of the Greg Francis (Morgan and Morgan) connection along with Mark Nejame(CNN). But, we also knew the alphabets would not stay engaged beyond a few media cycles, they never do (though they did make it to mid April). So who was going to continue with the false narrative to embedd the barb of the media hook?
For that answer you need to know the feeder channels who will willingly carry the story along. Lets call them the second and third circle of deception. Like sequential rings on a cross-section of a Tree of Lies.
The second circle stays engaged when the “bigs” move on to broader national interests, so the consultants like Julison shift their attention and energy to “circle 2”. This second circle takes a little longer to identify because there is “less in it for them”.
They are the middle peeps so to speak; and while they are certainly willing to sell a false story –if it is tasty enough– they are not dependent on it. Generally circle #2 is inside the geography of the incident being reported. In this case, Orlando, or Sanford, Florida.
Circle #2 includes the Orlando Sentinel reporters of Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, as well as Daralene Jones who was an easy spot from her frequent lunches, and phone calls, with Trayvon attorney Natalie Jackson. Social media chatter is the easiest way to identify circle #2, and track their comings and goings. Their ego is always their undoing.
But there is an even bigger circle. Circle #3. These are “the outliers” the story “seekers“, the ones most prone to, and at risk for, “creating and fabricating” falsehoods in the media. Circle #3er’s create the various story angles. They too are dependent on a specific track, but do not benefit from the geographic proximity of circle #2.
Because they are assigned and often “story dependent” they will, after time, begin to obfuscate the story to irrelevant side issues in a feeble effort to justify their paychecks. In the Martin case circle #3 would include Frances Nobles of The Miami Herald, and her cohort Joy Ann Reid also of The Miami Herald and NBC’s The Grio. (The Grio is a race based media news website targeting black audiences).
Circle 3’s constant need to feed the pipeline with information places them in a tenuous position of risk for advancing unvetted information.
Circle #3 subsequently becomes the biggest media risk factor, and consequently the biggest opportunity for punitive and compensatory reward. Especially if circle 3 is attached to a media conglomerate such as McClatchy-Tribune.
It is easy to point out the bias of the bigs or alphabets, because there, in circle #1, it is broadcast on a big stage and millions of eyes are watching. But it is within the feeder groups, circle 2 and 3, where some of the most corrupt reporting originates. Often they are also known as “The Affiliates”.
The past decade plus has seen massive mergers of media entities and now, due to the assimilation and synergy, the actions of the affiliates no longer stand alone in risk. The risk carries from the Southeast all the way to New York City.
This is a considerable change from the Atlanta Park Bombing libel action where multiple media entities were individually liable as independent agents. Today, due to the mergers and acquisitions, they are collectively liable–a significant shift in the paradigm of risk for Risk Management Departments and actuarials to judge.
You might remember it was a Miami NBC Affiliate who selectively edited out the 911 call to make it look like George Zimmerman was identifying the suspicious character as “black”. The New York Times reported on the initial NBC (Today Show) firing of the Circle #1, national producer.
It was also an ABC affiliate who manipulated the stolen CCTV footage from the Sanford Police Station to make it look as if George Zimmerman was not injured. These affiliates are generally in circle 3 and submit their false narratives up into bigger New York based national network channels.
Indeed it was there at the national level where the manipulations became more evident as more and more eyes were peering at the fabricated and heavily manipulated storylines.
A complex new research approach is now needed to find the specific manipulators who would willingly, and with specific intent, lie on the record, in a traceable fashion, within the second and third layer because they actually coordinate their lies and falsehoods.
Think of it like a business of one-upmanship where quid-pro-quo is now more easily identified than the old school approach of media competition.
Again, it is easy to identify the liars in circle one, and often their own sense of self-importance will take them out. See Dan Rather, or more recently Brian Ross. The defamation/libel/slander suits are easily identified and persued at this level; it becomes a little harder in the second and third circle because, historically, the costs benefit analysis to the plaintiff, or the plantiff’s representation, did not merit litigious expenditure.
See the Richard Jewell case for great examples: The lie originates from individual reporter at Atlanta Journal Constitution (circle 2) then carried into the New York Post (Circle one) and then CNN along with NBC. All of which settled with Richard Jewell for large sums money, as did the AJC.
The media, in that example, were not collaborating per se; they were just selling a false construct based on initially false information. Now however, there is actual collaboration to sell a falsely constructed narrative; hence the new age employment of the Ryan Julisons’.
In the example of George Zimmerman, and all of the potential litigants encircling the case, including the victims of the “Justice For Trayvon” crimes, the nucleus appears to be ABC Miami affiliate and reporter Matt Gutman. This is very easy to prove; actually too easy, because Ryan Julison was bragging far too much about how he manipulated Gutman to sell his constructed stories.
It almost screamed absurd through the small screen when Matt Gutman actually reported with a straight face about sitting down for another of his “exclusives”, this time with Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump and a telephonic interview with the “ear-witness” DeeDee. Only the question was: what *reporter* would willingly subject themselves to interview rules where they are not permitted to ask questions of the interviewee?
Talk about selling propaganda under the guise of exclusivity….. ‘you’ve come a long way baby’.
In modern media venues, exposing the second tier to successful litigation is a little more challenging, but there is enough connectivity and similarity in lies within the storyline to clearly show the coordination. Plus they publicly twitter to each other and follow each other… BONU$ !
Getting litigation level to circle 3 is usually highly challenging. However, challenging is not impossible–you just need to know their taste (for bait), and their ego (for approach). Then put tracers and track backs on the social media platforms and, voila!
Apparently, according to researchers acting on behalf of potential class litigants, more than a few perimeter circle #3 media types have taken such approaches, including actual reporting based solely on the creation of “for use” fake websites, and known-to-be false information. Awesome job Team Freedom; and now it can be shown how they connect it, coordinate it, and sell it.
Yes, you read that right. They, especially the circle 3 crowd, actually base their reporting off FAKE CREATED websites. Meaning someone provides them a degree of separation, or a manipulative cover, to report on a website story even though they know it to be false, as a method to avoid libel.
But the use of known deceptive and intentionally falsely constructed information is not only subject to easy civil action, it also subjects them to criminal considerations.
As with most people who become too smart by half, they make TWO HUGE MISTAKES which can be recorded and captured. First, when they seed the trail to the fake source, they do so again using public social media. It becomes quite easy to show how they knew the information within their reporting was FALSE and intentionally fabricated.
Second, they naively believe that DM or ‘direct messaging’ via twitter on mobile platforms is ‘transmission secure’, and they also believe email submitted via wireless telecommunication is a secure way to transmit data. They might be socially fluent with media, but the new guards of the fourth estate are unfortunately naive regarding data collection and technology. One would think the recent experiences of wikileaks would create prudent pause. Alas recording and capturing activity is no longer challenging. You no longer need to be seated behind them at the lunch counter. They who write the scripts, well, most, have taken conversations, and transmissions onto mobile non-encrypted platforms.
It’s not considered felony wiretapping “to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured
so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general
public,” according to the text
of the federal wiretapping statute. The Justice Department has consistently declined to state its views on the issue due to constitutional boundaries, and the U.S. courts have not clearly addressed the issue.
So if one were inclined with simple wireless technology found at Radio Shack, the capture of wi-fi transmitted data is even more simple than RFID content. It is almost effortless.
Sometimes, well, actually most of the time now, the media forgets to step out from their echo-chamber and engage in truth seeking without a predetermined conclusion in mind.
When you combine these significant vulnerabilities with the all too often emotionally and ideologically based bias, the dropping of the professional standard is easily documented. The deceptive, and all too vulnerable underbelly, is then exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight. Grab the popcorn… this is apparently about to get really good.