Changes

{{Show badges|Tobaccowiki}}'''Echo chamber''' is a colloquial term used to describe a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other's uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources. In the United States, the [[Republican Party]] uses a network of [[conservative foundations]], coordinated by the [[Philanthropy Roundtable]], and described in [http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/apparat.html an extensive report (March 2004) by Jerry M. Landay for Mediatransparency.org], support an echo chamber of [[think tanks]], [[industry-friendly experts]] and subsidized [[conservative media]] that systematically spread its messages throughout the political and media establishment. Typically, the message starts when conservative voices begin making an allegation (e.g., Democratic candidates are engaged in "hate-mongering" with regard to Bush). Columns start getting written on this theme, which spreads beyond the subsidized conservative media, eventually begins appearing in places like the New York Times, and becomes a talking point and "accepted fact" throughout the media. Maureen Dowd, in a [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.html?ex=1079845200&en=9608024a3e06a163&ei=5070 column for the New York Times on 15 February 2004], described the deceptive condition as one where "the bogus stories ... ricocheted through an echo chamber of government and media, making it sound as if multiple, reliable sources were corroborating the same story." To influence the media, conservatives have also set up several organizations that serve as recruiting, training and career advancement programs for budding journalists. On university campuses, conservative foundations support several networks of conservative professors, including the [[National Association of Scholars]] and the [[Collegiate Network]] of the [[Intercollegiate Studies Institute]], which links and provides funds to more than 70 conservative student papers. The student papers in turn serve as conduits to the mainstream media, through organizations such as the [[National Journalism Center]] that provides training, ideological indoctrination and a job bank that helps conservative student journalists begin their careers with internships and permanent job placements at publications including the [[New York Times]], [[Washington Post]], [[Wall Street Journal]], [[ABC]], [[CBS]], [[Fox News]], [[Time]], [[Newsweek]], and the [[Associated Press]]. Opinion pollsters and image makers such as [[Frank Luntz]], [[Michael Deaver]], [[Ed Rollins]], [[Wirthlin Worldwide]] and [[Zogby International]] help develop the messages that echo in the echo chamber, by identifying hot-button “cultural” issues such as guns, abortion, family values and the flag that have enabled the party of privilege to position itself as the party with which lower-middle and middle-class voters identify. Relatedly, see [[incestuous amplification]] Part of the "echo chamber" effect relies not only on repeating a given stance through as many separate channels as possible, but on casting alternative sources of information and opinion as doing the same thing in the opposite direction. Long-standing accusations of the "liberal-dominated media", suggesting that the bulk of mass media today forms some sort of liberal echo chamber, denies the idea that the reverse may in fact be the case. Also, it's notable that the cultural body of music is not experiencing the fresh joy of great new songs about peace and love and anti-war which was so remarkable during the quagmire of the 60's. "It's a hammer of justice; it's a bell of freedom; it's a song about love between the brothers and the sisters, all over this land." Much more diverse and uplifting than "Batttle Hymn of the Republic". This lack of new music isn't because the musicians are overseas in uniform. It's because at the slightest peep of anti-war lyric, the radio stations blacklist the artists. The reason for this stems from a reduction in the diversity of radio-station and media ownership. Whether motivated by individual politics or by a desire to stay on good terms with the administration that empowered them, media moguls like [[Clearchannel]] and [[Rupert Murdoch]] are widely believed to place restrictions on the ideas expressed through the media outlets they control.

== Examples == *In the United States, the [[David BrockRepublican Party]], uses a network of [[conservative journalist for foundations]], coordinated by the [[American SpectatorPhilanthropy Roundtable]], received $11,000 in funding from the and described in [[John http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/apparat.html an extensive report (March 2004) by Jerry M. Olin FoundationLanday for Mediatransparency.org], supporting conservative [[think tanks]] and the , [[Bradley Foundationindustry-friendly experts]] to support attacks on University of Oregon law professor and subsidized [[Anita Hill]], after Hill testified before Congress that she had been sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee [[Clarence Thomasconservative media]]that systematically spread their messages throughout the political and media establishment. Brock wrote Typically, the message starts when conservative voices begin making an article attacking Hill and later a bookallegation (e.g., titled ''The Real Anita Hill''Democratic candidates are engaged in "hate-mongering" with regard to Bush). He later regretted writing Columns are written on this theme, first in conservative media (including blogs), but eventually appearing in mainstream media like the book and wrote a mea culpa titled ''Blinded by the RightNew York Times'', in which he admitted that his writers were . This process can be used to turn an unsupported allegation or a [[partisan]] [[talking point]] into an "a witches' brew of accepted fact." [[Maureen Dowd]], allegation, hearsay, speculation, opinion, and invectivein a [http://www. nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.. I didnhtml?ex=1079845200&en=9608024a3e06a163&ei=5070 't know what good reporting is. Like a kid playing with a loaded gun, I didn't appreciate New York Times'' column run on 15 February 2004], described the difference between a substantiated charge and an unsubstantiated deceptive condition as onewhere "the bogus stories ...” In fact, Brock statedricocheted through an echo chamber of government and media, making it sound as if multiple, reliable sources were corroborating the same story."Every source I relied on either thought Thomas walked on water or had a virulent animus toward Hill To influence the media, conservatives have also set up several organizations that serve as recruiting, training and career advancement programs for budding journalists. I had no access to Hill’s supportersOn university campuses, and therefore no understanding conservative foundations support several networks of their motivationsconservative professors, no responses to any including the [[National Association of their charges, Scholars]] and no knowledge the [[Collegiate Network]] of whatever incriminating evidence they might have gathered against Thomas that was not introduced in the hearing. ..the [[Intercollegiate Studies Institute]], which links and provides funds to more than 70 conservative student papers. The conspiracy theory I invented about student papers in turn serve as conduits to the Thomas-Hill case could not possibly have been truemainstream media, through organizations such as the [[National Journalism Center]] that provides training, because I had absolutely no access to any of the supposed liberal conspirators. ... All of my impressions of ideological indoctrination and a job bank that helps conservative student journalists begin their careers with internships and permanent job placements at publications including the characters I was writing about were filtered through their conservative antagonists[[New York Times]], all of whom I believed without question." *Brock also says that the "[[TroopergateWashington Post]]" allegations against , [[Bill ClintonWall Street Journal]] were instigated by , [[Peter SmithABC]], a conservative financier and top contributor to [[Newt GingrichCBS]]'s political action committee, [[GOPACFox News]]. Brock says he received $5,000 initially from Smith to investigate allegations (later proven baseless) that Clinton had fathered a child with an African-American prostitute in Arkansas. "I was programmed to spring to action like a trained seal[[Time]], [[Newsweek]], and the [[Associated Press]]. Opinion pollsters and image makers such as [[Frank Luntz]]," Brock recalls in his book. "Peter offered me $5[[Michael Deaver]],000 for my trouble[[Ed Rollins]], not through [[Wirthlin Worldwide]] and [[Zogby International]] help develop the ''Spectator'' but paid directly to me messages that echo in the echo chamber, by check; getting by on my Anita Hill book advanceidentifying hot-button "cultural" issues such as guns, abortion, I was a whore for family values and the flag that have enabled the party of privilege to position itself as the cashparty with which lower-middle and middle-class voters identify. Although accepting  Part of the "echo chamber" effect relies not only on repeating a payment like this was most unusual given stance through as many separate channels as possible, but on casting alternative sources of information and unethical for a journalist, opinion as doing the same thing in my mind it was no different from taking money from politically interested parties like the Olin and Bradley foundations.opposite direction. Long-standing accusations of the "liberal-dominated media" *During the 2000 elections, suggesting that the bulk of mass media today forms some sort of liberal echo chamber claimed falsely , denies the idea that [[Democratic Party]] presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] had pretended he invented the Internet, claimed he and his wife were reverse may in fact be the case. Although conservatives pioneered the "echo chamber" technique, they are not the role model for characters in only people to use it. ''Love StoryThe Hill'', and repeated a number of other false stories about Gore newspaper reported that painted him as someone with a bad habit of telling lies[[John Forbes Kerry: U.S. *In the buildup to war in Iraq, the echo chamber repeated and the Presidential Campaign 2004|Kerry campaign]] officials [[Bush administrationJoe Lockhart]]'s claims that Iraq possessed and [[weapons of mass destructionLaura Nichols]], was tied asked House and Senate press secretaries "to Al Queda, schedule their bosses on television and radio so that Democrats could create an 'echo chamber' where the people sounding of Iraq pro-Kerry spin would welcome a U.Screate its own reality," following the first 2004 presidential debate on September 30. invasion as "liberation[http://thehill.com/news/09282004/debate." aspx] == Examples == *"News outlets ideologically allied with Bush have been happy to assist in confusing In September 2004, ''The Hill'' reported that the public" "That half or more Americans think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- perhaps the most media-covered event in our history -- stands as [[John Forbes Kerry: U.S. Presidential Campaign 2004|Kerry campaign]] and other Democratic Party leaders viewed members of Congress as part of their "echo chamber": "[Last week'''a horrific indictment s] meeting between Kerry officials and congressional press secretaries is the sixth of Uthe year, and it tracks with a larger effort by the House Democratic leadership to look at each individual lawmaker as a potential megaphone for the national message.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can" [[David Castagnetti]], the House liaison for the Kerry campaign, remarked, "We want them [members of Congress] to amplify our message. We't be found re encouraging members to host debate parties in other countries'''their districts." [http://wwwthehill.commondreams.orgcom/news/views0309282004/1201-13debate.htmaspx] *Newsweek Magazine and NBC television partnered [[David Brock]], a conservative journalist for a week of unbalanced promotion of corporate interests. the [[http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/media/American Spectator]] *, received $11,000 in funding from the [[talk radioJohn M. Olin Foundation]] and the [[Bradley Foundation]] *Major New Study to support attacks on University of Oregon law professor [[http://www.cissm.umdAnita Hill]], after Hill testified before Congress that she had been sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee [[Clarence Thomas]].edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf Brock wrote an article attacking Hill and later a book, titled '''Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass DestructionThe Real Anita Hill''. He later regretted writing the book and wrote a mea culpa titled ''Blinded by the Right''] concludes[http://www.commondreams, in which he admitted that his writers were "a witches' brew of fact, allegation, hearsay, speculation, opinion, and invective. .org/headlines04/0309-12.htm], [http://www.editorandpublisherI didn't know what good reporting is.com/eandp/news/article_displayLike a kid playing with a loaded gun, I didn't appreciate the difference between a substantiated charge and an unsubstantiated one.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000456632]: **Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspectives on WMDIn fact, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the eventsBrock stated, issues, threats and policy options"Every source I relied on either thought Thomas walked on water or had a virulent animus toward Hill. **Too few stories offered alternative perspectives I had no access to the "official line" on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict **most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the "war on terror" inextricably to the issue Hill's supporters, and therefore no understanding of their motivations, no responses to any of their charges, and no knowledge of WMD **most media outlets represented WMD as a "monolithic menace" without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and whatever incriminating evidence they might have gathered against Thomas that was not introduced in the existence of actual weapons *Knight Ridder (March 15, 2004) reported that "hearing. ...A June 26, 2002, letter from The conspiracy theory I invented about the Iraqi National Congress Thomas-Hill case could not possibly have been true, because I had absolutely no access to any of the Senate Appropriations Committee listed 108 articles [in major English-language news outlets worldwide] based on information provided by supposed liberal conspirators. ... All of my impressions of the INC [ [[Iraqi National Congress]] ]'s Information Collection Programcharacters I was writing about were filtered through their conservative antagonists, a Uall of whom I believed without question.S.-funded effort to collect intelligence in Iraq. The assertions in "*Brock also says that the articles reinforced President Bush's claims that Saddam Hussein should be ousted because he was in league with Osama bin Laden"[[Troopergate]]" allegations against [[Bill Clinton]] were instigated by [[Peter Smith]], was developing nuclear weapons a conservative financier and was hiding biological and chemical weapons. Feeding the information top contributor to the news media[[Newt Gingrich]]'s political action committee, as well as [[GOPAC]]. Brock says he received $5,000 initially from Smith to selected administration officials and members of Congress, ''helped foster investigate allegations (later proven baseless) that Clinton had fathered a child with an impression that there were multiple sources of intelligence on Iraq's illicit weapons programs and links African-American prostitute in Arkansas. "I was programmed to spring to bin Ladenaction like a trained seal," Brock recalls in his book.''" [Italics added.] == SourceWatch Resources == *[[Iraqi National Congress]] *[[media censorship]] *[[media reform]] == External links == *"[http://wwwPeter offered me $5,000 for my trouble, not through the ''Spectator'' but paid directly to me by check; getting by on my Anita Hill book advance, I was a whore for the cash.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052 Buying Although accepting a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations payment like this was most unusual and American Politics]unethical for a journalist,in my mind it was no different from taking money from politically interested parties like the Olin and Bradley foundations." (Washington*During the 2000 elections, DC: People for the American Waymedia echo chamber claimed falsely that [[Democratic Party]] presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] had pretended he invented the Internet, 1996). Or [http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_33.pdf download a PDF version] of claimed he and his wife were the full report. *Dan Morganrole model for characters in ''Love Story'', "[http://wwwand repeated a number of other false stories about Gore that painted him as someone with a bad habit of telling lies.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46598-2000Jan28 Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon*In the buildup to war in Iraq, the echo chamber repeated and the [[Bush administration]]'s claims that Iraq possessed [[weapons of mass destruction]]," Washington Post, January 29, 2000, p. A1. *Jeff Gerth and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, was tied to [http://www[Al Qaeda]], and that the people of Iraq would welcome a U.S.nytimesinvasion as "liberation.com/2000/10/05/science/05LOBB.html "Drug Industry Has Ties to Groups With Many Different Voices"], New York Times, October 5, 2000. *Robert Kuttner, "[http://www.prospect.orgNews outlets ideologically allied with Bush have been happy to assist in confusing the public" "That half or more Americans think Iraq was involved in the 9/print/V13/13/kuttner11 attack -- perhaps the most media-r.html Philanthropy and Movements]," The American Prospect, July 2, 2002covered event in our history -- stands as '''a horrific indictment of U.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can't be found in other countries'''. *Curtis Moore, "[http://www.sierraclubcommondreams.org/views03/1201-13.org/sierra/200207/thinktank_printable.asp Rethinking the Think Tankshtm]*Newsweek Magazine and NBC television partnered for a week of unbalanced promotion of corporate interests. [http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/media/]*Major New Study on [http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf '''Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction'''] concludes[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0309-12.htm], [http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000456632]: **Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options.**Too few stories offered alternative perspectives to the "official line" on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict**most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the "war on terror" inextricably to the issue of WMD**most media outlets represented WMD as a "monolithic menace" without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and the existence of actual weapons*''Knight Ridder'' (March 15, 2004) reported that "A June 26, 2002, letter from the [[Iraqi National Congress]] to the Senate Appropriations Committee listed 108 articles [in major English-language news outlets worldwide] based on information provided by the INC's Information Collection Program, a U.S.-funded effort to collect intelligence in Iraq. The assertions in the articles reinforced [[George Walker Bush|President Bush]]'s claims that [[Saddam Hussein]] should be ousted because he was in league with [[Osama bin Laden]], was developing nuclear weapons and was hiding biological and chemical weapons. Feeding the information to the news media, as well as to selected administration officials and members of Congress, ''helped foster an impression that there were multiple sources of intelligence on Iraq's illicit weapons programs and links to bin Laden.''" [Italics added.] ==Philip Morris & the Echo Chamber Technique== In 1998 [[John Scruggs]], a Washington D.C. lobbyist for [[Philip Morris]] described the "echo chamber" approach to advocacy as constituting the repetition of a selected message by the most credible sources that surround a decision maker. "The more a particular view or piece of information 'echoes' or resonates through this group, the greater its impact. Grassroots efforts are so effective in modern day advocacy programs because they cause many constituents to repeat the same message to the target Member. Grasstops or "Influentials" campaigns work because those highest on the hierarchy scale, with the greatest degree of credibility, repeat the same or similar messages. You will note that the echo chamber effect can work in two different ways. First, the same message can reverberate among multiple sources toward the target Members. For example, the same information from polling data captured in a single poll can be repeated by the media, congressional colleagues, lobbyists and advertising. Second, similar but complementary messages can be repeated by a single source...Either the repetition or "piling on" approach provide the same result: enhanced credibility and influence of the essential message," he explained. [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xiz37c00] == SourceWatch Resources ==*[[incestuous amplification]]*[[Iraqi National Congress]]*[[media censorship]]*[[media reform]]*[[The U Network]]*[[John Forbes Kerry: U.S. Presidential Campaign 2004]]*[[Banana Republicans: The Echo Chamber]] == References ==* [[Stephen Halper]] & [[Jonathan Clarke]]. 2004. ''[[America Alone; The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order]]''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 194-196.  == External links ==*John Scruggs, "[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xiz37c00 The "Echo Chamber" Approach to Advocacy]", Philip Morris, Bates No. 2078707451/7452, December 18, 1998.*Hans Nichols, "[http://thehill.com/news/09282004/debate.aspx Dem lawmakers primed for big post-debate spin: Kerry seeks to avoid mistake that hurt Al Gore in 2000]," ''The Hill'', September 28, 2004.*[http://www.ncrp.org/Releases/PR-03-12-2004.htm National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy](NCRP) "has issued a new report on the grantmaking of politically conservative foundations, revisiting the analysis and conclusions reached in NCRP's seminal report on conservative philanthropy in 1997. The new report greatly expands on the 1997 research, looking at 79 conservative foundations and their grants to 350 archconservative policy nonprofit organizations between 1999 and 2001."*The [[Hudson Institute]]'s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal [http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=162 wonder if they "got it, well, Right"].*"[http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052 Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics]," (Washington, DC: People for the American Way, 1996). Or [http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_33.pdf download a PDF version] of the full report.*Dan Morgan, "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46598-2000Jan28 Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon]," Washington Post, January 29, 2000, p. A1.*[http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/National+Reporting Jeff Gerth] and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/05/science/05LOBB.html "Drug Industry Has Ties to Groups With Many Different Voices"], New York Times, October 5, 2000.*Robert Kuttner, "[http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/13/kuttner-r.html Philanthropy and Movements]," The American Prospect, July 2, 2002.*Curtis Moore, "[http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank_printable.asp Rethinking the Think Tanks]," Sierra Magazine, July/August 2002.*Robert W. Hahn, "[http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02/hahn.html The False Promise of 'Full Disclosure']," [[Policy Review]], [[Hoover Institution]," Sierra Magazine, July/August 2002. *Robert W. Hahn, "[http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02/hahn.html The False Promise of 'Full Disclosure']," Policy Review, Hoover Institution, October 2002. *[http://www.mediatransparency.org Media Transparency] provides descriptive summaries of many groups and individuals associated with the right, plus a database of conservative grants and foundations. *David Brock, ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative'' (New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2002). *Jeff Chester, [http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20031222&s=chester "A Present for Murdoch"], ''The Nation'', December 2003: "From 1999 to 2002, his company spent almost $10 million on its lobbying operations. It has already poured $200,000 in contributions into the 2004 election, having donated nearly $1.8 million during the 2000 and 2002 campaigns." *[httphttps://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3541 Jim Lobe for ''Asia Times'']: "the structure's most remarkable characteristics are how few people it includes and how adept they have been in creating new institutions and front groups that act as a vast echo chamber for one another and for the media" *Valdis Krebs, "[http://www.orgnet.com/divided.html Divided We Stand]," Political Echo Chambers