Question Is Ariana Pekary correct ?


Jul 2, 2020
This story has received no main stream media coverage.

Its really important and simply a statement from an insider about whats going on - its not a left or right issue its a basic fundamental flaw in how all the media operates and reports (including FOX and CNN). While it focuses on commercial media many of the same type of factors apply in most public broadcasters which are driven by their own internal cultures and a "need" to compete for audiences

Ultimately some will say there could be a real cost to, or even of, peoples lives from this model of reporting if it continues.

SNOPES summarized the story well

Ariana Pekary left her job as a producer at MSNBC on July 24, 2020, citing in an open letter her moral misgivings with the commercial news model.

Pekary’s critique was aimed at the entirety of the commercial news industry, which she said offers viewers ideological bias-confirming sensationalism over informative and nuanced reporting.

Pekary was forced to follow her original open letter with a clarification, noting that in reporting on her resignation, Fox News had inadvertently proved her point by misleadingly telling its audience that Pekary’s letter was directed solely at MSNBC.

Pekary had said in her original statement that in her observation, important information, stories, and nuance were often left out of broadcasts in favor of booking guests and discussion topics that would drive ratings and revenue, and that the problem far goes beyond MSNBC

'Due to the simple structure of the industry – the desire to charge more money for commercials, as well as the ratings bonuses that top-tier decision-makers earn – they always relapse into their old profitable programming habits,' she said.

it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.

But behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done.

“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”

As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.

This cancer risks human lives, even in the middle of a pandemic. The primary focus quickly became what Donald Trump was doing (poorly) to address the crisis, rather than the science itself. As new details have become available about antibodies, a vaccine, or how COVID actually spreads, producers still want to focus on the politics. Important facts or studies get buried.

This cancer risks our democracy, even in the middle of a presidential election. Any discussion about the election usually focuses on Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, a repeat offense from 2016 (Trump smothers out all other coverage). Also important is to ensure citizens can vote by mail this year, but I’ve watched that topic get ignored or “killed” numerous times.

Context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience. There may be some truth to that (our education system really should improve the critical thinking skills of Americans) – but another hard truth is that it is the job of journalists to teach and inform, which means they might need to figure out a better way to do that. They could contemplate more creative methods for captivating an audience. Just about anything would improve the current process, which can be pretty rudimentary (think basing today’s content on whatever rated well yesterday, or look to see what’s trending online today).

Occasionally, the producers will choose to do a topic or story without regard for how they think it will rate, but that is the exception, not the rule. Due to the simple structure of the industry – the desire to charge more money for commercials, as well as the ratings bonuses that top-tier decision-makers earn – they always relapse into their old profitable programming habits.

I understand that the journalistic process is largely subjective and any group of individuals may justify a different set of priorities on any given day. Therefore, it’s particularly notable to me, for one, that nearly every rundown at the network basically is the same, hour after hour. And two, they use this subjective nature of the news to justify economically beneficial decisions. I’ve even heard producers deny their role as journalists. A very capable senior producer once said: “Our viewers don’t really consider us the news. They come to us for comfort.”

Again, personally, I don’t think the people need to change. I think the job itself needs to change. There is a better way to do this.

I’m not so cynical to think that we are absolutely doomed (though we are on that path). I know we can find a cure. If we can figure how to send a man to the moon, if Alex Trebek can defy the odds with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and if Harry Reid can actually overcome pancreatic cancer (he’s now cancer free), then we can fix this, too.

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Last edited:


Jul 2, 2020
The Perception Bubble - human life is a reflection of the information downloaded into us by us and our society.

Can people change their prescriptions ?

Politics and information are mostly just a Punch and Judy show used to divide, rule and distract .....fundamental change only happens if those with real power who finance and control the politicians think they will be economically hurt or lose political control

You can see whats going on?

Here is a short video that discusses how the media possibly plays a role in shaping divide, rule and distract views any society has. China, USA, Russia etc

The video raises fundamental questions about who we are and what we want to be and can we get there....

Most people will probably agree with the contents at some level but then say it does not apply to them

The video ideas are very mild in contents. We know that all that is talked about in the video has happened in history. The media was used to present an image and manipulate society....

Is it happening now ?

Given the presenter of the video is considered radical and often comes out with strange ideas it was very surprising to see how non radical and clear this video is.

Last edited:
It is a question of personal education versus public education and the lies passed off as facts by the media.

If you do not possess a basic understanding of history, science and political trends, you are more likely to be swayed by the pap which is passed off today as history, junk science like the imminent end of the world due to man's tinkering with the climate which has been publicized since the 1800's, and the so called manifold benefits of socialism, where the massive historic failures are glossed over or hidden from view.

As our world becomes increasingly technologically driven, we must prepare students for this changing marketplace. Our failure to properly inculcate our children with the positives of their homeland as well as the negatives, cheats them of the American uniqueness. Similarly, a failure to teach them mathematics, the sciences, technology, and the precursors for engineering in our secondary schools, as well as the written English needed to adequately express themselves, will leave the graduates unable to compete in an increasingly complicated world and reduce their ability to provide for themselves.

Reading becomes ever more critical because it is the basis, once the rules of understanding historiography are understood, for critiquing all that goes on around based on your personal knowledge.

You must always examine offered views in the scientific manner: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Where an offered opinion is heard, then you are free to counter argue it in a free exchange of opinions, then accept, finally, the elements which ring true based on true and accepted principles and theorems.

Life is what you make of it. It is far better to go through with a considerable amount of personal knowledge, yet remaining open to hear and accept information which rings true based upon historical and scientific fact.

I love to read astrophysics, history and science fiction. The former and the latter stretch my imagination while history grounds me in the facts of the past. After years of reading and in directed collegiate studies, you are able to tell the real from less acceptable sources.