CNN: Don't be so Nosy About the Government!

[bleeding heart]

We've had a few fruitless discussions about media bias here on MLW (fruitless because the very people most often making the bias claims don't wish to discuss it in depth).

But my contention--that Herman/Chomsky's thesis about media propaganda remains an excellent jumping point for understanding it--usually needs a lengthy discussion to explain. That makes sense--we're talking about complex, institutional structures here, and so it's fair to expect people to need detailed analysis and plenty of evidence to be convinced.

(That's exactly why the "media is leftist" theorists remain unable to convince anyone outside their ideological circle: they have no sustained and serious institutional critique, but rather a carefully selected handful of examples, posing as "evidence." Hell, I could prove virtually anything if I thought cherry-picked and convenient examples were a legitimate form of argument.)

However, the following CNN piece is slightly unique, in that the media subservience to power, its credulity to the doctrines of authority, is overt. Usually, it is more subtle. But now and then, we have a Jessica Lynch informing us that her propaganda story was pure fabrication. Once in a while, a journalist or an editor or a commentator will pause for breath, look briefly surprised, and tell us, "I think we're all full of shit; sorry about that."

But not often.

And now, we've got a piece from an award-winning journalist telling us that reporting, that journalism, that news, is not what it is claimed to be at every turn by self-indulgent journalists...but that he likes it that way, and so should we.

And in case some of the loony "Obama's a socialist" and "CNN is left-wing" voices chime in about leftist media bias...note that he goes from the specifically current to the general past, defending secrecies of Republican and Democrat governments.

He's a true believer. Too bad.

(Note how he compares a desire for transparency in illegal and potentially illegal government behaviour to caring about celebrity pregnancies. )

We are a nosy country.

Though to be fair, it's not entirely our fault. Between the 24/7 news cycle, social media and reality TV, we have been spoon fed other people's private business for so long we now assume it's a given to know everything. And if there are people who choose not to disclose, they must be hiding something. Being told that something's "none of your business" is slowly being characterized as rude, and if such a statement is coming from the government, it seems incriminating.

Times have changed. Yet, not everything is our business. And in the political arena, there are things that should be and need to be kept quiet.

I know that's hard to digest in a society where pregnancies and marriages of D-list celebrities make the cover of People magazine, but there comes a point where the public's right to know needs to take a back seat to matters like national security and diplomacy.

Heads should roll because of the Fast and Furious debacle. We don't need every detail of that operation to be made public in order for that to happen.

If it were an isolated sting, maybe. But it is at least the third incarnation of a gun-running scheme stretching across two administrations, which means we could be pressing to open Pandora's Box. We do not want to open Pandora's Box, not about this and certainly not about a bunch of other potentially scandalous things the federal government has been involved with.

Fast and Furious? Please.

We still don't have access to all of the messy facts surrounding the Iran-Contra scandal that erupted during the Reagan administration. All we know is that weapons were sold to Iran in exchange for hostages and that the proceeds from those sales were used to illegally fund rebels in Nicaragua who were supposedly fighting Communism.

Lt. Col. Oliver North took one for the team back then, and there's a good chance Attorney General Eric Holder will have to take one for the team in the Fast and Furious controversy. And by team, I'm not referring to Republicans or Democrats, but rather Americans.

You see, freedom isn't entirely free.

It also isn't squeaky clean.

And sometimes the federal government deems it necessary to get its hands a little dirty in the hopes of achieving something we generally accept as good for the country.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinion/granderson-fast-furious/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

Social conditioning through media. People eat up what the MSM tells them. But they are being hypocritical here. They tells us every little thing about some celebrity's life (which is not needed nor important, nor relevant to daily life) and do not focus on the crimes as much from the government. They facilitate this 'gotta know everything' for meaningless things while the real important stories are left in the dust.

[Michael Hardner]

Social conditioning through media. People eat up what the MSM tells them. But they are being hypocritical here. They tells us every little thing about some celebrity's life (which is not needed nor important, nor relevant to daily life) and do not focus on the crimes as much from the government. They facilitate this 'gotta know everything' for meaningless things while the real important stories are left in the dust.

These organs are more driven by popular sentiment than anything else. They make MONEY by ADVERTISING so they have to show things that are INTERESTING to a broad spectrum.

There's no secret cabal planning out information disbursement to the nth degree. There can't be.

[bleeding heart]

These organs are more driven by popular sentiment than anything else. They make MONEY by ADVERTISING so they have to show things that are INTERESTING to a broad spectrum.

There's no secret cabal planning out information disbursement to the nth degree. There can't be.

There's no conspiracy at all, I agree. But neither is the whole shebang driven by "popular sentiment," as you say, particularly since such a thing is immeasureable (no matter what marketing researchers might think to the contrary).

For example, news outlets depend--totally depend!--on sourcing, whether from sister news organs, wire services, or officials. Most of their sourcing, by necessity, comes from paid PR advisors to Government and Big Business. So, first of all, they're going to get a distorted view at times from these sources (and I doubt anyone disputes that); and second, there is a powerful inclination to ingratiate themselves to these sources, to keep the tap flowing, so to speak.

That, alone, is totally unrelated to "public sentiment," and in fact inclines naturally towards servility to the Powerful. Very naturally...virtually unavoidably, I contend.

And that's juts part of the issue with sourcing, and sourcing is in turn just part of what Herman and Chomsky called the "filters" that affect the news we see, read and hear.

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product readers and audiences to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature".[1] The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are:

Ownership of the medium

Medium's funding sources

Sourcing

Flak

Anti-communist ideology

The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. In versions after September 11th, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the War on Terror and antiterrorism, although they say it operates in much the same manner.

Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

For a much more expansive explanation, here's an excerpt from Manufacturing Consent (though with the fifth "filter," anti-communism, not updated).

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

So a story that reveals CNN's sympathies for leftism and the Democratic party is now spun into being evidence of the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent? That story (which made the rounds in American conservative media) exposes a pretty simple truth, that CNN is covering for the Obama administration in a way they wouldn't for a Republican administration. The purpose of the article is the play down the Fast and Furious scandal as a non-story, as an irrelevant deflection from conservatives and the Republican party. What the story really does, however, is provide yet another example of CNN's commitment to leftism and to the Obama administration. This thread, though, illustrates that you live in an alternate reality where descriptions of Obama as a socialist are "loony", as well as descriptions of CNN as being on the left, are both loony. Nobody is surprised that this is how you see the world, but still, it's worth pointing out.

[bleeding heart]

So a story that reveals CNN's sympathies for leftism and the Democratic party is now spun into being evidence of the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent? That story (which made the rounds in American conservative media) exposes a pretty simple truth, that CNN is covering for the Obama administration in a way they wouldn't for a Republican administration. The purpose of the article is the play down the Fast and Furious scandal as a non-story, as an irrelevant deflection from conservatives and the Republican party. What the story really does, however, is provide yet another example of CNN's commitment to leftism and to the Obama administration. This thread, though, illustrates that you live in an alternate reality where descriptions of Obama as a socialist are "loony", as well as descriptions of CNN as being on the left, are both loony. Nobody is surprised that this is how you see the world, but still, it's worth pointing out.

I have addressed all this; you don't counter my points simply by mocking them or disagreeing with them. You have to put in some effort, or else you aren't at all serious about the discussion.

And I see you missed the part about his defense of Ollie North and the Reagan administration.

You know, those loony socialists.

Too much readin' is hard, huh?

At any rate, if you have a strong and expansive critique of Herman/Chomsky's Propaganda model--which thoroughly addresses every point you've here made--have at 'er!

Show us. Put up, for once.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

I have addressed all this; you don't counter my points simply by mocking them or disagreeing with them. You have to put in some effort, or else you aren't at all serious about the discussion.

False...see François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire, since you seem to place great weight on name dropping in such matters.

[kraychik]

I read that article before, and it's from an openly-socialist "journalist" who shows up on CNN once in awhile. Hilariously, he won some "Journalist of the Year" award, despite the fact that barely anybody knows who he is, and he's never done any real journalism. I think it was some leftist LGBT award he won, because he's gay and supports same-sex marriage. Sort of like how Thomas Friedman wins a Pulitzer Prize for nonsense he rights, it's just leftist self-congratulatory behaviour.

To get to the point, your assertion that he "defended" the Reagan administration by referring to documents that still aren't old enough to be declassified is silly, because it's not a defence. What he's doing is trying to illustrate a (false) hypocrisy from conservatives who are trying to draw warranted attention to the Fast and Furious scandal which has been largely played down by leftist media outlets including CNN. He's trying to draw a parallel where there is none, because the Iran-Contra affair cannot be compared to the Fast and Furious scandal. He's saying, "You guys did it, too! So shut your mouth about it, now!". That's not a compelling argument, but that's what we've come to expect from LGBT socialist journalists at CNN.

The purpose of this article is clear, to provide cover for the Obama administration and Eric Holder regarding their involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal. This doesn't surprise anyone, either, I mean it is CNN we're talking about here. Ted Turner makes no secret of his leftist leanings and support for the Democratic party, and his view of how journalism should be done. I remember an interview he did not too long ago with Piers Morgan (another leftist, of course) where he stated dispassionately that his vision for CNN was to make it the M=New York Times of cable news. He's done a good job, in that respect.

Edited July 8, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

False...see François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire, since you seem to place great weight on name dropping in such matters.

I guess this guy really thinks he can spin a story that reveals CNN's leftist bias and support for the Democratic party into... the opposite? Like I said, he certainly lives in an alternate reality if he thinks CNN is part of some right-wing machine.

[bleeding heart]

False...see François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire, since you seem to place great weight on name dropping in such matters.

First of all, "see Voltaire" is, shall we say, a little vague. I gave a direct and unambiguously pointed reference. Can you elaborate?

Second, how is it "name-dropping" to cite the model which provides the jumping-off point precisely for what I am saying?

It would appear you're using kraychik's...methods...as a new focus and influence for your own remarks, and this might well be a strategic blunder.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

I read that article before, and it's from an openly-socialist "journalist" who shows up on CNN once in awhile. Hilariously, he won some "Journalist of the Year Award", despite the fact that barely anybody knows who he is. I think is was some leftist LGBT award, because he's gay and supports same-sex marriage.

I'm not making a claim for his excellence in journalism. Quite the opposite.

Your assertion that he "defended" the Reagan administration by referring to documents that still aren't old enough to be declassified is silly, because it's not a defence. What he's doing is trying to illustrate a (false) hypocrisy from conservatives who are trying to draw warranted attention to the Fast and Furious scandal which has been largely played down by

leftist media outlets including CNN. He's trying to draw a parallel where there is none, because the Iran-Contra affair cannot be compared to the Fast and Furious scandal.

then his subterfuge is subtle indeed--too subtle to possibly be effective--because his praise for Ollie North is effusive; and because his support of Reagan-era secrets is unambiguous.

The purpose of this article is clear, to provide cover for the Obama administration and Eric Holder regarding their involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal.

Exactly so. I couldn't agree more. The point is that this underlines a larger tendency of servility-to-power that transcends political partisanship.

Like I said, he certainly lives in an alternate reality if he thinks CNN is part of some right-wing machine.

You're fabricating.

You're making this up.

I said no such thing; and in fact, I don't think this at all. The media serves elite interets, Business and Government...whether they're liberals or conservatives is not relevant, at least not in the larger sphere of the institutional anlysis.

If you don't read my posts, how do you suppose you're going to rationally respond to them???

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples from CNN which were clear attempts at playing down the scandal. This is not even mentioning how little time was devoted to this developing story from CNN, whereas it was focused on much more by conservative media outlets. Part of examining bias in media is focusing as much on what they don't report, as much as on what they do or how they do it.

Here is Soledad O'Brien implying that gun-walking never took place, contrary to strong evidence (Holder's very own testimony) suggesting otherwise by invoking the "research" of an uninvolved and irrelevant political "journalist". Admittedly, Soledad O'Brien is low-hanging fruit and blatantly a socialist and Obama-devotee, but it's not uncommon for CNN to sell this type of leftist narrative that is sympathetic to the Democratic party, at the expense of honesty.

Edited July 8, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

I'm not making a claim for his excellence in journalism. Quite the opposite.

Exactly so. I couldn't agree more. The point is that this underlines a larger tendency of servility-to-power that transcends political partisanship.

You're fabricating.

You're making this up.

I said no such thing; and in fact, I don't think this at all. The media serves elite interets, Business and Government...whether they're liberals or conservatives is not relevant, at least not in the larger sphere of the institutional anlysis.

If you don't read my posts, how do you suppose you're going to rationally respond to them???

You're challenging the simple truth that CNN is a leftist media outlet that is largely supportive of the Democratic party, even when it compels them to be dishonest. Whether it is "elite" or not is not really a socialist narrative I want to get into, as it's clear you subscribe to this narrative of competing power struggles between various classes (a Marxist worldview). Elites or otherwise, CNN leans to the left, which is what you're disputing.

[bleeding heart]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples from CNN which were clear attempts at playing down the scandal. This is not even mentioning how little time was devoted to this developing story from CNN, whereas it was focused on much more by conservative media outlets. Part of examining bias in media is focusing as much on what they don't report, as much as on what they do or how they do it.

Here is Soledad O'Brien implying that run-walking never took place, contrary to strong evidence (Holder's very own testimony) suggesting otherwise by invoking the "research" of an uninvolved and irrelevant political "journalist". Admittedly, Soledad O'Brien is low-hanging fruit and blatantly a socialist and Obama-devotee, but it's not uncommon for CNN to sell this type of leftist narrative that is sympathetic to the Democratic party, at the expense of honesty.

A non-argument. I agree that CNN have played down the story.

This is not the first time. When it was discovered that the Bush administration was using, as war propaganda, "message-force multipliers" (their term)--that is, retired Generals, briefed and given talking points by administration officials, and then appearing on the major news networks as "independent analysts" (the literal opposite of the truth)...none of the networks (including, of course, FOX and CNN) even covered the story.

That's because they're propagandists.

For Power.

And CNN kept mum for Bush just as they now do for Obama.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

First of all, "see Voltaire" is, shall we say, a little vague. I gave a direct and unambiguously pointed reference. Can you elaborate?

Just trying to speak your language....original thought apparently isn't good enough for you.

Second, how is it "name-dropping" to cite the model which provides the jumping-off point precisely for what I am saying?

By invoking the model to begin with. Don't use proxies as a substitute for substance.

It would appear you're using kraychik's...methods...as a new focus and influence for your own remarks, and this might well be a strategic blunder.

I think not...Voltaire did not invent biting mockery.

[kraychik]

Here's another video from CNN, Anderson Cooper's 360 (hosted by Soledad O'Brien), implying that gun-walking never took place. Another clear example of CNN providing journalistic cover to protect its favoured candidate. Here she is interviewing the Democratic-operate posing as a "journalist" with "research" suggesting that the gun-walking never took place.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/28/CNN-Questions-Whether-Fast-Furious-Actually-Happened

[bleeding heart]

You're challenging the simple truth that CNN is a leftist media outlet

No, I'm challenging that opinion.

And it's quite beside my point...but then, as we've already determined, you don't read the posts to which you're responding, so to be fair, there's no way for you to understand this....

that is largely supportive of the Democratic party, even when it compels them to be dishonest.

Yes. This is in fact the case, I believe. At other times (as I pointed out) they have supported the Bush administration, even when it compelled them to be dishonest.

And it's certainly true that some news outlets favour one party over the other. As a FOX fan, you know this full well.

It's beside my point. It's "unfair," but it's a tiny part of the larger picture.

[kraychik]

A non-argument. I agree that CNN have played down the story.

This is not the first time. When it was discovered that the Bush administration was using, as war propaganda, "message-force multipliers" (their term)--that is, retired Generals, briefed and given talking points by administration officials, and then appearing on the major news networks as "independent analysts" (the literal opposite of the truth)...none of the networks (including, of course, FOX and CNN) even covered the story.

That's because they're propagandists.

For Power.

And CNN kept mum for Bush just as they now do for Obama.

There is nothing untoward about former military persons selling their expertise to media outlets who solicit their commentary. Their is also nothing untoward about these military persons attending information (or propaganda, if you view it that way) sessions hosted from the government that wishes to get its message out to the public.

There is also no contradiction in self-describing as an "independent analyst", since they can provide commentary based on the information they've received in their own way. Being paid to provide commentary based on one's credentials doesn't make them non-independent. Neither does having been present as an information session composed by the former Bush administration. I'd like to see these videos you're referencing, which I'm virtually positive you haven't seen, but have only read about. Let's see it.

[bleeding heart]

Just trying to speak your language....original thought apparently isn't good enough for you.

You've never read any sources from which you've gleaned information?

By invoking the model to begin with. Don't use proxies as a substitute for substance.

That's silly. Everyone has other writers and thinkers who have influenced their opinions in one way or another. You're just being silly.

I think not...Voltaire did not invent biting mockery.

nNor did you; you learned it from others.

See?

[kraychik]

No, I'm challenging that opinion.

And it's quite beside my point...but then, as we've already determined, you don't read the posts to which you're responding, so to be fair, there's no way for you to understand this....

Yes. This is in fact the case, I believe. At other times (as I pointed out) they have supported the Bush administration, even when it compelled them to be dishonest.

And it's certainly true that some news outlets favour one party over the other. As a FOX fan, you know this full well.

It's beside my point. It's "unfair," but it's a tiny part of the larger picture.

While CNN is not 100% beside leftism and the Democratic party at every turn and on every story, its slant is decidedly leftist and Democratic. For every example you can provide legitimately showing favour involving dishonesty for the conservative or Republican view of an issue or story, I can provide five or ten. This is what you're disputing, and this is the lie of yours I'm exposing.

[bleeding heart]

There is nothing untoward about former military persons selling their expertise to media outlets who solicit their commentary. Their is also nothing untoward about these military persons attending information (or propaganda, if you view it that way) sessions hosted from the government that wishes to get its message out to the public.

There is when the fact is never mentioned, and they are then sold as "independent."

It's outright propaganda, Soviet style.

And you don't even mind it. Now that's funny!

There is also no contradiction in self-describing as an "independent analyst", since they can provide commentary based on the information they've received in their own way.

They were given talking points to bring up in their interviews; and all of this was intentionally kept from the public.

That's deceit; and that's the news media acting as propaganda arm of the Government.

So much for your "libertarian" credentials; ever notice how many self-styled libertarians are actually...commissars?

Being paid to provide commentary based on one's credentials doesn't make them non-independent. Neither does having been present as an information session composed by the former Bush administration.

Ok...read the story, and then defend it.

If you like the old Pravda, I have no doubt you will defend it! lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

I'm not surprised you didn't hear about it...the tv didn't report it for you.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

While CNN is not 100% beside leftism and the Democratic party at every turn and on every story, its slant is decidedly leftist and Democratic. For every example you can provide legitimately showing favour involving dishonesty for the conservative or Republican view of an issue or story, I can provide five or ten. This is what you're disputing, and this is the lie of yours I'm exposing.

I'm not arguing this, and in fact never suggested it.

So it's interesting that you'd lie about what I'm saying...and in the same sentence, call me a liar for what I never said!

And what you're "exposing" is that you have missed the entire point of my post--for which you have no intelligent reply, none whatsoever...and so you deflect.

When you make a serious attempt to discuss the very point of the entire thread...we can then go on to discuss your relatively trivial points, if you wish.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

There is when the fact is never mentioned, and they are then sold as "independent."

It's outright propaganda, Soviet style.

And you don't even mind it. Now that's funny!

There's nothing "Soviet-style" about a government holding an information session for certain individuals who are free not to attend, who then are solicited by various media outlets to spread their narrative. Nobody is being forced to do or not do anything with respect to this matter. The key ingredient that defined the Soviet Union and continues to define other leftist dictatorships is coercion, and there was no coercion present in this story. It's also ironic for an open socialist such as yourself to be invoking the former Pravda in the pejorative, since newspapers like Pravda would define the media landscape if things were up to people like yourself.

They were given talking points to bring up in their interviews; and all of this was intentionally kept from the public.

Wow, the media withheld relevant context? I'm shocked.

That's deceit; and that's the news media acting as propaganda arm of the Government.

How about all the times where various news outlets go after the government, its officials, and its policies (either honestly or dishonestly)? I guess that doesn't fit in with your Marxist narrative of the media being subservient to the interests of the government or the imagined elite, as per your Manufacturing Consent argument.

So much for your "libertarian" credentials; ever notice how many self-styled libertarians are actually...commissars?

I am not a libertarian, I am a conservative.

Ok...read the story, and then defend it.

If you like the old Pravda, I have no doubt you will defend it! lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

I'm not surprised you didn't hear about it...the tv didn't report it for you.

This is deliciously ironic, as you linking this post essentially shatters your Marxist narrative of the media serving the interests of the elite at the expense of the everyman. The false narrative from Manufacturing Consent isn't reconcilable with a New York Times article doing exactly what it's not permitted to do, according to the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent. If the elite media is wholly beholden to the powers that be and meeting with evil elites in smoke-filled rooms to continually pull the wool over the eyes of the everyman, the New York Times (the epitome of leftist news outlets, in reality) would not dare to compose let alone publish such an article laced with innuendo about malicious and dishonest government communications protocols involving the complicit media.

Even better, what the New York Times article you linked actually does is confirm what I said. The New York Times would never run such a piece during the years of an Obama administration, despite the fact that such communications policies are coordination between the government and media in various dimensions is normal and has been occurring for many decades. The NEw York Times article you linked is yet another example of the leftist bias of the newspaper and its sympathies for the Democratic party in the USA.

Thank you unknowingly making a post that does two things: shatters your false Marxist narrative of the media being the tool of the elite on the one hand, while confirming the obvious truth of what I've been saying about the leftist bias and support for the Democratic party that is dominant among what's now being called "the old media". Two birds with one stone, as it were.

[kraychik]

I suppose bleeding heart views himself as a sort of Neo in this Matrix world in which we live. We're all just dumb automatons walking around, but only he and hi Noam Chomsky (Morpheus) has the ability to see through the false programming and get to the truth.

[GostHacked]

I suppose bleeding heart views himself as a sort of Neo in this Matrix world in which we live. We're all just dumb automatons walking around, but only he and hi Noam Chomsky (Morpheus) has the ability to see through the false programming and get to the truth.

Bleeding heart, is not alone in having the ability to see through the false programming. You just have to read between the lines for some of the information.

You want to see a perfect example of the manipulation of the news? Glaxo Kline Smith has just settled a 3 billion US dollar lawsuit. Promoting drugs never trialed for certain uses. Seems like a huge oversight. It is the largest pharmaceutical scandal ever. Now why is that not making top headlines? Seems like a very important thing where people's lives are at risk due to drugs that should never have been approved for that certain treatment. It is outright fraud. The FDA is also complicit in this as they allowed it to happen and did not vet the trials that never happened.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299704577502642401041730.html

This is the kind of thing we really need to get nosy about.

The settlement was Glaxo's fourth with the U.S. government in the past several years but is by far its costliest and most far-reaching. Over a period of more than a decade, the government's latest investigation found, the company plied doctors with perks such as free spa treatments, Colorado ski trips, pheasant-hunting jaunts to Europe and Madonna concert tickets, Justice Department officials said.

What else managed to slip by the FDA?