Fast forward to todays journalism - todays reporter and todays news ... or should we say the total destruction of todays news. Once it paid to be on the spot for breaking news. Now it still pays but it doesn't really matter if you miss the story because you can just take it off the syndication feeds and report on it anyway.

Once, if you missed the scoop, the next edition of your employer's news broadcast would be sadly lacking in comparison to your opposition who had scooped the story. Nowadays, owing to syndication, all rival networks can report on the same stories at the same time.

This is where we have major problems marching insidiously into todays news. Where once we would sit down in front of the six-o-clock news and flick through the channels to get more details and a different slant on stories, today all rival channels are sprouting the same piece. All fed to them by a news organization such as Reuters.

Journalist integrity is a thing of the past. Reporters now write up stories with no clue except from the syndication feed in their hands. No follow-ups are made, no separate witnesses are interviewed, it is all the same, no unique perspective, no unique broadcast.

While syndication may have helped media outlets to produce stories at a low cost to themselves and their budget, at what cost does that come to the people, the ultimate consumer? Instead of paying a journalist to sit in a war zone, it is much easier and a hell of a lot cheaper to pay Reuters to get a live feed sent to you 24/7.

The media is monopolized by these syndications. No unique reporting is done and media outlets rarely sent their own correspondents to a news site to get the low down on news.

The issues with this are many. One story, one source, one side. We only get one perspective of news and unfortunately, many take this as gospel. As truth.

And it's not just the syndications that are an issue. Media is tightly controlled by governments. It was only this year that certain Internet bloggers were allowed to attend official government media interviews. Freelance journalists nowadays do not get a look in. At official government press conferences and increasingly so in private and public conferences questions must be submitted by the reporters in advance. Only those pertinent to the point of view or stance taken are allowed to be asked. Soft journalism...... no putting interviewees on the spot no embarrassing questions taken.

It was experienced by an Irish journalist who interviewed George W. Bush in disastrous circumstances a few years ago. This served to highlight the state of the integrity of journalism today or lack of. This reporter was told how to do everything and exactly what she could and couldn't say to "The leader of The Free World" and disciplined heavily by the government of the USA just for doing her job. Just for asking the hard questions and not allowing her interviewee to lead the interview.

But this reporter has shown us that true journalism does still exist in isolated pockets. Even though the government of America and other so called super powers are trying their hardest to control the media totally. This woman's story has become public, told by a true professional and the ultimate statement given by this woman to us of the state of the powers was that she should be grateful that "The Leader Of The Free World" was allowing her to interview him.

Media sent to war zones are tightly controlled of just what pictures and stories are released to the public. If a dissident reporter reports a tad more of the truth than is allowed, as in the above case, pressure is exerted by the government and journalists find themselves jobless or worse. Journalists have been known to go missing.

There lies the conundrum for any reporter. It was great to grow up and fulfill that dream, to become that reporter. But now we have a choice, we have a great job, travel, benefits, fame, money and power, do we sacrifice that for the truth? Most will tow the party line. It takes one with much courage and heart and probably little common sense to go out and get the "Real McCoy". It's far easier to sit in the offices, take the news off the feed, reword it and publish it and then go down to the local club for a long liquid lunch.

If real stories do come up reporters are discouraged from reporting the whole truth and in some instances outwardly stopped. There are many instances of stories being killed because "they are not in the national interest". Worse the reports of large amounts of Journalists killed in risky areas, getting that risky story. The problem is those are the stories that are in the publics interest but the public never gets to hear about it.

Reuters has done for more for the "New World Order", One Nation movement than can be seen on the surface. Reuters is the largest propaganda machine created in the world today. If it has Reuters on it, it is deemed to be a respectable piece.

Press releases are another way to stop journalistic integrity. Press releases do not allow for questioning. They do not allow for the reporter to put there own questions to the persons concerned.

Then there is the legal action and liability court cases. Journalists are less likely to search out sources unless they are ironclad in evidence for fear of being sued. Your editor is less likely to approve a good story if it exposes a high profile person with suing ability.

One instance of journalism gone wrong in the press in the last few years was the Kate Moss "Drugs" fiasco.

Who was right and who was wrong - Games People Play. Kate Moss successfully sued Britain's Mirror newspaper a few years ago after it claimed she was involved with drugs. She was awarded compensation for this matter and an apology from the news agents who had reported she took drugs. "I am sorry Kate Moss, our mistake. You're not a drug taker."

Now anyone in their right mind knows Kate does drugs. Just look at her current accompanying handbag, Pete Doherty and his recent history. In the 90s, Katie was the centre of the "heroin chic models" scene. In the last few years nothing has appeared to change and rumors have cropped up in gossip columns often. So Kate lied. She lied to protect her image, I presume, but she lied.

The media who reported this got slugged with that lie. They got fined and slapped hard for doing their job and reporting the truth. But revenge is sweet. The paper had surveillance on the lovely Kate and held their ears to the ground and in one flick, one headline, one very revealing photo, Kate's world was ruined. "Katie Did Drugs", and here was the pictures to prove it. Payback Journalism. Integrity? No but sweet revenge. Kate does do drugs and she was caught on the front page worldwide with her pants down.

In the relentless pursuit of the new World Order, the buddy system, you scratch my back, I will scratch yours, many a life has been ruined by payback journalism. No integrity.

The opposition leader of the News South Wales Australian state government was overheard at a party in 2005 making a remark about the wife of the former premier of New South Wales calling her a "mail order bride". At parties, comments like these are flicked between people like water off a ducks back. At private gatherings, people tend to talk to friends more easily not thinking that someone in the group has wicked thoughts about destroying them. The person is then setup and the newspapers have a field day pasting the comment all over front pages and headline news. A comment that was a private speaking between friends is now the very public downfall of a leading politician who had obviously stepped onto someones toes. Payback journalism owned.

The question is often asked in these instances Is the media owned by the government or is the government 0wned by the media. The government holds the licenses and control in their hands, yet the media has the ability to destroy that government with the flick of a headline. Watergate comes to mind. Would Watergate have happened if Nixon and co were on "the right team"?

The government cannot afford in this day and age not to have control over the media. The further up the hierarchy the more the lines blur into indistinction and indescretion. The media presents the powerful face of ability, yet refuses to expose all, choosing instead to play a game of chess with themselves as the pawns just as much as the ultimate consumer is, the reader and watcher.

All stories out of any situation should be regarded with suspicion. At times, a clever journalist will hint without coming to the point and leave clues of thought behind in a reader's head, but many times they don't report the facts as they see them - they rewrite the scrap of paper in front of them and consider it gospel, because Reuters told them so. The news articles are printed directly from the Reuters or AP Feeds, without research, without cross referencing sources, just blind faith acceptance of the news that has just been spoon fed to them.

The news today is not news. We have no clue on the real news. We have no contrasting opinion and no other side of the coin. The syndications are sent worldwide and one only has to type a headlining article into Google to find the same fed article, same wording staring back at them from most if not all the standard news outlets in every country, in every land.

Even closed countries like China and other "not so friendly to the super powers" countries report from Reuters and AP feeds. One can no longer go and search an opposing countries news feeds for a different slant on the story.

How can any other news outlet deny bias when the story they have is pure bias. Its one side, Its a syndication feed, it's propaganda media, it's censored. A reporter cannot swear by a no bias tag on their story when all they have as a source is that feed. No corroboration and no witness accounts.

Buzzwords abound like "A source close to the event", "terrorists", "key witness", "A spokesman", "a doctor", "reports say", "witnesses report", "an unnamed source", "mohammed azzi", "Zargewi" and the best buzzword of 2005 ... and actually, this word gets my prize for the world wide media buzzword for new millenium: "Insurgents".

For a word I had never really heard of or used 18 months ago, I come across it at least ten times a day, every day. It's all by rote, it's all formulated, no imagination, no drift towards the truth. Where has all the honesty and brutal truth and cold hard facts gone?

The challenge to all journalists and reporters in the world today including armchair citizen reporters is to start seeking the truth again. To purge the reporting of bias and spoon feeds. To retake the media and give news back its heart. To encourage originality. To encourage the hard questions. To encourage getting out there and finding the other side of the story.

It's a bit harder to find the other side of the coin, it's been lying in the dirt so long its rather hard to see. It's surface is hidden under the bright side, it's dull and not shiny and attractive. It's gritty, it's dirty and it's real in all it's hidden points and curves. It's the other side of the story because all stories are three dimensional and have more than two sides.

Do not take what you are told as gospel, find out more, study, research, seek, deny the bias that has so attractively been placed in your lap. Be a reporter, be a journalist, be a snoop.

Just who does own Reuters because Reuters certainly owns you.