Interesting show this one, caught an episode today where they were discussing the need for a global government, like it was no big thing… yikes.

I’ll endeavour to post it when it makes it into the “pipes and dump-tucks” of internet land.

Here is a good intro but Its all propaganda at the end of the day. Sigh.

“With global media now in the hands of supra-national players peddling their own agendas and internet giants in search of profit and influence, Empire asks what’s the future for journalism in the age of media empires.”

&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0">&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

Like

Unlike

Triangle and Stratos launch ‘explosive’ political show

Expect explosive comments and fireworks when New Zealand’s “most opinionated man” Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury and his revolving panel of big city bloggers review current political media issues in a new show Citizen A on Triangle and Stratos Television.

A natural progression from Bomber’s current show ‘Bomber’s Blog: The War on News,’ (Tuesdays at 10.30pm on Stratos and Wednesdays at 9.45pm on Triangle) Citizen A enters the realms of ‘citizen journalism’ with further viewer discussion to follow on the internet via blogs, Twitter and Facebook.

Guests include Phoebe Fletcher from Auckland University Film, Selwyn Manning from Scoop.co.nz, Cameron Slater from Whaleoil, Ian McIntosh from the Auckland Council of Civil Liberties and Tim Selwyn, the last man to be jailed for sedition, from Tumeke.

‘Bomber’, known for his no-nonsense bias and biting interviewing style, has appeared on Radio NZ’s ‘The Panel’, TVNZ’s ‘Eye to Eye’, TVNZ 7’s ‘Backbenchers’, RadioLive!, Alt Tv’s ‘The Sunday News Roast’ and ‘Let’s be Frank’ as well as hosting TV3’s current affairs show, ‘Stake Out’.

Citizen A will screen on Thursdays at 7pm on Triangle from July 22 and on Sundays at 8pm on Stratos from July 25.

Triangle Auckland is on UHF Channels 41, 42 and 52 and in Christchurch via TelstraClear cable (Channel 50). Triangle’s sister channel, Stratos Television, broadcasts nationwide via Sky Digital (Channel 89), Freeview (Channel 21) and TelstraClear cable.

ends

Like

Unlike

I realise that Democracy Now are, to some extent, gatekeepers, but both these interviews are worth a listen.

“Top Secret America” Washington Post Investigation Reveals Massive, Unmanageable, Outsourced US Intelligence System”

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/19/top_secret_america__washington_post

“Tim Shorrock Asks Why It Took the Washington Post So Long to Investigate the US Intelligence System”

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/19/tim_shorrock_asks_why_it_took

A recent trip to Europe has convinced me that the governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access.

The real reason for controlling the internet is to restrict access to information, something every government seeks to do.

[ good luck with that shit ]

Read the rest here

A surprise appearance by WikiLeaks.org founder Julian Assange at the TED Global conference in Oxford, England, has cast new light on the activities of the site and its mysterious leader.

The only thing faster than a National Party U-turn on mining is the NZ Police backpedaling going from justifying their shooting of a person in West Auckland because of a ‘gunfight’, to ‘a couple of shots’ to ‘we’re not sure the person we shot even fired at us anymore as they seem to have had nothing more dangerous than an air rifle on them’.

National have to U-turn on mining because they lied about the valuation, they insinuated Billions when we would barely get a fraction of that and they were going to damage our global clean green brand for a couple of magic beans from the corporate mining industry.

Let’s look for where the fishooks in this announcement will be, National will remove any mining near the electorally damaging Auckland region and focus on ripping up land no one sees much, but it is a day where protest forced Gerry and his magical mystery mining money machine to back down, so that when a young Nat sneers that protest never works, we can all point to this political victory and tell them where to stick their anti=protest nihilism.

It’s a great day for environmental protest, we can force a Government to change!

Want to know more?

On at the Auckland film festival

http://www.nzff.co.nz/default.aspx?id=8791&region=2

Still tickets available for the last two shows. … ooooh but hurry.

=========================

The official ‘redband’ trailer for American The Bill Hicks Story www.americanthemovie.com
This groundbreaking new documentary uses a stunning new animation technique to tell the story of the modern cultural icon Bill Hicks.
Music: “Breathe Me” performed by Sia, courtesy of Island UK and Universal Music Operations Ltd. Written by Furler/Carey.

Like

Unlike

responded to a recent challenge.

Fisk could no longer recall whether it “was about the BBC’s grovelling coverage of Israel

or its refusal to show a film seeking help for wounded Palestinian children after the 2008-09 Gaza slaughter

(on the grounds that this would damage the BBC’s ‘neutrality’)”.

But the BBC correspondent was blandly dismissive:

“I recognise this is an issue.”

Fisk skilfully unpacked the meaning of this “very revealing” BBC reply:

“Of course, what he should have said was: I know this is a problem.

But he couldn’t.

Because BBC-speak doesn’t allow words like problems – because problems have to be solved.

And the BBC doesn’t solve problems.

Because they do not exist.

There are only ‘issues’.

And issues only have to be ‘recognised’.

Thus what my friend really meant was: ‘I know exactly what you’re talking about but I haven’t the slightest intention of admitting it, so piss off.’”

(Fisk, ‘Newspeak: why the BBC has an “issue” with problems’, The Independent, July 3, 2010; http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-newspeak-why-the-bbc-has-an-issue-with-problems-2017279.html)

This has also been the experience of many of our readers who complain to BBC editors and journalists about endless examples of bias, distortion and omission in BBC news.

All too often, Kafkaesque responses are generated by the clanking pistons, turbines and pumps of the BBC complaints machinery.

Here is a typical example, following a complaint about BBC coverage of the Israeli attack on the Gaza peace flotilla from one of our most careful and astute correspondents:

“Thank you for your e-mail.

“I understand that you believe the BBC in general is biased in it’s [sic] reporting on the Middle East situation towards the Israeli perspective.

“I can assure you that we are committed to covering events in the Middle East in a scrupulously impartial, fair, accurate, balanced, independent manner. The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. We are satisfied that this has been the case in respect of our reporting of the Middle East, Nevertheless, I recognise you may continue to hold a different opinion about the BBC’s impartiality.

“Please be assured that I’ve registered your obvious strong feelings about our coverage on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

“Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views with us.” (Email from BBC complaints, July 3, 2010)

This is entirely standard and is the BBC’s idea of a serious reply to a serious complaint.

Tellingly, such responses do not include the text of the original email, making it difficult for members of the public to check how well, if at all, their complaint has been addressed.

Typically, these identikit responses contain unsupported, bold assertions affirming that “scrupulously impartial” BBC news reports “show the reality of a situation” with “all viewpoints” being heard.

No evidence is offered – the BBC knows best! But as the complainant asked when he wrote back:

“What criteria do you use to decide that you have been able ‘to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard’ when you judge yourselves in your own cause?”

(Keith Crosby, email to the BBC, July 3, 2010)

As far as we know, the BBC has not responded to this question.

Perhaps because it is incapable of doing so.

Helen’s Chocka Diary

Readers may also be aware that the BBC uses a cumbersome web form for complaints which does not allow a copy of the submitted text to be sent to the person making the submission.

And, shamefully, there is not even a direct email address for members of the public to use.

As one of our readers observes in a complaint to the BBC:

“Surely the BBC can manage to formulate a system that quotes the original complaint when issuing a response, and records when the complaint was sent in so the recipient can tell how long it took to respond?”

(Keith Granger, email to the BBC, June 30, 2010)

In 2006, BBC news editor Helen Boaden described how she deflects public criticism sent to her by email.

Francis Elliott explained in the Independent:

“Don’t bother emailing complaints to BBC head of news Helen Boaden.

She was at the launch evening for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford last Monday night.

Discussion turned to protest groups and lobbying outfits which email their views to senior editors.

Boaden’s response: ‘Oh, I just changed my email address.’

So much for the Beeb being accountable.”

(Elliott, ‘Media Diary – Helen the hidden’, The Independent, November 26, 2006; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-tossers-who-could-win-for-the-tories-425799.html)

In January 2010, we invited Boaden to participate in an interview about BBC News to be made publicly available via our website at www.medialens.org.

We proposed sending a few brief questions via email.

“Would you be willing to participate?”, we asked her.

We received a response from Boaden’s assistant asking:

“Could you give me an idea of the sort of questions you are thinking of and when you might want to do it?”

We replied saying that the questions would deal largely with BBC news reporting from the Middle East and Afghanistan; for example, coverage of the death toll in Iraq.

We then sent a number of questions (archived in our forum here: http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10687#10687). A few days later, the assistant wrote again:

“I’ve now had a chance to talk to Helen and I don’t think this is going to be one we can help with.

Helen doesn’t do interviews that often – mostly because her diary is always chocka.”

(Email, January 11, 2010)

A simultaneous approach made to Sir Michael Lyons, chair of the BBC Trust, which supposedly ensures that the BBC acts in the public interest, was again answered by his personal assistant:

“Having given your request careful consideration, Sir Michael has decided to decline your offer.

The Trust’s on-going work programme includes a number of strands focussing on BBC news output, and as Sir Michael has previously said, there will be an opportunity for you to contribute to this in the future should you wish.

Additionally, given the fact that some of this work is already on-going, he does not feel it would be appropriate to engage in any correspondence at this time which would cut across or be seen to pre-judge the outcome of this work.

I am sorry to disappoint you.” (January 13, 2010)

Lyons had previously declined to debate with us after he had been sent a copy of our latest book, ‘Newspeak’, and asked for his response to our arguments about BBC News.

He told us:

“I do not think that I can fruitfully enter into a dialogue about my reactions [to the book]”

‘The Silence of the BBC 100’,

December 4, 2009;  http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/091204_the_silence_of.php)

In the absence of overwhelming grassroots pressure, the public will continue to be disappointed by BBC news performance,

and will continue to be fobbed off by robotic insults to the intelligence of people who care enough to complain.

Source

Like

Unlike

The history of the Internet

By Melih Bilgil
Motiongraphics Documentary with PICOL icons
2009

http://www.lonja.de/the-history-of-the-internet/

History of the Internet from Melih Bilgil on Vimeo.

Like

Unlike

http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/forget-truth-you-know-3625757

Link to video: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/forget-truth-you-know-3625757/video

The big three nightly news broadcasts, NBC Nightly, CBS Evening and ABC World,

lost a combined one million viewers in the second quarter of 2010, according to TVNewser.

These numbers are comparable to the first quarter, which saw Evening News and World News get their lowest average viewers ever,

while NBC’s Winter Olympics coverage helped it get their highest average viewers since 2005. In the second quarter,

NBC lost 440,000 viewers,

ABC 260,000

and CBS 340,000.

It was about this time last year that ABC and CBS’ news programs had their lowest ratings ever.

These numbers are not at all surprising in light of the public’s continued distrust of the old media.

As Newsbusters’ Rich Noyes wrote of a Rasmussen poll released earlier this month,

“Perhaps as a result, the poll finds an astonishing two-thirds of the public (66 percent) say they are angry with the media,

‘including 33 percent who are very angry’ with the press.”

Read the rest here

Like

Unlike

He began his career in journalism nearly half a century ago and has written close to a dozen books and made over fifty documentaries.

He lives in London but is in the United States working on a forthcoming documentary about what he calls “the war on the media.”

It’s called The War You Don’t See.

Transcript and download

Ta

Oligarchs are seizing more overt control in most countries in the world, the worldwide economy is on course for another – even bigger – train wreck, countries are cracking down on freedom and becoming more tyrannical, we are in a permanent state of war (and see this), and companies like BP are destroying our natural resources without any checks and balances.

But as Andrew Gavin Marshall points out, the elites are actually terrified of the mass political awakening which is occurring worldwide.

Marshall collects quotes from flexian Zbigniew Brzezinski – Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, National Security Adviser to President Carter, creator of America’s strategy to lure Russia into Afghanistan, and creator of America’s plans for Eurasia in general – to make his point.

Listen to Brzezinski’s own words (consolidated from various writings and speeches, and edited as if they were a single passage):

“For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive.

Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive.

There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.

The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination.

America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.

The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America’s global role?

[T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening.

That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.

It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest.

It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.

The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions.

These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful.

The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well.

With the exception of Europe, Japan and America, the rapidly expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under age bracket is creating a huge mass of impatient young people.

Their minds have been stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar and which intensify their disaffection with what is at hand.

Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries.

Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students.

Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square.

Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred.

Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities.

The quest for political dignity, especially through national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world’s underprivileged

The misdiagnosis [of foreign policy] pertains to a relatively vague, excessively abstract, highly emotional, semi-theological definition of the chief menace that we face today in the world, and the consequent slighting of what I view as the unprecedented global challenge arising out of the unique phenomenon of a truly massive global political awakening of mankind.

We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree, and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil.

That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history.

They have political consciousness.

It may be undefined, it may point in different directions, it may be primitive, it may be intolerant, it may be hateful, but it is a form of political activism.

The other major change in international affairs is that for the first time, in all of human history, mankind has been politically awakened.

That is a total new reality – total new reality.

It has not been so for most of human history until the last one hundred years.

And in the course of the last one hundred years, the whole world has become politically awakened.

And no matter where you go, politics is a matter of social engagement, and most people know what is generally going on

–generally going on –

in the world, and are consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation.

Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring.

The combination of the two: the diversified global leadership, politically awakened masses, makes a much more difficult context for any major power including, currently, the leading world power: the United States.

The people of the world are waking up to the reality of what is happening.

If we wake up fast enough, we can reclaim our power and dignity, and shake off those who would steal everything we have, including our money, opportunity and freedom.

To see the context of Brzezinski ’s quotes – and for a great analysis of the ways in which the powers-that-be are trying to counter the mass awakening,

read Marshall’s essay.

a trend that has left sites considering ways to get users to pay directly for content.

Traditional print outlets are at the forefront of this trend, led by major sites like The New York Times

and various properties in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. empire.

In the UK, The Times is rolling out its paywall and now demands that anyone intent on reading its content register an account.

According to research done by the traffic metrics firm Hitwise, simply demanding registration has already cut into traffic at The Times.

Right now, The Times isn’t charging for content,

although it plans on doing so in the near future.

As of mid-June, however, the site started requiring that anyone who wished to view an actual article register an account.

Ultimately, these accounts will be used to try to extract payment for viewing an article’s content.

But, according to Hitwise’s numbers,

simply adding the registration barrier has cut traffic to the site almost in half.

[ oh my god that's just fucking brilliant ]

Read the rest here

is their deep-seated belief in the free press.

We are taught from an early age that the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees us many cherished freedoms, among which is freedom of the press.

If there were really any serious problems with the official 9-11 explanation,

many Americans reason,

this information wouldn’t go unreported for long in our media-saturated society.

Major news organizations such as CNN, Time, and the New York Times would most certainly investigate and report any serious problems almost immediately.

Nearly all major American news organizations have embraced the government’s version of events with few questions asked.

Consequently, many Americans naturally conclude that it’s safe to accept the official story at face value.

There is a very serious flaw in this line of reasoning, however:

The United States is at war and,

for nearly a hundred years,

the U.S. government,

major media companies

and leading journalists have joined forces with the military during wars and other national emergencies

to shape public opinion by carefully controlling what Americans are told about world events.

Especially since World War I, whenever the U.S. government has chosen to take the nation to war,

or to address some other major emergency,

it has quietly called upon top journalists and media executives to help overcome anti-war sentiment,

promote popular hostility toward a designated enemy,

or simply calm public anxieties.

This may seem surprising to many readers, so it is worth reviewing a few historical examples of such media-government collusion.

Because deception is a fundamental technique of warfare,

military organizations have sought control over war-related information virtually since the dawn of human history.

The Chinese writer Sun Tzu put it well in his classic work, The Art of War: “All war is based on deception,” he wrote.

“Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity.

When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near.

Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him.” ¹

In modern times, deception has always employed two fundamental stages:

censorship followed by propaganda.

Censorship deprives the public and enemies of accurate information about what is taking place.

Once this information vacuum has been created, propaganda is injected into this conceptual void, thus creating a false but entirely believable picture of events.

In the age of mass media, this simply couldn’t be achieved without the assistance of major news organizations,

journalists,

and other communication outlets.

Thus, governments nearly always appeal to these organizations for help in this complex task.

The British Empire, which once ruled much of the planet,

was for some centuries among the most skilled practitioners of this dark art.

Unlike revolutionary America, imperial Britain never embraced the notion of a free press, since centralized control of news and information was essential to its global deception activities. According to Philip Knightly, author of The First Casualty: From Crimea to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker, Britain was so skilled in the use of propaganda during World War I that it became a major inspiration for the later efforts of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. ² The keystone to British deception plans was always a close but clandestine working relationship with newspaper publishers and other media organizations.

A War to End All Wars

Prior to World War I, when America’s imperial aspirations were still relatively modest, the U.S. military was correspondingly unsophisticated in the uses of deception. With the coming of World Wars I and II, however, this situation changed drastically, mainly through the assistance of British intelligence which tutored its American counterparts, largely out of a desire for self-preservation.

In the early years of World War I, Britain was locked in a military stalemate with Germany from which it could not extricate itself without help from the United States. There was one problem, however: American citizens were overwhelmingly opposed to involvement in the war. To alter America public opinion and bring the U.S. into the war on its side, Britain retargeted its propaganda machine toward North America. It also urged the U.S. government to create a home-grown censorship and propaganda apparatus, which it soon did with help from U.S. media organizations and journalists. First, though, the U.S. government cracked down on the anti-war press and public dissent using the then newly passed Espionage and Sedition Acts. ³ This nearly did away with free speech.

Once it was certain Americans could get little accurate news about the senseless bloodbath taking place across the Atlantic, President Wilson, largely through the influence of journalist and public-relations expert Walter Lippmann, soon set about creating a vast American propaganda machine similar to Britain’s. Wilson, in what could be viewed as a political masterstroke, hired the noted progressive journalist George Creel to build and manage the new U.S. propaganda bureaucracy. This gave the organization instant credibility with the public and helped Creel recruit more top journalists into the program.

The new institution was given the innocent-sounding name, “the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI).” Creel staffed his new propaganda team with experts from all aspects of the U.S. media industry. Virtually all available modes of communication were soon put to work selling the war to the American public including newspapers, posters, cartoons, films, radio broadcasts, academic pamphlets, and even public speeches. ⁴

Looking back at the CPI’s efforts from the perspective of some decades, communications scholar and author Stewart Ewen concluded, “In spite of Creel’s consistent denials, the ‘House of Truth’ was perched not on a foundation of facts, but upon a swamp of emotions.” ⁵

After Pearl Harbor

With the coming of World War II, America’s uses of deception became considerably more extensive and sophisticated, thanks again to help from British intelligence. World War II was total war and the already fuzzy dividing line between journalism and deception virtually disappeared. American journalists were now fighting on the same team as the generals.

Censorship and propaganda were by this time such large operations that they could no longer be managed by a single organization, such as the CPI. Media censorship was handled by the U.S. Office of Censorship, headed by Byron Price, formerly executive news editor of the Associated Press, later given the title Director of Censorship. Propaganda was by now a much more scientific business than it had been during World War I. Foreign propaganda was initially created and distributed by a new super-intelligence agency called the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI), under the direction of Col. William “Wild Bill” Donovan. COI drew its staff from newspapers, radio-broadcasting organizations, and Hollywood studios who then happily set to work fighting “the good war” with carefully crafted (and often overtly racist) words and images. ⁶

Domestic propaganda, designed to keep the American public solidly behind the war effort, was managed by an organization called the Office of Facts and Figures (OFF), later renamed the Office of War Information (OWI). The overall job of promoting the war at home was given to Elmer Davis, an author, CBS radio announcer, news analyst, and former New York Times reporter. OFF / OWI was managed by poet Archibald Macleash, formerly head of the U.S. Library of Congress. ^{7, 8}

Donovan’s COI later became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) which, after the War, became the Central Intelligence Agency.

The job of censoring the news and creating war propaganda required the services of many thousands of journalists, editors, and media executives on both sides of the Atlantic. This massive effort has been the subject of many books and scholarly articles, and could not possibly be adequately described here. Suffice it to say, however, that the American public never received an accurate account of World War II at the time it was being fought, and there is considerable evidence that they haven’t been given the full story, even today. ⁹

What American journalists produced was essentially a carefully edited and largely fictional account of the war. Charles Lynch of Reuters news service later put it this way: “We were a propaganda arm of our governments. At the start, the censors enforced that, but by the end we were our own censors. We were cheerleaders. I suppose there wasn’t an alternative at the time. It was total war. But, for God’s sake, let’s not glorify our role. It wasn’t good journalism. It wasn’t journalism at all.” ¹⁰

America emerged from World War II a very different country than it had been at the start. The new “military-industrial complex,” as President Eisenhower dubbed it in a famous 1961 speech, had achieved enormous size and frightening political influence. In the view of President Eisenhower, it threatened our traditional values of open, accountable government. The close ties between the news media and the military not only persisted but grew stronger during the Cold War.

In 1947, Congress passed the controversial National Security Act which created a powerful new organization from the bones of the old OSS: The Central Intelligence Agency. Although the Agency’s title gives an impression it merely collects information, the CIA was, from the start, assigned the task of creating and disseminating propaganda. In short order, the Agency set about forging secret alliances with hundreds of journalists, writers, media executives, news organizations, book publishers, and other influential organizations, with the stated aim of fighting Communism at all costs (though it dabbled in many other deception activities as well). Among these people and organizations were some of America’s best-known media figures and most major news organizations.

Frank G. Wisner was the CIA’s man in charge of the new propaganda effort and he once bragged that he could make the world’s media play any tune he desired. Hence, the CIA’s global propaganda machine came to be called “Wizner’s Wurlitzer.” ¹¹ Internally, the CIA’s program was known as Operation Mockingbird. ¹² The American public, of course, was kept completely in the dark about all this because, had they known, they’d have been less likely to trust those who were lying to them.

In 1975, the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Operations revealed much about the CIA’s secret media connections but not everything. Disturbing details continue to emerge. In 2001, for example, the New York Times reported that the CIA had maintained a close working relationship with the leading news-wire services such that it could place propaganda stories directly onto the news wires. This meant that newspaper editors and other media personnel would accept the false stories without question. ¹³ It should be stressed that, if this was possible, then covert censorship of the wire services was also possible.

Have such covert media relationships ceased as a result of exposure? The truth is, we can never be certain, particularly given the CIA’s known history of secretive and often lawless activity. One thing is known, however: the CIA and the U.S. military have not exactly gone away, nor has their need to influence media content and shape American public opinion.

America, once a democratic republic, has gradually morphed into an empire with over 725 foreign military bases spread around the globe to protect its sprawling commercial interests. ¹⁴ It has boldly declared its right to invade any nation, at any time. It is now engaged in several major wars simultaneously, with no clear end in sight.

As the old saying goes, during war, the first casualty is always the truth. So, if you still trust the U.S. news media to expose government lies, you’re making a serious mistake. For nearly a hundred years, they’ve actually been the ones assigned by the government to tell them.

There was a time during the George W. Bush years when both National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were administered by former U.S. government propaganda experts. Some of them are still working there. Just a coincidence? Whatever the case, such connections shouldn’t inspire confidence in the independence and accuracy of American news.

One final thought: A hallmark of an effective propaganda campaign is consistency of message across all media sources. The name of the game is to create what propaganda theorists call “a pseudo-environment.” That is to say, the public must not be exposed to any credible contradictory information, especially from news sources they’ve come to trust. It is important, for example, that both the right- and left-leaning media are both carrying the same official message. To make the public believe official lies, all the media must be playing an identical tune, from The Nation to Fox TV.

It is deeply unsettling, then, that the American news media have been so remarkably consistent in endorsing the official 9-11 story, despite widespread dissent from thousands of technical experts, academics, eyewitnesses, government officials, military officers, intelligence analysts, and informed members of the general public.

If all this causes you to wonder what might be going on behind the printed pages, radio speakers, and TV screens of America . . . well, it certainly should.

(Terry Hansen received a master’s degree in science journalism from the University of Minnesota in 1984 and has subsequently worked as a media entrepreneur, reporter, editor and author.)

Further Reading

Those who wish to learn more about the workings of government deceptions may find the following books useful:

Munitions of the Mind: A history of propaganda from the ancient world to the present day by Philip M. Taylor

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth Maker by Philip Knightly.

PR! A Social History of Spin by Stuart Ewen

Secrecy by Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Secrets: The CIA’s War at Home by Angus Mackenzie

The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA played America by Hugh Wilford

Secret Science: Federal Control of American Science and Technology by Herbert N. Foerstel

Deception: The invisible war between the KGB and the CIA by Edward Jay Epstein

Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War by John R. Macarthur

The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian

Towers of Deception: The media cover-up of 9/11 by Barrie Zwicker

Bodyguard of Lies by Anthony Cave Brown

The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters by Frances Stonor Saunders

Deception in World War II by Charles Cruickshank

Footnotes

1Griffith, Samuel B., Sun Tzu: The Art of War; London: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 66.

2Knightly, Philip, The First Casualty: From Crimea to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker, New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975, p. 82

3Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Secrecy, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1998, pp. 96-106.

4Ewen, Stewart, PR! A Social History of Spin, New York: HarperCollins, 1996, pp. 111-115.

5Ewen, p. 125.

6Soley, Lawrence C., Radio Warfare: OSS and CIA Subversive Propaganda, New York: Praeger, 1989, pp. 48-60.

7Knightly, p. 275.

8Soley, p. 56.

9Stinnett, Robert B., Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, New York: The Free Press, 2000.

10Knightly, p. 333.

11Loory, Stuart H., “The CIA’s use of the press: A ‘mighty Wurlitzer’,” Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 1974.

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

13Weiner, Tim. CIA sought to plant news on Cuba in ‘61 New York Times, March 24, 2001.

14Johnson, Chalmers, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004.

Like

Unlike

– political donations, think tanks and media control –

to the tales of the Book of Esther and Purim.

”If our media outlets want us to believe in their “impartiality”, they had better identify the enemy within.

How many Iraqis will need to die before the penny drops?

How many peace activist should die on the high seas before we all say NO MORE?

How many British workers will need to lose their jobs, homes and hopes before we can allow ourselves to say NO to Zionist wars and to their advocates in our midst?”

A few weeks ago the Jewish Chronicle published a list of Jewish MPs in the UK parliament.

It named 24 in total, comprising 12 Conservatives, 10 Labour and two Liberal Democrats.

Author and peace activist Stuart Littlewood elaborated on these figures and presented the following analysis:

“The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent.

There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.

The conclusion is pretty obvious.

With 24 seats, Jews are eight times over-represented.

Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims…

If Muslims, for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats.

All hell would break loose.”

A question must be raised here.

Why are Jews overwhelmingly over-represented in the British parliament, in British and American political pressure groups, in political fundraising and in the media?

Haim Saban, the Israeli-American, multibillionaire media mogul, offers the answer.

Read the rest here

Like

Unlike

To provide a new and spurious economic looting argument for making the US occupation of Afghanistan virtually endless, and to advance the candidacy of General David Petraeus as the principal neocon warmonger candidate for president on the Republican ticket in 2012 – these are the purposes of the story planted in the June 13, 2010 New York Times under the byline of James Risen, who is acting as stenographer for the neocons in the great tradition of his predecessor Judith Miller. In retrospect, this article may well be seen as the opening gun of an overt push to place General Petraeus in the White House in 2012 as the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg.

Read full article…

Like

Unlike