5 Reasons that Both Mainstream Media – and Gatekeeper “Alternative” Websites – Are Pro-War

George Washington's picture

Amediawar War Is Sold Just Like Soda or Toothpaste

There are five reasons that the mainstream media and the largest alternative media websites are both pro-war.

1. Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.

A survey by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review in 2000 found:

Self-censorship is commonplace in the news media today …. About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices.

Similarly, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”

Several months after 9/11, Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions…. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.


What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship.

Rather said in 2008:

One of the most pernicious ways in which we do this is through self-censorship, which may be the worst censorship of all. We have seen too much self-censorship in the news in recent years, and as I say this please know that I do not except myself from this criticism.


As Mark Twain once said, “We write frankly and freely but then we ‘modify’ before we print.” Why do we modify the free and frank expression of journalistic truth? We do it out of fear: Fear for our jobs. Fear that we’ll catch hell for it. Fear that someone will seek to hang a sign around our neck that says, in essence, “Unpatriotic.”


We modify with euphemisms such as “collateral damage” or “less than truthful statements.” We modify with passive-voice constructions such as “mistakes were made.” We modify with false equivalencies that provide for bad behavior the ready-made excuse that “everybody’s doing it.” And sometimes we modify with an eraser—simply removing offending and inconvenient truths from our reporting.”

Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble …. You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our …. system.

Former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .


There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.


If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.


I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter – whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

MarketWatch columnist Brett Arends wrote yesterday:

Do you want to know what kind of person makes the best reporter? I’ll tell you. A borderline sociopath. Someone smart, inquisitive, stubborn, disorganized, chaotic, and in a perpetual state of simmering rage at the failings of the world. Once upon a time you saw people like this in every newsroom in the country. They often had chaotic personal lives and they died early of cirrhosis or a heart attack. But they were tough, angry SOBs and they produced great stories.


Do you want to know what kind of people get promoted and succeed in the modern news organization? Social climbers. Networkers. People who are gregarious, who “buy in” to the dominant consensus, who go along to get along and don’t ask too many really awkward questions. They are flexible, well-organized, and happy with life.


And it shows.


This is why, just in the patch of financial and economic journalism, so many reporters are happy to report that U.S. corporations are in great financial shape, even though they also have surging debts, or that a “diversified portfolio” of stocks and bonds will protect you in all circumstances, even though this is not the case, or that defense budgets are being slashed, when they aren’t, or that the U.S. economy has massively outperformed rivals such as Japan, when on key metrics it hasn’t, or that companies must pay CEOs gazillions of dollars to secure the top “talent,” when they don’t need to do any such thing, and such pay is just plunder.


All of these things are “consensus” opinions, and conventional wisdom, which are repeated over and over again by various commentators and vested interests. Yet none of them are true.


If you want to be a glad-handing politician, be a glad-handing politician. If you want to be a reporter, then be angry, ask awkward questions, and absolutely hate it when everyone agrees with you.

Self-censorship obviously occurs on the web as well as in old media.  As Wikipedia notes:

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one’s own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression) …

2. Censorship by Higher-Ups

If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The 2000 Pew and Columbia Journalism Review survey notes:

Fully half of [the investigative journalists surveyed] say newsworthy stories are often or sometimes ignored because they conflict with a news organization’s economic interests. More than six-in-ten (61%) believe that corporate owners exert at least a fair amount of influence on decisions about which stories to cover….

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:

“All of the institutions we thought would protect us — particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress — they have failed. The courts . . . the jury’s not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn’t. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that’s the most glaring….


Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?


[Long pause] You’d have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You’d actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn’t think you could control. And they’re not going to do that.”

In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. And see this announcement.

A series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).

It’s not just the mainstream media.  The large “alternative” media websites censor as well.   For example:

Every year Project Censored [which Walter Cronkite and other ] puts together a list of the top 25 stories censored and ignored by the mainstream media.


How many of these stories were you aware of? Even regular consumers of alternative, independent media may be surprised to learn about some of these stories ….

There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.

One is money.

The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. In 1969, Federal Communications Commission commissioner Nicholas Johnson noted that tv networks go to great lengths to please their sponsors.

Some media companies make a lot of money from the government, and so don’t want to rock the boat.  For example, Glenn Greenwald notes:

Because these schools [owned by the Washington P0st's parent company, whose profits subsidize the Post] target low-income students, the vast majority of their income is derived from federal loans. Because there have been so many deceptive practices and defaults, the Federal Government has become much more aggressive about regulating these schools and now play a vital role in determining which ones can thrive and which ones fail.


Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration — the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable. “By the end of 2010, more than 90 percent of revenue at Kaplan’s biggest division and nearly a third of The Post Co.’s revenue overall came from the U.S. government.” The Post Co.’s reliance on the Federal Government extends beyond the source of its revenue; because the industry is so heavily regulated, any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.’s business — a reality of which they are well aware:

The Post Co. realized there were risks attached to being dependent on federal dollars for revenue — and that it could lose access to that money if it exceeded federal regulatory limits.


It was understood that if you fell out of grace [with the Education Department], your business might go away,” said Tom Might, who as chief executive of Cable One, a cable service provider that is owned by The Post Co., sat in at company-wide board meetings.

Beyond being reliant on federal money and not alienating federal regulators, the Post Co. desperately needs favorable treatment from members of Congress, and has been willing to use its newspaper to obtain it:

Graham has taken part in a fierce lobbying campaign by the for-profit education industry. He has visited key members of Congress, written an op-ed article for the Wall Street Journal and hired for The Post Co. high-powered lobbying firms including Akin Gump and Elmendorf Ryan, at a cost of $810,000 in 2010. The Post has also published an editorial opposing the new federal rules, while disclosing the interests of its parent company.

The Post is hardly alone among major media outlets in being owned by an entity which relies on the Federal Government for its continued profitability. NBC News and MSNBC were long owned by GE, and now by Comcast, both of which desperately need good relations with government officials for their profits. The same is true of CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney), and CNN (owned by TimeWarner). For each of these large corporations, alienating federal government officials is about the worst possible move it could make — something of which all of its employees, including its media division employees, are well aware. But the Post Co.’s dependence is even more overwhelming than most.


How can a company which is almost wholly dependent upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. Government possibly be expected to serve as a journalistic “watchdog” over that same Government? The very idea is absurd.

In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade.

Dan Rather has slammed media consolidation:

Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.

This is documented by the following must-see charts prepared by:

And check out this list of interlocking directorates of big media companies from Fairness and Accuracy in Media, and this resource from the Columbia Journalism Review to research a particular company.

This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:

The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government’s goodies.

The large alternative media websites also censor news which are too passionately anti-war.

The biggest social media websites censor the hardest-hitting anti-war stories. And see this.

Huffington Post – the largest liberal website – is owned by media giant AOL Time Warner, and censors any implication that a Democratic administration could be waging war for the wrong reasons.   So HuffPost may criticize poor prosecution of the war, but would never say that the entire “War on Terror” as currently waged by the Obama administration is a stupid idea.

Similarly, Drudge Report – the largest conservative website – never questions whether the government’s engagement in offensive military action around the world is strengthening or weakening our national security.

The largest “alternative” websites may weakly criticize minor details of the overall war effort, but would never say that more or less worldwide war-fighting is counterproductive. They may whine about a specific aspect of the war-fighting … but never look at the larger geopolitical factors involved.

They all seem to follow Keith Olbermann’s advice:

You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble …. You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our …. system.

3. Drumming Up Support for War

 War Is Sold Just Like Soda or Toothpaste

Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.

It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government’s claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government’s war agenda.

Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

The [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked.

As NBC News’ David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say ‘this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this,’ that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.

But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.

For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War.

And an official summary of America’s overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950′s states, “In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq.” (page x)

The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .

And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says, “viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.”)

As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes:

There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.

The article in the Independent discusses the use of “black propaganda” by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged a letter from al Zarqawi to the “inner circle” of al-Qa’ida’s leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media.

So why has the American press has consistently served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?

One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC was owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world … which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos. NBC was subsequently sold to Comcast).

Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government’s imperial war agenda.

And the media support isn’t just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary proves:

There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.”

Moreover, “the tycoons told the general who they asked to carry out the coup that the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.“

See also this book.

Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

(Kevin Dutton – research psychologist at the University of Cambridge – whose research has been featured in Scientific American Mind, New Scientist, The Guardian, Psychology Today and USA Today – also notes that media personalities and journalists – especially when combined in the same persons – are likely to be psychopaths. Some 12 million Americans are psychopaths or sociopaths, and psychopaths tend to rub each others’ backs.)

4. Access

Dan Froomkin,  Brett Arends and many other mainstream reporters have noted that “access” is the most prized thing for mainstream journalists … and that they will keep fawning over those in power so that they will keep their prized access.

But there is another dynamic related to access at play: direct cash-for-access payments to the media.

For example, a 3-time Emmy Award winning CNN journalist says that CNN takes money from foreign dictators to run flattering propaganda.

Politico reveals:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors…


The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

That may be one reason that the mainstream news commentators hate bloggers so much. The more people who get their news from blogs instead of mainstream news sources, the smaller their audience, and the less the MSM can charge for the kind of “nonconfrontational access” which leads to puff pieces for the big boys.

5. Censorship by the Government

Finally, as if the media’s own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way.

If they criticize those in power, they may be smeared by the government and targeted for arrest (and see this).

Indeed, the government treats real reporters as terrorists.  Because the core things which reporters do could be considered terrorism, in modern America, journalists are sometimes targeted under counter-terrorism laws.

The government spies on reporters.

Not only has the government thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they’ve been too critical, it also claims the power to indefinitely detain journalists without trial or access to an attorney which chills chills free speech.

After Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.

An al-Jazeera journalist – in no way connected to any terrorist group – was held at Guantánamo for six years … mainly to be interrogated about the Arabic news network. And see this.

Wikileaks’ head Julian Assange could face the death penalty for his heinous crime of leaking whistleblower information which make those in power uncomfortable … i.e. being a reporter.

As constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald notes:

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of “aiding the enemy” or “communicating with the enemy” even if no information is passed directly to the “enemy” and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it “indirectly” informs the enemy.




If someone can be charged with “aiding” or “communicating with the enemy” by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn’t that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else?




International Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller made a similar point when the charges against Manning were first revealed:

“[I]f Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly ‘giving intelligence to the enemy’ (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly ‘communicating with the enemy’ (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between [Bradley] Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.”



It is always worth underscoring that the New York Times has published far more government secrets than WikiLeaks ever has, and more importantly, has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks has (unlike WikiLeaks, which has never published anything that was designated “Top Secret”, the New York Times has repeatedly done so: the Pentagon Papers, the Bush NSA wiretapping program, the SWIFT banking surveillance system, and the cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran were all “Top Secret” when the newspaper revealed them, as was the network of CIA secret prisons exposed by the Washington Post). There is simply no way to convert basic leaks to WikiLeaks into capital offenses – as the Obama administration is plainly doing – without sweeping up all leaks into that attack.




The same [Obama] administration that has prosecuted whistleblowers under espionage charges that threatened to send them to prison for life without any evidence of harm to national security, and has brought double the number of such prosecutions as all prior administrations combined. Converting all leaks into capital offenses would be perfectly consistent with the unprecedented secrecy fixation on the part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever™.


The irony from these developments is glaring. The real “enemies” of American “society” are not those who seek to inform the American people about the bad acts engaged in by their government in secret. As Democrats once recognized prior to the age of Obama – in the age of Daniel Ellsberg – people who do that are more aptly referred to as “heroes”. The actual “enemies” are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.

Former attorney general Mukasey said the U.S. should prosecute Assange because it’s “easier” than prosecuting the New York Times. But now Congress is considering a bill which would make even mainstream reporters liable for publishing leaked information (part of an all-out war on whistleblowing).

As such, the media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.

For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, “What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states”.

Tom Brokaw said “all wars are based on propaganda.

And the head of CNN said:

There was ‘almost a patriotism police’ after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.’

Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].


As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”


“There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’” he told us.


* * *


“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘”

Of course, if the stick approach doesn’t work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.

Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government’s actions or policies in any meaningful way is that the American government and mainstream media been somewhat blended together.

Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?

We cannot just leave governance to our “leaders”, as “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to “be the media” ourselves.

“To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.”
- Abraham Lincoln

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“Powerlessness and silence go together. We…should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world’s reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used.”
– Margaret Atwood

“There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.”
- Howard Zinn (historian)

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”
- Thomas Jefferson

Bot statistics for this page


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CutOut's picture


ZH is being targeted by FedGov spam bots saturating the comment sections with trash and down voting certain posters.

They are not just individual trolls, they are professional operatives attempting to undermine and discredit ZH.


akak's picture

I've noticed all that as well.

AnAnonymous's picture

For 'americans', the group is all.

Dan Rather is a rich man living a comfortable life. He could have spoken up without jeopardizing his future.

Yet the fear of being cast out of the group and be targeted by the 'american' middle class was such that it erases the excellent conditions this 'american' was.

Even in excellent conditions, 'americans' are unable to stand for truth.

Save they can monetize it, 'americans' will never be supportive of truth.

AnAnonymous's picture

The 'american' art of self criticism.

Such an advancement of the world.

As brought to you by that 'american' propagandist author.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous vomited this diarrhea:

The 'american' art of self criticism.

Such an advancement of the world.

As brought to you by that 'american' propagandist author.

I like your type. They remind any of the intellectuals like the author of the article the reality and debunk the efforts of propaganda in a trice.

See, the man puts a whole page to propagate and you, with one single sentence and the behaviour going with it, you debunk it.

Did you type your wisdom with one hand or did you also employ the dung hand?

Thanks for being a Chinese citizenism citizen.

akak's picture

The Chinese Citizenism art of denialism, inability to self-indict (either personally or socially), and the dishonest and hypocritical projection of one's own faults and failings onto others.

Such a regression in stale and tired propaganda.

As brought to you by AnAnonymous, Chinese Citizenism propagandist roadside dumper.

AnAnonymous's picture

In denial too, 'americans' run supreme.

In their attempt to avoid facing 'americanism', they even come to fabricate shallow fantasy like chinese citizenism.

'Americans', unable to cope with the reality of a world they have shaped...

Welcome to an 'american' world, it is a cosy place to live, you'll see.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymists are duplicitous at heart, they do not want to be associated with the harmful consequences of their decisions.

Can't propagandists come with better offuscation?

AnAnonymous's picture

AnAnonymists? Djeee, 'americans' know no limits...

supermaxedout's picture

Wess Brot ich ess, dess Lied ich sing!

Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing!

Thats an very ancient but always actual wisdom.


Reformed Sheep's picture

Off-topc, but it seems the venerable, revered, tosspot Dr Krugman is in an upcoming Munk Debate... Probably worth a watch of the stream afterwards...




Divine Wind's picture



Media organizations are not in the news business.

Their revenue is generated via AD SALES.

Providing information, called news, is merely the vehicle to enable ad sales.

Once this is understood, their programming decisions are easily understood.

New_Meat's picture

6. GW has anal-cranial inversion!

foolbar's picture

War is $$$ Business. #1 in ameriKKKa.

US dollar is just a blood-money, power held by nukes to the worlds head. Reserve Currency status didn't come to the USA by being fair, or productive, it came by KILLING. Reserve currency status is reserved to this day by killing (war), think Iraq, ... Libya, ... anywhere where millions of people have been murdered when their governments propose to quit selling their oil in US dollars.

Past 50 years it was the 'military industrial complex', now its the 'police state complex'.

AmeriKKKa has turned in on itself, and the KILLER's are coming home to roost.

You want a job today, you got to be a WHORE for the establishment, which means you need to feed at the pig trough, and its 'beating killing, and imprisoning', that is where the money is,

PACIFISM, will not keep you a job, or get you laid in real-ameriKKKa,

Wage slave whores in the media that teach you to hate everyone, .. are just doing their job to get the 'blood money', US federal-reserve notes.

SAT 800's picture

Extremely similar to Nazi Germany in 1932; the special laws are coming soon.

nmewn's picture

To sum up...Society of Professional Journalists' (lol) ethics code, in part, states: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

WTFUD's picture

Freddie not that it means a lot but i UP arrowed you for the first time. These filthy rotten bastards would sell their own mother out for a leg up and will get everything they deserve in due course.
You scummy lowlife cowardly fucking rats hiding behind your wall of killers. ( Did i just write that? Normally i am an easy going laid back guy But these are anything but normal times and proof the tide is turning ). Better off dead than living in stassi east germany!

q99x2's picture

Globalists Greed Denial and Fear

BeetleBailey's picture

Looks like my timing to GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE.....is going to be just in the nick of time.


For the record;

Dan Rather is a douchebag

Keith Olbermann should have stuck to "the biskit in the basket" sports reporting - and kept his pompous mouth shut.

David Gregory is a douchebag in the mold of Dan Rather; an updated douchebag, replete with Obama douchebag cord and liquid soap.

Wanton1's picture

The greater profit is in the chaos.

buzzardsluck's picture


“To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.”
- Abraham Lincoln


What about the draft protest, civil war, etc. ole abe?  I fucking hate lincoln and he certaintly has my vote for worst prez ever (which is saying A LOT given the last examples).

SAT 800's picture

People died in New York City protesting his draft for his looney, unnecessary war to ensure that only Washington could collect taxes from all the states. He was definitely the worst president in history; but but The little Bush and The Obamanation are contenders. In case, you were educated in North America; he never freed one slave, and wanted to send the Africans back to Africa; this is a historical fact not a a conspiracy story. Un-fortunately for those of us who are not sub-normal he failed in this wonderful plan.

Ckierst1's picture

Exactly!  If you didn't I was going to!  Dishonest Abe jailed or muzzled thousands of dissenting newspaper editors even as he provoked the seceded South Carolinians to fire on Ft. Sumter by attempting to refortify and reprovision the fort.  SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.

moneybots's picture

  "What of the lies that the CRA and GSE's were not, I repeat, not responsible for our housing (and economic) collapse, costing Americans trillions in wealth?  Do these lies not matter?"


What part of Alan Greenspan wanted a housing bubble, do you not understand?  Alan Greenspan had the POWER to regulate mortgage lenders.  The CRA could not overrule Greenspan.  The CRA did NOT create the OWNERSHIP SOCIETY.  Bush announced the OWNERSHIP SOCIETY as part of Greenspan's planned housing bubble.

IBD said that Clinton changed the CRA rules in 1995.  Well who was President in 2001?  It wasn't Clinton and if Clinton could change the rules, so could Bush.  Again, Greenspan had planned a housing bubble, so whatever CRA rules Clinton had changed, were not going to be changed, as they would interfere with creating a housing bubble.  The CRA was subservient to Greenspan's planned housing bubble.

By the way, neither Greenspan or Bernanke has EVER blamed the CRA for the housing bubble.


Benjamin Glutton's picture

deadbeat depositors have to blame the weakest among us to justify their own depositor bailout(theft).


better be quiet or you might make the Santelli's start crying again.

foolbar's picture

They really didn't have a choice, after 1980, pretty much the entire USA system has had to run on 'bubbles'.

RAYGUN had the war bubble, then the loan bubble, and the PC bubble, and the internet bubble, and the gold bubble, and the real estate bubble, and now they're firing the stock market bubble.

All the while the shadow debt goes to a quadzillion bernanke bucks, ...

But what choice did they have? Had Nixon not taken the US off the GOLD standard, the country would have slid back into a plantation colony from which it came, ... instead in the past 40+ years the USA is now the worlds largest high tech prison colony,

Was that the plan to have more citizens incarcerated than any nation on earth? Not likely shit just happens.

Funny money run's out of the bowl, and flows to the war machine, police machine, and bankers ( stock market ), ...

A lot of people are not happy about this, but if you go back to 1800's, or earlier USA history its always been a BOOM&BUST cycle, and these guys really did sell themselves the IDEA that they were going to end these cycles, ...

Now the USA has created the biggest bubble in world history, and has the most people in prison, in prisons which cost 10X or more than a high-level IVY education, ... space-invaders looking down would scratch their ass.

That said, I do concur that the 'powers' would rather have DUMB convicts than over-educated IVY's, ... thus the USA has returned to what it was in the 1700's a PRISON-COLONY,

My proposition, is that once again the world will send their criminals to the USA, ... prior to the 'cotton gin' the incarceration biz, ...was #1, ... like Australia.


OK, so how can ZH hood's make a buck? Don't fight the system, invest in PRISON BOND's USA :)

Enjoy the WAR/PRISON bubble, its made a hell of a lot of people rich, ... trouble is eventually you run out of people to kill, and such as now the soldiers return home, and eat the folks that paid them to kill for so many years.

Yes, its not going to end well, and the rest of the world is very tired of the "USA CRUSADES', aka democracy by killing and raping.

But back to 'bubbles', they had no choice, STOCKMAN under RAYGUN advised what had to be done, and nobody listened, because I guess its HUMAN nature to ignore the truth, :)

blindman's picture

John Trudell , I'm crazy ?
"they mine the energy of the human." j.t.
making man the tool of their wars to be used
and then destroyed when use or storage becomes
costly or problematic.

LuchadorChumba's picture

Amigos, gate keeper websites? What about gate keeper religions that embrace war and usury. How about that iglesia of yours?

Oh, hey, that guy, that Reverend Billy Graham, he's a 33rd degree mason since 1949. He's one of the good guys in the scripted fight we're putting on for your enjoyment. Si, he's even so into god that he'll share his nachos with you. Pero oye, understand that we are not playing just one side here. The current game is duality. Get it paisanos? But, it won't be forever, because us luchadors need a rest. We need a garden of eden without interference.

Entonces, our goal is this... pronto, real soon, we're gonna have the battle of all time, and our good guy constructed luchador (mi hermano, Jesus Cruz, pronounced ya know 'he-seus', he's coming back, courtesy of blue beam laser holographic studios, and gonna cause a real good slam down. Aye, 'good' will finally triumph over 'evil'...and not without all the drama that we demand from our overly produced telenovas and sitcoms.

Despues the bloodshed, and after most of the audience is stinking and completely devoured from the pecking of vultures, then, all us luchadors are going to lean back in our lawn chairs for a real long time on this meadow filled planet of ours. I can see it now, drinking tequila and champaign, basking in the sun with corona suckling mamas.

De veras! We're going to eliminate all earthly bound duality for a real long temporal time. You can read all about it in our handbook, uh, the bible, torah and that revelation instruction manual of ours (ever notice how that easy it is to sucker punch someone when you provide a majority of superficial truths mixed in with pure diabolical manipulation?!)

We're gonna waste that Israel - Is Ra El (even subliminals there you didn't know! Ha Isis Ra and El), and their twin hoto Islam brothers in a Hegelian hell. That's why we created it in the first place -  to encourage the chaos. And screw those ashkenazi's, only the most muscular Khazar luchadors will be getting what they want here. After we get rid of those depleted uranium DU infested religions, we're gonna fuse science dogma and new age into one fucked up peaceful trance inducing carcass of a new and improved temporal 'reality'.

From there, we 'go where no man has gone before'. Dressed up like mi freemason Gene Roddenberry (also a 33rd degree scottish rite freemason), we will plow Uhura's black hole as we traverse the universe in search of more imaginative, increased dimensionality adventure. Lot's of aliens out there just pining for a photo shoot with Ron Jeremy.

Comprende, even luchadors like long vacations too.

Aye, get up, let''s do the stadium wave in honor of our cross testifying interSEXting magician.

Viva El Luchador!

failsafe's picture

You are an inarticulate idiot.

i-dog's picture

Very nice summary of 'the Plot', amigo. (Can I call you 'amigo', even when we're on opposite sides of the ring? Hmmm...).

Both 'jews' and 'jew bashers' alike on ZH should take careful note of:

"screw those ashkenazi's, only the most muscular Khazar luchadors will be getting what they want here"

To understand that is to understand how well the Khazars have used all of the various religions they have created along the way.

Wilcat Dafoe's picture

idog, you are either an incorrigible moron, or a paid troll.  You seem to think everyone is a Khazar... you've made claims that Ignatius Loyola was {nope - Basque} and that they were in Egypt -literally two thousand years before there was a Khazarian kingdom.

Why do you bother?


It's true that anti-semites have long claimed modern Jews are genetic "imposters."  This doesn't *necessarily* mean that it's untrue, or entirely untrue.  From "The 13th Tribe" to the recent Johns Hopkins study, it's clear that Ashkenazi Jews have a great deal of admixture with Khazars, in addition to, by the way, definitely having some Middle Eastern, presumably Israelite or Judean genetic origin.


So what?


Palestinians are deemed 'Arab' but this doesn't mean they aren't the more or less direct decendents of people who lived in Palestine for thousands of years. Language is a poor correlate of ethnicity.  The French are largely Celtic and Germanic but speak a Latin-derived language.  The Scots and Irish have a close genetic kinship with the Basques, meaning they are Celtic and Germanic in part, but overlaid over a pre-Indo-European genetic stock... the people who built Stonehendge and Skara Brae preceded the Celts by millenia.


I suggest you stop your trolling, and get thee to a library.


Khazaria really existed, and the mass conversion of the nobility, especially, to Judaism is well-attested.  Whether or not this matters as to land claims is up to you I suppose.  Personally, I don't think that where your great great great great great .... great gransparents came from gives you the right to murder and displace people who actually *were* living in a place, and whose parents and grandparents were, and their forebears for thousands of years.


I could care less is modern Jews are or are not the direct decendents of the ancient Israelites... Palestine was NEVER the sole home of Jews, and more to the point, when you've been living somewhere else for 2,000 years, claiming a right to "return" while denying it to the people you kicked out by force is reprehensible bullshit - and THAT is the point.


i-dog's picture

LOL ... you really should refrain from commenting on topics of which you know nothing other than propaganda and revisionist (ie. politico-religious) history.

"you've made claims that Ignatius Loyola was {nope - Basque}"

You appear to be blissfully unaware that:

1. The Basques are descendants of the Basquir tribe of ... wait for it ... the Andronovo culture of ancient Khazakstan! Look it up.

2. The Basque language is not derived from the European Romance languages of its surrounding neighbours. Its closest relative is found to be in ... wait for it ... Khazakstan! Look it up.

3. Ignatius Loyola was not a dark-haired Spanish descendant of the Romans or Greeks, he was a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Khazarian son of a Basque warlord! Look it up.

"and that they were in Egypt -literally two thousand years before there was a Khazarian kingdom."

Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

The fact that the Khazarian kingdom was first mentioned at a time when they had assimilated nearly 1,000 miles from their cultural origins and into the Caucasus, does IN NO WAY detract from their original place of origin - in Khazakhstan - at the time they developed the spoked-wheel war chariot and proceeded to invade first Turkey (as the 'Hittites'), then Egypt (as the 'Hyksos') ... beginning in around 2000BC.

I won't bother wasting time tearing apart the rest of your drivel.


I don't know if you have an agenda or a vacant cranium, but you should do some research before purporting to set out "facts".


Ghordius's picture

fascinating, though it begs for a lot of questions

If Saint Ignatius was tall, blonde and blue-eyed, why are all his portraits so... dark? If he was a Khazarian son of a Basque noblemen, from which side comes the Khazarian blood? The Yanez or the Onez from his father's side, or the Saenz or the Balda from his mother's side? Plenty of other reasons for being blonde and blue-eyed in the region, btw, since the Visigoth invasion

Are the Khazarians in any way linked to the Magi tribe/intel-network that was involved in the stories of Moses, St. John the Baptist and Jesus, btw?

And why did the Society of Jesus take so long to finally get one of their own on Peter's Throne? What do you expect from a Jesuit Pontifex? Can we still talk about a White and a Black Pope or do we call him The Zebra, now?

don't need to answer, was just an excuse for this: ;-)

i-dog's picture

Bongiorno, Ghordius. Ask these questions in an active thread, so that we can share the answers with others. ;-)

Kind regards.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Divide and conquer.  It not only means pitting two sides against each other, it means creating the opposition in the first place, if necessary (see Taliban, manufacturing moving to China)

failsafe's picture

Much appreciated GW. I wish self-censorship in journalism was not just another form of the pressures to "fall in line" "be a team player" "play ball" that I see and hear about dailyin US universities in which, sadly, any little divergent thought is censored. Especially now that post tenure review has become a way to quash any work that does fit with the political and financial goals of the state, self censorship is self-preservation. 

The Heart's picture

Very good report Sir GW. Thank you.

"Do you want to know what kind of person makes the best reporter? I’ll tell you. A borderline sociopath. Someone smart, inquisitive, stubborn, disorganized, chaotic, and in a perpetual state of simmering rage at the failings of the world. Once upon a time you saw people like this in every newsroom in the country. They often had chaotic personal lives and they died early of cirrhosis or a heart attack. But they were tough, angry SOBs and they produced great stories."

My! Why does that sound so familiar? Hummmmmm...

There is a real irony here, in that every free thinking truth-seeking American, and of course many esteemed others from around the world, have become the real reporters of what is really happening on the news front. Places like ZH have become the forums where all gather to read these, and other great reports issued.

The real craziness and stupidity of the real deal situation is, the reputed LSM news reporters are paid to hide the truths and deceive the world for the gains of the babylonian empire of dust, while on the other side of the coin, there are many great writers of the world that are doing the real reporting and real news presentations for free, and a greater sense of patriotism and love for the country's peoples in which they live. Liars and deceivers get paid to mis/dis-inform, and truthers write and report for free. Is that right?

The good news is, more are coming out of the woodworks to write and share their light/knowledge in grand new, and magnificently brilliant ways. Everybody's heart is the greatest truth detector there is. It knows! Real people are pushing aside their fears to speak their truth to power. Give thanks.

Never One Roach's picture
Japanese mayor: Wartime sex slaves were necessary




This guy sounds crazier then the head of NK.

the grateful unemployed's picture

the old man has what he called a "skivy" house chit, a coin with erotic engravings, from the japanese army. it apparently gave the holder one turn with a prosititute which the japanese army supplied to troops in the field, especially occupied areas. i said dad where did you get this, and he said what he always said, "got it off a dead Jap". right dad. i have grown up with this story, and always assumed it had some merit of truth. 

yabyum's picture

Woar is good buisness, invest your son. Or in the case of chickenhawks ,invest someone elses. The moment we have a true draft most wars will stop.

Shell Game's picture

Moar Woar!! 





edit:  either someone needs the /sarc tag, or Rumsfeld logged in for a sour grapes vote..  lol!


are we there yet's picture

Without a free and open press there is no free speech and power is able to be corrupted freely.  We are fully there now. The bill of rights is so weakened as be no real barrier for corrupt powers. I hope the future is better.

lolmao500's picture

That's why there's never any truth being reported... a cartel controls the MSM... and the ``journalists`` self-censor themselves because they are a bunch of weaklings.

SAT 800's picture

They don;t "self -censor" themselves; if their nightly broadcast isn't approve by the corporate owners; they're fired.

Element's picture

What is so shit about it is they have incredible resources to do a great job and service for their communities, and don't. But those with the least resources, often do the best work, or at least get it published in a raw edition form.

the love of money

foolbar's picture



The MSM media ONLY EXISTs to sell advertising and the advertisers want 'feel good', neutral shit fed lies,... GO SHOPPING.

Here on ZH its all negative shit, and that don't make people shop.

Truth be told we have 'blogs' now where people who get their 'freak' on negative shit can go 24/7,

But its NO mystery why the MSM is why it is, .. when a guy spends a $1M/minute for advertising, he wants a return on investment, and doom&gloom don't make people want to spend their money.

Sex Sells, and that's about it,

There never was, and never has been 'journalism' from the MSM, its always been what it is, ...

Element's picture

Frankly, that's an entirely wrong take on it.

Look around, zh has advertising now. What goes on here is attractive to advertisers. We have money (some of us have lots of it) and we spend it like anyone else. If I want 'sexy' I can type into a search engine and there it is, no commercials, no BS. MSM news and entertainment does not attract me, so it is lost to advertiser's, it does precisely the reverse, it's an unbearable annoyance and a major turn-off to almost everyone I know. That's why the MSM is losing audience and revenue, while places like zh and numerous others keep growing, havens away from the insane MSM crapfest we all hate the shit out of.

You claim the MSM was never about journalism, never has been. I can't even take that seriously, the MSM is full of journalists, some good ones too, mostly shit, as in anything else. MSM's main problem is propaganda served as 'news' etc., and 'entertainment', which is formulated tacky nasty fucked-up nonsense.

I don't agree with any of what you've said.

Fuku Ben's picture

Carney looked like he did 10 rounds with Frazier after deflecting softballs for an hour this morning. What a f*cking joke

Almost everyone in the whole 4th estate should be in guantanamo bay for comlicity in supporting global hegemonic terrorism for the NWO

bjfish's picture

GW, you are a fanatical kook.  Of course the media lies & manipulates.  Why do you think we're here at ZH.

BUT, the report that OBL wanted to fly planes into the WTC was first delivered to Pres. Clinton in 1998.  Why didn't he do something?

That's why Condi called it historical.  You sir, are the one who is hysterical.