This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 05/14/2013 - 16:05 | 3561985 rustymason
rustymason's picture

I wouldn't say that GW is a kook at all. He has some really good articles and I appreciate his work. Same with Matt Tiabbi, they uncover some really good stuff. However, it is clear that he is blind to his own left/liberal bias. Fortunately, I don't think that he is dishonest about it, which is why it is so easy to spot, e.g., in this particular article above.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 17:30 | 3562272 blindman
blindman's picture

all these years later there is no credible evidence a plane
hit the pentagon, certainly not a commercial airline.
there was briefly a computer generated "analysis" that
depicted a commercial airliner folding its wings up
before entry due to unusual aerodynamic forces, thereby
explaining why no damage was evident from wing or engine
structure. a friend and I watched that while drinking beers
and could not stop laughing. soon after that particular
program disappeared and could not be found anywhere.
.
the humor derived from imbecilic desperation i'm convinced.
not ours, that of the producers of the program.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 20:06 | 3562773 blindman
blindman's picture

yet we have a signer of the pnac manifesto
one dov zachiam and others calling for a new pearl harbor
pre 9/11. dov being the financial head of the defense department
short 2.3. trillion dollars in accounting , post Enron, and
privately and with dual citizenship, developing remote
controllability of surplus 7 what not 7 airliners;
landing taking off and geo directing, no pilot, no problem.
but this is not suspicious nor relevant there being
goons available with box cutters and hookers who
apparently work for the al cia kinda.
ahhh .. "Charlie, it was u."
.
"On the Waterfront" Most Famous Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVq1e6JKlw&list=PL84BEB65C82C18F12&index=9
.
u got a supeeni.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 16:48 | 3562121 bjfish
bjfish's picture

So, your link verifies exactly what I said.

The reason I called you a kook is because THEY LIE TO US ABOUT EVERYTHING, but you are abslutely fixated (or is that obsessed) with war (and the iraq war in partic.)  What of the illegal war in Libya? Or the drone strikes in dozens of countries, don't these bother you? 

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?

Or, what about the biggest lie of all, Global Warming?  Do you give this a pass as well?

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 23:01 | 3563350 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

there isn't any Global Warming; George; it's really too bad you can't spare 15 minutes from your busy schedule to find this out.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 20:15 | 3562794 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Wow...you're throwin down the hot/cold/wet/dry, AGW, bankrupt carbon credit exchange profit potential for Goldman Sachs bloody shirt too?

Just damn...thats strong ;-)

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:37 | 3561893 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Todays reporters come from an educational system that rewards mainstream thinking and punishes mavericks.  I call the recent crop of graduates the "cut and paste generation."  They would much rather cut from something on the web and paste into their reports than actually perform any work or, God forbid, critical thinking. 

 

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:59 | 3563339 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

You're way behind the curve; they just read the telepromter.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:20 | 3561812 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

 

 

“CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/13/presidents-of-abc-cbs-news-have-si...

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:29 | 3561856 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Thanks ... I'd seen that with CBS, but didn't realize it was true of ABC also.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 19:29 | 3562679 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Journalistic capture, selling ones soul to the devil or nepotism...no matter, this is banana republic type shit.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:30 | 3561855 knukles
knukles's picture

Another one of them fucking coincidences!
Sheeeeit!
They're popping up all over like normal occurrences anymore!

 

Hey!
I got an idea.
Pay ne $1,000,000 (tax free of course, including full bennies like the Congress) and I'll report on all the jizz out there!

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:41 | 3563280 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Already been done; it's all available in books in your public library. You will have to disconnect your TV; which I have never owned; and get to work reading; but you will be surprised to find that names are named; dates are given, evidence is presented; all on the basis that  it doesn't matter; because "no one" reads books anymore. Try it and see.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:11 | 3561775 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

About wat David Grgory said, that its "not their role to stand up and call The Powers That Be liars". He's exactly right! Their role is to take advertisers money, do what advertisers want, entertain viewers, and shovel propaganda to unwitting citizens. Our MSM ceased to be journalists decades ago. Threatening TPTB is not a profession that lasts very long and in many instances it is quite dangerous. They won't hesitate to kill.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:49 | 3563308 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

You've already been exposed to over 500 hours of professional brainwashing; vis a vis; global warming; which does not exist; and scientifically speaking, cannot exist. And it continues. "Averything in America is Entertainment"; and "we are entertaining ouselves to death". Logical thought is difficult and requires training of the mind; people don't come equipped to think logically; but they imagine they do. We had an "Age of Enlightenment"; now we are having an age of the opinion of the masses. which equals disaster.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 14:53 | 3561678 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

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

Actually, I think this one is more relevant to our current situation:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

He wasn't speaking of willful ignorance, he was speaking of a nation without a watchdog press keeping them informed.  However, a non-functional press combined with, in the case of the U.S at least, the willful ignorance of the citizenry is far worse because the citizenry doesn't even pay attention to warnings from people of good conscience about a non-functional press.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:53 | 3563319 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

If the people of "good conscience" are systematically mislead, or brainwashed, in plain english; than this does not apply. Jefferson lived in a world where only white males who owned property could vote. The last thing that anyone ever imagined was that a democratic government would insure "voting rights" for the mentally sub-normal Africans in the population; the females, and the 18 year olds. The results are in front of you as we speak.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:43 | 3563292 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Wilfull ignorance is in evidence every where you look. No-one wants to listen to the list of lies and broken promises that the Obamanation, that they voted, for, has produced.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:56 | 3563330 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Correct; they react to violently to a recital of the long list of lies and broken promises made by "their" Candidate. Actually, the candidate of the international Bankers and Corporate Chieftains; not forgetting the Insurance industry which was responsible for "obamacare". the worst national health care program on the planet.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3561671 rustymason
rustymason's picture

All these hard-left journalists are slamming "media censorship?" What a crock! The lefty libtards took over in the 1960's. They are no longer fighting the establishment -- they are the establishment. What total liars, thieves, and murderers these Marxist bastards are.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:04 | 3563141 CaptainSpaulding
CaptainSpaulding's picture

I dont watch any MSM. I will leave this earth whilst watching The Marx brother's Duck soup on Turner classics

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:05 | 3561726 smartstrike
smartstrike's picture

Down right idiot. Since at least late 1970s the media has been taken over exclusively by conservative corporate interests. There is no liberalism reported anywhere: gays, minority rights, abortion rights etc don't count, the only thing that counts is political economy and that is pro financial uber elitism.

 

And this is mostly due to sickos(useful idiots) like you. Yes we want freedom, freedom from the like of YOU!

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:33 | 3561840 rustymason
rustymason's picture

This country took a hard left turn in the 1960's. The current oppressive atmosphere of radical, institutionalized left-liberalism in the churches, schools, all social clubs, and in every government office is an indication that the Left is in total control now. Every institution we have now pushes miscegenation, open borders, global wars for progress, women's rights, homosexual in-your-face rights, radical egalitarianism, promiscuity, and every other Marxist/Socialist evil you can think of. Money is the ultimate good, the ultimate arbitor of good and evil; not right and wrong, not tradition, not justice, not eternal truth. Yet you think that the radical Left is not in charge? Your government school brainwashing is sticking out.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 18:19 | 3562433 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ayup, I knew I'd find you, singing yer song. . .

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:33 | 3561877 knukles
knukles's picture

They've also substituted the Government of "Natural Law" endowed upon man by "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" to draw a line form the DoI

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 14:54 | 3561670 no2foreclosures
no2foreclosures's picture

It's quite simple really.  If one has the guts to state the obvious truth that is.

So in the in/famous words of Adlai Stevenson who said at the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, at least according to the movie Thirteen Days, "It seems to me that maybe one of us in this room should be a coward. So I guess I'll be . . ."

Those 4 or 5 corporations that own 95% and more of ALL media in the US are owned and controlled by whom?

JEWS

 

Less than 10 Jews effectively and collectively control all of ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.  Some of the following information may be out of date, but one gets the general idea.

Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner, chairman of the board and CEO 

Time Warner, Gerald Levin, chairman of the board and CEO 

Viacom, Inc., Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), chairman of the board and CEO 

General Electric, Dennis Dammerman, vice chairman 

Dream Works (SKG), Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen, co-founders

MCA and Universal Pictures, Owned by Seagram Company, Ltd., president and CEO, Edgar Bronfman Jr. (also president of the World Jewish Congress) 

Sony Corporation of America, Michael Schulhof, president and CEO

 

BTW, Matt Drudge is . . . Jewish!

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:16 | 3561798 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

I have no problem with Jews, its the Zionists who are he real problems.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 17:26 | 3562263 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

Jews have always controlled a disproportionate part of the media  -it's really gotten ridiculous the past two decades  - but you can't strereotype "Jews" -I agree this clique of billionaire Jews predominantly running things are a nasty group-largely zionists -most are not religious -they worship money. But isn't Seymore Hersh Jewish? He's good - I took my daughter to see Arnie Roth conduct "Barbie at the Symphony" last week. He wrote and produced and directed 9 barbie movies  -they are healthy, wholesome and incredibly wonderful movies. They represent what is best about America - He's Jewish. Unfortunately gobs of money corrupts people  -these billionaires become obsessed with money and power. They see the rest of us as cockroaches. But anglo "Christian" billionaires arent much better, if at all. Do you trust the Rockefllers? Or even Warren Buffet? I don't.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:36 | 3563265 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Symore Hersh is "good"; because you like him. And God knows you're completely ignorant and un-thinking opinion is what matters.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 18:15 | 3562407 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

*ouch*

I'd look into Barbie's history, do some research on Mattel, Disney, etc. - there's much backstory to this cultural steering of gender expectations vs. reality - and for balance, add in GI Joe.  it's not only about making corporate bucks. . .

there is a tie-in to what your post addresses.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 18:24 | 3562450 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

The movies are good -watch Rapunzl, the Princess and the pauper and the 12 dancing Princesses  - perhaps there are some deep , dark subliminal messages in there  -but neither me or my daughter are smart enough to find them. I did joke to my daughter that every Prince in the movies seems a bit gay  -youthful may be a better description. For balance, my daughter has a 12 inch high Arnold Terminator action figure propped on her bedstand watching over and protecting her 87 Barbies.  

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:33 | 3563255 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

You sir; are an idiot; and you are participating in raising another idiot to breathe air and eat food and shit; and who will never, ever , be able to think. Congratulations.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:31 | 3563249 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Your daughter has been totally brain fucked; and you are the guilty party; any "adult" who allows television in the home with children, or,

God, forbid pays to hae them watch Holywood trash is guilty. She should be studying plane geometry and rational thinking; not barbie dolls. Fool.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 18:42 | 3562515 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

lol, thanks for the visual(s)!

I agree it's subtle, but that's what makes cultural gender norms so powerful - folks believe they are "natural" as in, can't change, it's Nature.

when a comparison of national expectations, including historical data, shows gender to be more fluid than fixed - even looking to nations less influenced by the Disneyfication, Hollywooding, etc. shows strong differences in expectations of "women" based on the "men" who make the rules.

the Terminator figure, that's a twist that might override the "pink" - *smiles*

(little known fact:  blue was for girls, based on it being Mother Mary's assigned colour, while pink was for boys - until the early 1900's and later. . .)

get 'em young.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 14:55 | 3561684 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Don't pollute this discussion with Jew hatred.  I know of plenty of "Christian" assholes, too.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:04 | 3564270 Wilcat Dafoe
Wilcat Dafoe's picture

Winston, this is horseshit, and you know it.

The point is that Jews comprise 2.5% of the population. The point is that the loudest cheerleading for war for the past 20 years, mostly against Arab and Muslim countries that surround Israel, has been from 'neoconservatives', and this was and is a very heavily Jewish movement.  That's not my opinion, it is a fact, however verboden it is to point out.

 

Yes, guys like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Woolsey aren't Jewish, but are neocons, but a great percentage of the most prominent ones ARE Jewish.  The Office of Special Plans set up before theIraq war was essentially run by Jewish neocons who had written papers, for the Israeli government, talking about 'rolling back' Syria, and attacking Iraq, etc.  Surely you've heard of PNAC and the "clean Break" paper.

 

If a minority grooup, especially one with explicit ties and affinity for a foreign state, are disproportionately in power, this means that other groups are disproportionately OUT OF POWER  -that is axiomatic.

 

So why the deception?  Why do you play the anti-semite card when it's an obvious distraction.  And no, I don't support hatred of anyone based on religion or ethnicity, not at all - but the Jewishness of neocons, and the power of neocons, seems like something that merits fair discussion, whether or not you view any discussion of Jewish power as prelude to pogrom.

 

When the presidents of NBC, CBS, and CNN news are Jewish, and Fox staunchly pro-Israel, and a disproportionate number of Jews in top management at news divisions, it DOES MATTER as to how they cover Israel, Palestine, and how willing they are to go along with the neocon party line.

 

And yes, there are a lot of anti-war Jewish people as well.  In fact, as a group, Jews are pretty liberal, but right wing, neocon Jews seem to hold more than their fair share of positions of power.  And even moderate Jews will tend to be biased toward Israel.

 

Israel tried to trick us into war with Egypt twice.  It pushed for us to attack Iraq, and has been pushing for us to attack Iran and Syria, largely based on lies, exaggerations, and in some cases forged evidence.

 

It seems obvious that Israel wants to use American blood and treasure to attack all its enemies, probably so it can expand and annex more territory in coming years.  And it is also clear that many of the Jewish neocons have primary loyalty to the Jewish state... that it takes courage to plainly and honestly discuss this doesn't mean it isn't  a fair discussion.

 

I note the new guidelines, and while less over the top anti-Jewish comments would be a welcome change, it seems to me that a discussion of the wildly disproportionate influence of Jews, a 2.5% minority with special affinity to Israel, a country which very much agitates for war against its enemies, and very much works with some American Jewish groups to stifle criticism and foster hatred of Muslimes - is very important in any discussion of our news media.

 

You're free to disagree, of course, but I think the basis of your disagreement sounds more in a desire to protect Jewish power and influence, and not in an assessment of the forces impacting and very likely biasing our news coverage.

There are incidences of violence in the West Bank against Palestinians by the IDF and settlers every week - there is virtually no coverage of this, yet anytime a rocket lands, usually in response to an airstrike, it is literally front page news.

 

This is bias, and Jewish influence in the media, and the FEAR of noting this influence are warping people's understanding of what's really going on, and promoting endless war upon nations that do not threaten this one. 

 

You can call me a Jew hater all you want, it doesn't make it true - it just makes you a shithead.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:30 | 3561865 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

Do your "christian" assholes control the media??

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:39 | 3561880 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Read:

The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/00605...

Mainstream religions often act as "social clubs" for "like minded indivduals" and have their insider perks as a result.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 23:18 | 3563412 General Decline
General Decline's picture

Not going to read the book but I'll bet it slams christins in the Republican Party for being radicals. Funny, most of them are zionists. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:06 | 3561750 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Where's the hatred?

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:18 | 3563208 foolbar
foolbar's picture

Correct? Why does their have to be 'hatred', we just want to understand who 'owns us', ...

It's funny, but ant's can organize in mass, and move large objects, no one disputes that.

Yet, anybody who knows who owns the paper media, or TV media,.. or just about any 'news source', ... Think Newhouse, ... then you know that elite Jewish family's control all privately.

But to know this fact is labelled 'hate'? I don't think so, .. let's just say that us scholars on ZH want to discuss who is moving around all the 'stuff'. If you study ant's, nobody will accuse you have 'hating ants', your simply an observer of a fact.

So back to Jewish ownership of the media. Well I have thought deeply about this for over 50 years, ... and let's just say the Jews are smart, hard working, clever, and certainly not lazy. I agree the real 'zionists' are assholes from hell, but they are a minority, and all of my Jewish friends are educated and hard-workers. I might add also that if I ever needed anything, I doubt that any would not care for me.

But to study, doesn't mean you despise.

IMHO I think those that don't want us to discuss who owns or controls us are the problem, certainly not folks with Jewish names. Madoff didn't stay up late at night worrying about whether GOYIM hated him, he went where the real money was and robbed Jews like Speilberg.

So its OK, don't listen to those who talk about 'hate'.

I HATE people who tell me I can't study physics, or math, ... or whatever I want to study. I already know who owns the media, and they don't hide this fact, you go to any roster of leadership, like Newhouse and you can see these guys are quite proud of the fact that they own the company. Why? Pray tell, cuz powerful men like pussy, and owning media is the best way to get access to beautiful women.

It's not even JEALOUSY, ... but its ok.

Another fact, just FYI is that if you ever bother to study 'gun control', you can see that every group from handgun-control, or MADD has a list of 'jewish names', now is this a conspiracy, or just the simply fact that almost all CONTROL/MONEY schemes involve 'jewish lawyers',

There are right wing jews and left wing, most people only think about 'good jews' like ACLU, ... they don't really understand 'bad jews' like AIPAC ( who controls the USA congress ), ...

But its all ok, ... keep studying and learn who the ant's are that control all the good stuff. Carrol Quigby is a good place to start he was Clinton's (bill) mentor.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 02:15 | 3563785 gorillaonyourback
gorillaonyourback's picture

Do you realise how long it took to really ingest tragedy and hope its a phd thesis of a lifetime of work. And yes the jews have lots of power but it is only a matter of time till their fiat fiasco comes to an end. It just a small fraction of time they had theirs

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 15:30 | 3561860 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Implied along with the implied "jewish conspiracy."  Why else bring up their religion?

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 16:44 | 3562140 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Implied along with the implied "jewish conspiracy."  Why else bring up their religion?

Hmmm.

I hear a lot in the MSM about how women are under-represented in management. This, of course, is the same as saying men are over-represented.

No one who discusses this 'fact' of male over-representation is castigated as sexist. In fact... denying it is considered sexist.

However... anyone discussing Jewish* over-representation in positions of power is routinely castigated as being racist. Interesting. 

*Jewish can mean ahering to the tenets of Judaism. Or it can be a vague claim on ethnicity... irrespective of the degree of actual, genetic 'semiticness', ie, the Ashkenazi. Or it can mean brought up in 'Jewish' culture. But as we are discussing people who self-identify as Jews, how we define it is largely irrelevant. They clearly see themselves as being part of some group; and it is disingenuous for the rest of us to deny that they do so. Which leaves the question: does it matter? Frankly, I don't know, but I'll be damned if I'll be told to shut up discussing it when the issue presents itself for discussion.

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 18:11 | 3562394 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

 

I hear a lot in the MSM about how women are under-represented in management. This, of course, is the same as saying men are over-represented.

No one who discusses this 'fact' of male over-representation is castigated as sexist. In fact... denying it is considered sexist.

discussing this usually gets the "feminazi" or "radical feminist progressive" tags thrown around, no? 

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 20:25 | 3562822 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Hey Cat...I see "Doctor" Gosnell took the plea deal that keeps him alive...but behind bars for the rest of his life.

I guess he was pro-life afterall ;-)

Tue, 05/14/2013 - 22:43 | 3563203 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you've picked up a couple of downticks, I wonder why.

it never ceases to amaze me that the topic of a female desiring body sovereignty, freedom from govern-mental intrusion, from perpetual govern-mental monitoring for fertility - which is the only way to enForce "zygote personhood" Constitutional Amendments - is seen as something to be ignored or mocked, particularly in light of such new laws being enacted daily.

but it's tiresome to go over the same to 'n' fro.   "Doctor" Gosnell has existed all along, and his "type" was far more prevalent prior to Roe vs. Wade.

I'll bet you know this.

edit:  oh look, I got an insta-downtick, and you got one up!!  and I got downticked all down the thread!! *grins*

<3 ya ZH'rs, don't change, and I know you won't.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 06:23 | 3563980 nmewn
nmewn's picture

edit: oh look, I got an insta-downtick, and you got one up!! and I got downticked all down the thread!! *grins*

<3 ya ZH'rs, don't change, and I know you won't.

Ummm, I didn't down tick you. And I can prove it.

Once given, all you can do is reverse it, you can't remove it...here's an up ;-)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!