20-Year CBS News Veteran Details Massive Censorship And Propaganda In Mainstream Media

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Journalists should be dark, funny, mean people. It’s appropriate for their antagonistic, adversarial role.

 

– Matt Taibbi, in this New York Magazine article

 

Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

 

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

 

– From the excellent New York Post article: Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama

Earlier this week, I published a piece titled, Former CBS Reporter Accuses Government of Secretly Planting Classified Docs on Her Computer, which I thought was incredible in its own right, yet the information in that post seems almost trite compared to the flood of information Attkisson has revealed to the New York Post’s Kyle Smith.

The following excerpts from the piece will confirm all of your worst suspicions about mainstream media:

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

 

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

 

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

Interesting, because as Matt Taibbi notes in the quote at the top, investigative journalists are not supposed to be reasonable. I digress…

In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.

 

Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).

 

Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

 

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

 

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’ ” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

 

Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

 

One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”

 

In mid-October 2012, with the presidential election coming up, Attkisson says CBS suddenly lost interest in airing her reporting on the Benghazi attacks. “The light switch turns off,” she writes. “Most of my Benghazi stories from that point on would be reported not on television, but on the Web.”

 

Two expressions that became especially popular with CBS News brass, she says, were “incremental” and “piling on.” These are code for “excuses for stories they really don’t want, even as we observe that developments on stories they like are aired in the tiniest of increments.”

 

Hey, kids, we found two more Americans who say they like their ObamaCare! Let’s do a lengthy segment.

 

When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.

I had no idea that the President of CBS News’ brother was a top national security advisor to President Obama, did you?

Attkisson, who received an Emmy and the Edward R. Murrow award for her trailblazing work on the story, says she made top CBS brass “incensed” when she appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show and mentioned that Obama administration officials called her up to literally scream at her while she was working the story.

 

One angry CBS exec called to tell Attkisson that Ingraham is “extremely, extremely far right” and that Attkisson shouldn’t appear on her show anymore. Attkisson was puzzled, noting that CBS reporters aren’t barred from appearing on lefty MSNBC shows.

 

No interview with Holder aired but “after that weekend e-mail exchange, nothing is the same at work,” Attkisson writes. “The Evening News” began killing her stories on Fast and Furious, with one producer telling Attkisson, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”

 

Sensing the political waters had become too treacherous, Attkisson did what she thought was an easy sell on a school-lunch fraud story that “CBS This Morning” “enthusiastically accepted,” she says, and was racing to get on air, when suddenly “the light switch went off . . . we couldn’t figure out what they saw as a political angle to this story.”

 

The story had nothing to do with Michelle Obama, but Attkisson figures that the first lady’s association with school lunches, and/or her friendship with “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King, might have had something to do with execs now telling her the story “wasn’t interesting to their audience, after all.”

The who charade is completely incestuous.

Meanwhile, she says, though no one confronted her directly, a “whisper campaign” began; “If I offered a story on pretty much any legitimate controversy involving government, instead of being considered a good journalistic watchdog, I was anti-Obama.”

 

Yet it was Attkisson who broke the story that the Bush administration had once run a gun-walking program similar to Fast and Furious, called Wide Receiver. She did dozens of tough-minded stories on Bush’s FDA, the TARP program and contractors such as Halliburton. She once inspired a seven-minute segment on “The Rachel Maddow Show” with her reporting on the suspicious charity of a Republican congressman, Steve Buyer.

All I have to say is thank you CBS, or should I say SeeBS. Thank you for being so horrible at reporting that you have opened an enormous gap for myself and countless others in alternative media to fill. I genuinely couldn’t have done it without your incompetence.

 

Comment viewing options

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

It's anything but incompetence.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"I would rather believe in gross incompetence than know of deliberate intent."- Average Jane and Joe

CrazyCooter's picture

Disagree CogDis. Most folks really want to know, but they are content to be lied to ...

Regards,

Cooter

LetThemEatRand's picture

The author is a classic psy-op.  There is massive evidence that ALL mainstream media is controlled by the CIA and other similar interests.   Not to mention that corporations who own media don't like the idea of challenging the politicians they bought and paid for.  How convenient to say it is one Team doing the controlling.  Nonetheless, at least the concept is getting MSM attention.

Oldwood's picture

All liberals are convinced there is no liberal bias in media. They assume if there were, there would be no republican or conservative voices left. I say, just give them time.

90% of journalists admittedly vote liberal, yet that is no indication of bias. They are simply smarter and more enlightened than conservatives. We wouldn't want to hold that against them.

SumTing Wong's picture

"We're the BBC. We only report the news. It's up to the government to make it up."

philipat's picture

Yet the poor Brits still have to pay the License fee or risk being thrown in jail. It's sad that BBC has become so progressivley libtard and politically correct, it used to be a very impartial and balanced reporter. Now the news tends to be very narrow, liberal and reported by anyone who is not white natural-born Briton. In fact, I sometimes wonder if being of Indian extraction is a prequisite for working at the BBC? (That remark is NOT racist, my wife is Asian, but anti-PC)

Troll Magnet's picture

CBS Jews decide what we should see and hear? NOOOOOO! I don't believe it! Outrageous!

Anusocracy's picture

It's the political season and the left-right brain dead zombies are both out en masse:

Emory study lights up the political brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

James_Cole's picture

"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

That about describes 95% of the zh audience. And probably 80% of the US. 

Slave's picture

So why are you here, buttfucker?

James_Cole's picture

 

 

The ads, always have some lovely russian / asian ladies looking to meet up.

zh content and commentators may have gone way downhill but the ads are still AAA!

 

 

synopsisTODAY's picture

Dump the Russians. Asian ladies trump Russian rump any day.

COSMOS's picture

J-EWS own the N-EWS outlets, that is all you need to know. Now they also own the White House via Uncle Tobama

chumbawamba's picture

There is no liberal nor conservative bias in the media.  That is an illusion.  What there is, however, is a pro-NWO bias.

I am Chumbawamba.

GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Shocked and appalled.....but not totally surprised.

 

I stopped listening to the MSM when Walter Cronkite offered to sit at the right hand of satan.....and that's been quite some time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2isCEoEmN8

nmewn's picture

WTF James.

Maybe if I speak in metaphors it'll get through your thick head, Sharyl Attkisson offers you her coat because you're shivering out in the cold and you throw it down in the slush and spit in her face, is that it?

Here we have a GENUINE ATTACK ON A WOMAN, a lady of the press no less, to which most reasonable people would agree should be suspicious & antagonistic toward Big Government & Big Corporations to keep them on the straight & narrow and a benefit to the people (all people, male, female, conservative, progressive, black, white, red, yellow, gay, straight all, meaning fucking ALL) who is presenting overwhelming evidence of collusion between Big G & Big C and you, out of your general nature, want to DIVERT the issue to commenters & ads on the venue her evidence is presented?

Why don't you just come right out and identify yourself as an element of the cronyism she's exposing and get it over with?

BigJim's picture

James Cole, rhymes with troll...

James_Cole's picture

Maybe if I speak in metaphors it'll get through your thick head, Sharyl Attkisson offers you her coat because you're shivering out in the cold and you throw it down in the slush and spit in her face, is that it?

Nope. Funny you should show up though, I came across your image in the local paper this morning!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m11edkyEdh1qcw26no1_400.jpg

oudinot's picture

Slave you are rude without any substance...

OldPhart's picture

In 2004, I'd have been the same way.

Test me in 2008 and it would have been a whole different story.

gwar5's picture

Not new, that's how Behaviorism theory works. They just applied conditioning to the political arena and they got the expected results. Of course a single poor black mother with 5 kids is going to block everything else out if she's incentivized to vote for money from white people.

 

Used to call it Skinner's Black Box because we didn't know what was going on inside the brain. Now we know that when we get positive reinforcement we are really getting little endorphin rushes which perpetuates those behaviors and why habits are so hard to break. They are opiate induced. Feeding bears makes them give up self reliant behavior and associate food with nearby human sources. Works the same for humans and liberals know it. 

11b40's picture

You were doing pretty good there until you reverted to the left/right, liberal/conservative endorphin stimulation you must obviously crave ;-)

James_Cole's picture

NYPOST lol fightin' fer deh truth in deh obola wrld!!!! 

I'm sure there's truth to the general thesis (james risen etc.) but the nypost is a joke and the idea that this is some new trend from the media specific to the obama admin is political nonsense spoonfed to the braindead crowd for selling ads & votes. 

BigJim's picture

Seeing as the vast majority of sheep consider the MSM to be the 'reputable' source of topical information, it's clearly news to them, isn't it, moron?

Watauga's picture

I never understood this connection.  Why would "CBS Jews" want to create the anti-Jewish/anti-Israel headlines the Administration appears to favor?  How is a constant attack by the White House and media on Israel in the interest of "CBS Jews"?  I admit that I may be missing something in all of this, but I just cannot see how what comes out of CBS or any other MSM sources in any way is helpful to either Jews or Israel?  If you care to enlighten me, particularly if you care to offer authority/evidence any connection, I would be grateful.  28 up arrows to 2 down arrows--clearly I am missing something nearly everyone else already knows.

BigJim's picture

 Why would "CBS Jews" want to create the anti-Jewish/anti-Israel headlines the Administration appears to favor?  How is a constant attack by the White House and media on Israel in the interest of "CBS Jews"?

I admit that I may be missing something in all of this, but I just cannot see how what comes out of CBS or any other MSM sources in any way is helpful to either Jews or Israel?

Lulz. You are missing something; planet Earth, it wants you to come home.

Titus's picture

Watcha wanna bet that James Cole and Watauga are two sides of the same Hasabra coin?

Watauga's picture

One thing about ZH--I can always count on empty, pointless, irrational, and silly remarks.  Neither of you has explained how this works.  How does it benefit "CBS Jews," all Jews, any Jews, the State of Israel, or any other Jewish interest to have CBS and the entirety of the MSM (with the exception of FOX, which I find to be pro-Israeli, generally) support the Obama administration's clear anti-Jewish, anti-Israel direction (some would call it anti-Semitic, but as that term has been used historically, I don't think it is anti-Semitism).  You offer only nonsensical responses.  You think they are clever, but they are pointless.  Please explain your position and provide authority and evidence to support it.  It simply makes no sense.

Titus's picture

What makes no logical sense, Hasabara troll, is how the Obama admin could be anti-Jewish or anti-Israel when Obama himself calls Israel "America's greatest friend and ally" and the Obama admin keeps the aid money flowing to the Zionists who are actively genociding SEMETIC palestininans.

Typical Hasabra tactic, start by calling names to devlolve the conversation. Purpose: chase away legit moderate commentators so they aren't exposed to FACTS about the Zionist relationship with the media and parasitic relationship enjoyed by Israel as America's "greatest friend and ally".

Israel does not equal Jew, and Zionist does not equal Jew.

For anyone who wants to understand what the Hasabara troll Watauga is doing, read this article:

commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel.

His intricate campaign, which he has admitted to Common Dreams, included posting comments by a screen name, "JewishProgressive," whose purpose was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that he had written under many other screen names.

The deception was many-layered. At one point he had one of his characters charge that the anti-Semitic comments and the criticism of the anti-Semitic comments must be written by "internet trolls who have been known to impersonate anti-Semites in order to then double-back and accuse others of supporting anti-Semitism"--exactly what he was doing. (Trolls are posters who foment discord.)

Watauga's picture

Ah, now I get it.  You are joking.  This is your idea of a sense of humor.  Amusing.  I had actually thought you were this insane.

Titus's picture

Titus: "Typical Hasabra tactic, start by calling names to devlolve the conversation."

Watauga: "I had actually thought you (Titus) were this insane."

I'm very curious to know how much you get paid per comment?

RealityCheque's picture

It's designed to make white people angry at Asian people. Therefore directing their rage away from the white, politically aligned, often Jewish people who are actually ruining their futures.

Crash Overide's picture

Turn the TV off... read a book.

withglee's picture

"We're the BBC. We only report the news. It's up to the government to make it up."

Not only that, you report it before it happens ... witness WTC7 falling down.

LetThemEatRand's picture

See how good these guys are?  Worked on you.  Played you like a fiddle.  Yes, giant corporations that own media are "liberal."  And Obama controls them.  Like he controls the Fed.

Oldwood's picture

Silly rabbit! The liberals are being used by those interests to collectivize power. The liberals are simply enabling as they think it is power to do good, or at least force people to do good. The problem you see, is that concentrated power always leads to corruption and all the bad things we all bitch about. There is no doubt that republicans are attempting to use conservative's agenda to empower themselves. The difference is that as they accumulate power conservatives pull back, where liberals charge full speed ahead.

The Eradicator's picture

You can't possibly be this naive.

Seize Mars's picture

The fucking eradicator!!' One of my favorite guys ever. Fuck I miss those days.

jeff montanye's picture

the near total policy overlap of bush and obama, outside of sex and drugs (policy not youthful lifestyle), puts to rest any meaningful differences between the national political parties.

it's not what they differ on that's the problem.  it's what they agree on.

TheReplacement's picture

But how does that apply to liberals and conservatives?  It seems to me that the Ds are very liberal whereas the Rs are just pretty liberal.  The conservatives are extremely locked in the basement and the water is rising (been raining for a long time).

James_Cole's picture

It seems to me that the Ds are very liberal whereas the Rs are just pretty liberal.  

Well, don't look back in history because the Rs were flamin' fuckin hippies compared to what they arrrr now.

And if you think the problem with us&a is it is either 'too liberal' or 'too conservative' YOU are the problem..

Plato's Law's picture

Bush doubled US debt.  You call that "pretty liberal?" 

disabledvet's picture

PAYOLA.

The only reason you hear pretty much anything anywhere is because it's being paid for in advance. Of course the Internet has turned all of this upside down "cloud cuckoo-land" like. What does living mean when everyone has "the goods" on everyone else? I would say it makes We the People very susceptible to fear.

"Enter the Ebola." How can we possibly NOT FEAR THIS?

Sorry but I smell a rat here. Especially because this is more than likely real and worthy of being feared....let alone fearing that a tragedy of truly horrific proportions is unfolding in West Africa...

A Nanny Moose's picture

FFS! Will you people get a room already?!?! We are nothing more than tax livestock, regardless of which side of the Republicrat coin is in charge.

Bias is not only in the media. College students must now cite from a database of approved sources. Approved by whom?

Refuse-Resist's picture

Statist is as statist does.

Whether it's a 'left' leaning statist who wants the school to check your kids' lunches for 'healthiness', or a 'right' statist who wants to see what's in the pipe you're smoking, and if it's the wrong color substance (green not brown), it's off to jail you go.

See, it's the whole mentality of "you HAVE to do what I think is right, and if you don't I'll use the guns of government to force you to do so, for your own good".

 

I wish there was a way to separate the statists at birth, and ship them all to their Nirvana, north Korea before they had a chance to fuck up everything for the rest of us, who just want to work,live, eat/drink what we want, worship what we want, and most importantly, to just be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE!

 

But no, these meddling statist do-gooders have to stick their goddamn noses everywhere and use their armed thugs to enforce their ridiculous dictums.

 

FUCK THEM ALL.

BigJim's picture

+1. But they're not 'do-gooders' any more than Tony Soprano's boys were 'do-gooders' when they threw that smack dealer off the bridge.