This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
This Is How The US Government Convinces A Newspaper To Kill A Story
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Under President George W. Bush, the White House urged reporters to withhold accounts about many of the most contentious aspects in the war on terrorism: the existence of a secret prison in Thailand, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation and detention program, warrantless wiretapping and government monitoring of financial transactions.
The Obama administration has persuaded reporters to delay publishing the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia, the name of a country in which a drone strike against an American citizen was being considered, the fact that a diplomat arrested in Pakistan was a C.I.A. officer and that an American businessman was working for the agency when he disappeared in Iran.
- From the New York Times article: Condoleezza Rice Testifies on Urging The Times to Not Run Article
The timidness with which mainstream media in the U.S. approaches news has been well documented. In fact, the inability of traditional media to do a reasonable job of holding powerful interests accountable has been one of the primary drivers behind the ascendency of alternative news. Despite this reality, one thing we know less about is specifically how the power structure goes about suppressing news it doesn’t want reaching the plebs. Until now.
Ironically, the New York Times reported on its own prior inability to report the news:
WASHINGTON — White House officials favor two primary tactics when they want to kill a news article, Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, testified Thursday: They can essentially confirm the report by arguing that it is too important to national security to be published, or they can say that the reporter has it wrong.
Sitting across from a reporter and editor from The New York Times in early 2003, Ms. Rice said, she tried both.
Yes indeed. When it comes to censoring the news, the U.S. government will do “whatever it takes.”
Testifying in the leak trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer, Ms. Rice described how the White House successfully persuaded Times editors not to publish an article about a secret operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. James Risen, a Times reporter, ultimately revealed the program in his 2006 book, “State of War,” and said that the C.I.A. had botched the operation. Prosecutors used Ms. Rice’s testimony to bolster their case that the leak to Mr. Risen had harmed national security.
Ms. Rice’s account also threw a light on how the government pressures journalists to avoid publishing details about United States security affairs. It is a common practice that is seldom discussed.
Under President George W. Bush, the White House urged reporters to withhold accounts about many of the most contentious aspects in the war on terrorism: the existence of a secret prison in Thailand, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation and detention program, warrantless wiretapping and government monitoring of financial transactions.
The Obama administration has persuaded reporters to delay publishing the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia, the name of a country in which a drone strike against an American citizen was being considered, the fact that a diplomat arrested in Pakistan was a C.I.A. officer and that an American businessman was working for the agency when he disappeared in Iran.
Makes you wonder, who isn’t working for the C.I.A. at this point?
According to notes of the White House meeting, George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director at the time, told Mr. Risen and his editor, Jill Abramson, that the program was not mismanaged and that Iran had not discovered the design flaw. The C.I.A. prepared talking points for Ms. Rice that said that revealing the program would not only jeopardize the former Russian scientist — who had become an American citizen — but “conceivably contribute to the deaths of millions of innocent victims” in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack. Ms. Rice said she urged The Times to destroy any documents or notes about the program.
This is quite the shocker. Who would ever suspect a key proponent of the Iraq War to dabble in such outlandish hyperbole.
The Times ultimately did not run the article. Ms. Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, said recently that she regretted not pushing to publish it. Told about Ms. Rice’s testimony, Ms. Abramson said in an email on Thursday that the trial “seems anticlimactic and pointless.”
The only question is, what are they “choosing not to publish” in 2015?
For related posts, see:
Editor in Asia Leaves Bloomberg News Citing Censorship
Google Transparency Report: Worldwide Government Censorship Requests Up 26%
Meet Amber Lyon: Former Reporter Exposes Massive Censorship at CNN
»
- 50265 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Our British cousins, seem to be more advanced in fascism than in America, all the UK government has to do is to send newspaper editors a DA Notice, and the story is gone!
I read and comment on NY Times articles regularly. I have noticed a huge uptick in dissatisfaction with both political parties. Matter of fact some of the comments made are moving towards the likes of comments seen here (minus profanity of course.) People are waking up to the false right/left paradigm, some are questioning the official 9/11 narrative, bashing Central Banks, and even see through the war on terror.
I know the NY Times is not the same as Zero Hedge and some of you have written it off but your voices are exactly what the large audience of the NYT needs to read. Comments are subject to approval so no foul language. I have some that were not printed- I guess they found them too inflammatory.
The one I recall being rejected was regarding Jaime Dimon whining about the breaking up of JP Morgan. He more or less hinted one of the units could become a Chinese entity and he would not want that to happen- you know, for our sakes. In my comment I provided a Reuters story about some upper level bank employees in China that were executed for a $15 million dollar fraud and noted the Chinese obviously get that financial crimes are not victimless.I further noted that Americans may prefer that brand of justice over America's- a fine- that most times is not paid in full.
Anyhow it didn't make it but plenty others have. There are some smart people here- NYT readers need to hear your voices.
disgruntled, great post!!!
Santa brought me a year subscription to NYT. I checked the box for op-eds. First dozen or so I commented 180 degrees opposite from the premise of the editorial, op-ed, opinion due to their ommission of key court findings and/or arithmetic. Maybe half made it through the censors but placed 100 to 400 comments below the time I commented.
Maybe 98% of comments reject cost/benefit analyses. One ZH comment stated the "Others" believe 0/100 is a positive number. I would guess nearly all on NYT editorial boards reject the concept of zero when multiplying and dividing by zero.
Maybe half of first 20 posts and at least 25% of NYT "picks" are verbatim from Administration's campaign donation request taglines.
ZH posters are definitely needed for NYT, PBS, three branches of federal government and those managing Illinois finances that is the "bedrock of America".
(Junk bond issuers are not the bedrock of America's economy and banking system.)
I posted there once. Locked out on the spot. It was a good post tho.
New Yorkers need their news screened by Slim Helu
how do you control media in america?
lets start 100 yrs. ago, you get a law passed that gives you the complete control of Americas economic, and financial future, which you get a % of.
beings your the purveyors of the 7 capital vices, it's easy for you to set up a Ponzi scheme.
you gain control of Americas political-class, give them money to fund their elections, and in turn, they vote to spend more, and more money.
ok hear comes the media, it used to be a competitive business, and being on the side of the political ideology that gives money away, will bring more viewers, and less complaints, then standing with the political ideology that's more conservative.
so in siding with the correct political ideology makes it look as if your on the side of giving away money to people, instead of trying to stick to a budget.
after many decades the vast majority of media, (msm), has naturally morphed from cheerleaders, to team-members, and hiring's , and firings were done for the team, not the product.
2008-2009 with the bail-outs, 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars went to keep a lot of these shows on the air, they know who kept them going, the fed., you don't bite the hand that feeds you.