Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

How the Spooks Took over the News

By Nick Davies, The Independent UK. Posted February 19, 2008.


A controversial new book argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda and the media simply swallow it wholesale.
Advertisement

Editor's note: This is an edited excerpt from Nick Davies' book, Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media (Chatto & Windus). Davies' book has created enormous controversy in the UK, where many of the newsmakers Davies discusses in the book have fired back with op-eds accusing Davies of relying on the same anonymous sourcing that he condemns the commercial press for using in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

It’s not surprising that the book strikes a tender spot in many a news-maker. It is the deepest examination of the links between the "public diplomacy" -- sometimes known as propaganda -- pushed by the Bush administration and its allies, and the media’s uncritical repetition of the claims made to justify the invasion.

It's easy to forget just how easy it was to sell an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state. It was the media, after all, that promulgated the novel idea that if Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction," that was in and of itself a justification to go to war. How did the issue of "WMD" become a proxy for the more important question of whether Iraq was a credible threat to the United States and its allies. At the time of the invasion, there were close to 40 countries suspected of having an illicit weapons program. Twelve of them were considered "hostile" to the United States and its allies. Yet, the administration claimed that possession of old chemical or biological munitions was a de facto justification for attacking the only country among the twelve that was well-contained; a country whose air-space and imports and exports were under international control. The media embraced the idea uncritically, never mind that Saddam Hussein had not been rattling his saber or threatening any offensive action against another state.

Hussein was in a great position for a tin-pot dictator -- he and his cronies had extracted over $10 billion in corporate kick-backs and bribes which the Right spun as a UN scandal rather that what it was: the largest corporate bribery scandal in history -- and he was able to blame all of his country’s domestic woes on the U.S./British sanctions program that strangled the country.

It’s always been a curiosity that public opinion could be manipulated so comprehensively, and Davies provides one more piece of the puzzle explaining where our media culture is today.

***

How the Spooks Took Over the News

by Nick Davies

On the morning of 9 February 2004, The New York Times carried an exclusive and alarming story. The paper's Baghdad correspondent, Dexter Filkins, reported that US officials had obtained a 17-page letter, believed to have been written by the notorious terrorist Abu Musab 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.

The letter argued that al-Qa'ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis."

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about the New York Times report: "We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously… It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society." The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake -- and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: propaganda, iraq

Nick Davies is a veteran journalist and author of Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media (Chatto & Windus).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is common knowledge in the mainstream media
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 19, 2008 12:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many well-known journalists are briefed by the security services and even do their bidding. One of Naomi Klein's mentors, the Canadian journalist Stevie Cameron, was unveiled as an informant to Canada's security services, CSIS. Connect the dots yourself what was going on there...

MSM absolutely love getting security service briefings - it makes them feel important and very James Bond. Let's be clear: feeding the MSM lies, distortions and absolute bunkum is the easiest thing you could do. Most MSM fail to ask hard questions and just want to get through the day and keep the editor of their back. Most people in PR remain flabbergasted at how easy it isto get their press releases circulated verbatim in the MSM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just follow the money Posted by: UnEasyOne
» CIA's PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD! Posted by: Zeitgeist
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 19, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
100,000 people are DEAD

The Bush administration: Try 'em & Fry 'em

There's no statute of limitations on genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You left out a zero Posted by: hurricane hugo
MSM is for the brain dead who know no better....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Feb 19, 2008 1:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But all you nice folk here reading the pages & posts on alternet & other various information media sources already knew that. I also cringe at members of my own family who maintain the creditability & legibility of the MSM news.

I hereby officially allocate an honorary lobotomy for those poor fools who don't know any better & who just accept the status quo & are content to continue living blindly in their pathetic apathy.

Its must be almost time for a global revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The BU__! SH__! artists keep cranking out BU__! SH__!
Posted by: williameon on Feb 19, 2008 2:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who stole the Media?
The Cor'pirate' Ignorant A--holes.
They are plants.
Double Agents.
They swear that they are with us,
while they are really against us.
Media Prostitutes.
Disinformation Agents.
They know what is going on.
They are paid big bucks to play their part
In the Charade.
The Corpirate Dance
The Grand Delusion!
Fool most of the people most of the time and
Get away with mass murder.
Poll this.
Thirty percent of the people still approve of King George II?
BU__! SH__!
Everything that they spew is Propaganda.
Repetitive, Mega Phone, Subliminal, Hypnotic, Conditioning.
Endless: Faux, Evil, Vile, Stink Tank
PROPAGANDA.
A Multi-Media Quick Sand that tens of millions of Americans are stuck in right now.
Gasping for Air!
Can they handle the Truth?
Maybe only now?
Begging for help!
For some glimpse of Truth, Sanity and some sense of true Reality!
While drowning will they finally see the light?
Can they free themselves?
Before it is too late?
Up to their necks in
Pure
Unadulterated
BU__! SH__!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selling a war...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 19, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Philip Agee had this to say in his 1975 book about working for the CIA, under Media Operations:

"The CIA'S role in the US propaganda programme is determined by the official division of propaganda into three general categories: white, grey and black. White propaganda is that which is openly acknowledged. . . grey propaganda is ostensibly attributed to people or organizations who do not acknowledge the US government as the source of their material and who produce the material as if it were their own, black propaganda is unattributed material, or it is attributed to a non-existent source, or it is false material attributed to a real source. . ."

"The vehicles for grey and black propaganda may be unaware of their CIA or US government sponsorship. This is partly so that it can be more effective and partly to keep down the number of people who know what is going on and thus to reduce the danger of exposing true sponsorship."

"Thus editorialists, politicians, businessmen and others may produce propaganda, even for money, without necessarily knowing who their masters in the case are. Some among them obviously will and so, in agency terminology, there is a distinction between 'witting' and 'unwitting' agents. . . ."


The fact is that in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, the press coordinated closely with British and U.S. governments. Whether they "truly believed" that Iraq had WMDs or not, there were plenty of reasons to doubt the official story - but the official story was never questioned or checked. Witting or unwitting, the press failed to do its job - out of fear.

For example, the New York Times printed this article by Condi Rice in Jan 2003: "Why We Know Iraq is Lying", in which she claimed Saddam was seeking uranium ore, that he had ballistic missile capabilties, and that he had a massive biowarfare program.

Before that summation, the British government had released, on Sept 24 2002, their bogus dossier on Iraq WMDs which claimed Iraq had very active nuclear, chemical and biological programs.

This was preceded by Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon, who reported in the NYT on Sept 7 2002 that "aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges" had been intercepted en route to Iraq. This article was then used as evidence for the need to attack Iraq in mid-September TV appearances by Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld.

That, in turn, had been preceded by Cheney claiming that Saddam would soon have a nuclear weapon, as reported in the NYT on Aug 27, 2002: Cheney says Peril of a Nuclear Iraq Justifies Attack.

Earlier, there was the Bush Administration's best pals, the Iraq National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi. Immediately after 9/11, Chalabi was meeting with neocons on the Defense Policy Board to explore how 9/11 could be used to justify an invasion.

We can easily go further back, to the presence of maps of Iraqi oilfields and lists of "foreign suitors" in Cheney's Energy Task Force documents from early 2001 (incomplete).

So, what you had here is two government administrations, Bush's and Blair's, teaming up to sell lies to their respective publics with the aid, either witting or deliberately unwitting, of the leading press outlets in the U.S. and Britain.

Dissent was not tolerated - recall how Phil Donahue's top-rated show was axed by MSNBC in the run-up to the war? FAIR did a good job of covering that story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Selling a war... Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Selling a war... Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Selling a war... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Et tu?
Posted by: xi_people on Feb 19, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only have the spooks taken over "mainstream" news, they also control so-called alternative outlets, like AlterNet.

Why else would this site work so hard to act as a safety valve for the disaffected, asserting -- in so many ways -- that the evil republicans represent the biggest problem, and that the democratic party is the only venue for change. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why else would subjects like the truth behind 9/11 be virtually undiscussed on this site? When it is brought up, the ridiculous official line (Muslims with box-cutters) is clung to like white on rice.

I could point to so many other issues, but don't have the time, nor the patience to do so. Suffice it to say that if you think you're finding "the truth" on established alternative sites like AlterNet, in many ways you're just as deluded as the idiots who get all their info from Fox News.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: t tu? Posted by: makeadifference
» right on Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: right on Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: right on Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: right on Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Alright, I apologize Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: right on Posted by: Lauren
» RE: right on Posted by: Lauren
» RE: right on Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: right on Posted by: rcpi
» RE: right on Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: right on Posted by: rcpi
» 9/11 Posted by: harryf200
» Yes, yes Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Yes, yes Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: t tu? Posted by: stuarts
» You hit the nail on the head Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: You hit the nail on the head Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Just to be clear Posted by: Joshua Holland
the media is composed of corporations or more accurately of people who think their privileged status
Posted by: Suzon on Feb 19, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
doesn't need to be questioned. Their crowd rules by right, whether inherited (Bush) or "earned" (still more sheer luck).

They hang with their own crowd and reinforce each other's self-belief. Entitlement and privilege (literally "private law") are anti-American and the root cause of the brutal "American" empire. Aristocrats are self-perpetuating and meritocrats (originally meant to be a term of disapproval) believe that they are in high places because they possess intrinsically superior talents.

The interesting thing is that we don't need Fox, Nestle, General Electric or even Big Pharma. We do need food, water, shelter, clothing and medical and dental care. Yes, and even communications, but we don't need corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Already known but details important
Posted by: mutualaid on Feb 19, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for posting this piece.

There are others on this phenomena more recent than Agee's (which was useful).

Just gooogle psyops cnn

and read the counterpunch and fair articles. . .

Also the Steele monograph for the US Navy War College makes clear as do numerous RAND Corp studies of 'netwar' and their recent testimony re. S. 1959 that the U.S. Government is keen on continuing to control information and public opinion.

Makes sense. Should be opposed.

Susan Collins Sen. R-Me facing re-election is Senate sponsor of S.1959. That's a good place to start w/a mounting grassroots campaign against S. 1959 and Collins for being out front on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anchors and Reporters not Deserving of Respect
Posted by: US Citizen on Feb 19, 2008 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration plays the mainstream media like a harp, and any credibility, independence, or pride the people in the media may have had is flushed down the toilet. Remember that the next time you watch some anchor or reporter on TV. Unless they are severely questioning the information that is being spoon-fed to them by the government, they are pathetic and not deserving of respect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scorn not respect Posted by: Gravitas
Seven years of power
Posted by: themotie on Feb 19, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seven years of power
The corporation claw
The rich control the government
The media, the law
To make some kind of difference
Then everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists, revolution will grow

More relevant than ever ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speak the word, brother! Posted by: ikonoklast
fake news and also
Posted by: wawa on Feb 19, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of a lack of integrity, responsibility and follow through by the paid media, is why we have civilian journalists:



On 12/12/01 FOX News ran Part 1 of a 4 part series:


Is Israel Spying In And On The U.S.?

BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work.

Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11.

Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.?


A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."

...A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, "the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target."

The document concludes: "Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives."



These items have since been removed from the FOX News web site, but are available @


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm


A public service message 2 U from a member of The New Fourth Estate: civilian journalist


e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fake news and also Posted by: harryf200
The US manufactures news to distribute as propaganda? Do tell.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 19, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Davies had an enjoyable time writing this piece. He did not have to waste any time coming up with evidence. Yes, Ritter is a reliable source about the British but if it is so obvious, why not a single bit of hard evidence that relates to the US press?

I don't doubt that a big effort is made to control what the news says. Isn't that why we have freedom of the press? Izzy Stone said governments lie.

Maybe journalists lie, too? In order to sell books to paranoid citizens? I suppose we will never know, but what I read here would entertain a class in the strategies of rhetoric for a good, long time. Fabricated? Do tell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Governments lie? Posted by: rockpicker
It is not like this is a new innovation
Posted by: stockpix on Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
J. Edgar Hoover's FBI had an extensive domestic press horde that he played like a fiddle. The only thing new here is the increased global reach of media and to some extent the metastasis of PR Flacks and operatives into and throughout the military. Hence we have had silly mythologies hyped like the Jessica Lynch hero/rescue story that was so rapidly repudiated by Lynch herself, but it was a new news cycle in an amnesiac culture, so who cared.

I think that the naked cynicism displayed so wantonly is coming back to bite them in this election cycle, particularly with young voters. Whether bromides of change in either party, can win out and then hit a scale of reform that makes a bit of difference is yet to be seen. I'm only slightly more hopeful about Obama than the three more Republican presidential offerings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

News "services" and backyard gossip
Posted by: willymack on Feb 19, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a rural town peopled by descendants of those who braved the Oregon trail so long ago, and those (like me) seeking sucrease from the madhouse you'll see in any city of any size. In my mind, there's no one more patriotic or pure minded than our farmers and buckeroos (cowboys), who still say "howdy" when greeting one another without sounding phony. Their world is a place where the vagarities of climate, prices of commodities, and the condition of their equipment are prime considerations. They're more concerned with the health of their livestock and the safety of their children on the ranch or farm than international politics. You're more likely to hear them recite the poetry of Robert Service or the prose of Jack London or Mark Twain than the philosophy of Descartes or Bertrand Russell. Since they're so preocupied with just surviving economically, the greater world is something they simply don't have the time or inclination to examine in detail, so they tend to see the high offices of our elected officials, from the President on down as peopled by those of the highest moral standards, honesty, and good intensions (mostly because that's the way THEY are) otherwise, they wouldn't be there. They're insular to the extent that they're suspicious of those outside their circle, and those who'd describe the aforementioned officials as dishonest or motivated by anything other than our best interests. Due to this, they consistently fall for any lie from dishonest politicians and almost always vote for measures or laws contrary to their best interests. They look to each other for advice and form their opinions on what sounds good rather than take the time to examine the truth of what's being said by the hucksters in Washington. In this regard, they're not that different from big city dwellers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where have all the fact checkers gone?
Posted by: ibolyap on Feb 19, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many news organizations have gotten rid of their fact checkers as part of their streamlining to increase profits. I frequently have heard the exact same item word for word on different TV channels from different cities. They don't even bother to rewrite the press releases. It is public record that the CIA did the Bushies' bidding in manipulating their "intelligence" concerning WMD. The New York Times withheld information concerning the secret monitoring of communications. We just recently got news about Blair's intervention in stopping the investigation of the kickback payments to Prince Bandar. There is so much manipulation and fudging that it isn't even news anymore. It's all PR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blair and the Bandar Affair Posted by: harryf200
beyond media
Posted by: Noah_Scape on Feb 19, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beyond the mass media being fed lies to fit the agenda of some powerful groups bent on global control, there are the wealthy, the powerful and the corporate humps and CEOs that are fed lies. What else could explain why "the smartest people in the room" [CEOs] are still denying global warming reality? They are going to be hurt by it too.
Consider this: everyone will be hurt by global warming, and therefore the ones who are feeding the lies to the powerfull people must WANT it to occur, to ravage life-as-we-know-it. They were also active with the cold war and nuclear holocaust threats, World Wars 1 and 2, and so on. So far, they have been disappointed in that we are still here....
But why do they want global wipe out? They are insane religious people who actually believe in the cleansing, and the 2nd coming. Insane, but smart too, and able to control the powerfull and wealthy. But don't jump to the conclusion that they are "the Jews", that would be missing the mark by a mile. [the global wipe out groups would like us to believe it is the Jews.... there are many layers of deception going on].

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Exactly Fresh News
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Feb 19, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CIA meddling with the media began in 1948 and was called Operation Mockingbird. It's by no means top secret, the web is full of articles about it for anyone who wants to know. It's even in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

This being the case, I don't know why anyone still believes the mainstream media on any political issue. This isn't covert ops; it's blatant, in-your-face planted news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom Under Attack: US Judge BANS internet Site
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 19, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a good link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cnd-wiki.html?hp

Wikileaks has been ordered shut down for publishing how the rich can get away with money laundering and tax dodges.

Of course, it is not so hard to see the document anyway.

Just another example of how the next frontier for the propaganda boys is going to be the internet. They already own/control the major news networks, the newspapers, the radio stations. They are all just sanitized versions of each other. The internet is free, but not for long if these guys can start shutting down sites. We need to be vigilant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Endless Loop
Posted by: gradioc on Feb 19, 2008 7:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really disturbs me is that once something is reported by one of the Beltway/New York providers it's treated as gospel by all the rest. Nobody has the balls to question another reporter's sources or motivations. Instead of being competitors and calling bullshit on each other, they just lap it up like thirsty dogs. If more providers were willing to bust the NY Times ass when they fuck up, they would fuck up less often. As it is now, once a spook cons one single member of that excluive club, they all smile and nod. The old adage was, "If your Mother tells you she loves you, check it out". The best known and best paid journalists in the nation have forgotten the most basic rules of their profession. They are who they are not because they are good, but because they look good while doing it badly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very good post Posted by: Bobsays
MOCKINGBIRD "News" Charades
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 19, 2008 11:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird” built to cook the media for cozy corporate handlers was said to have been mothballed by none other than BushCo via H.W. Bush in 1976. (beyond denials, the program could have easily been ported to the NSA or elsewhere). That’s the same Bush family that joined in with de facto Fascist clans a la Rockefeller, Getty and others to enable Hitler almost to the end of WW2.

Whether or not “Mockingbird” still exists, the MSM behaves as if it did in promotion of corporate criminal empire for what amounts to a parasitic ruling class.

Got security?

Politically, the majority of what Americans are spoon-fed as “news” is a constant barrage of omission and active deception fixed to provide cover for events like 9/11 cover-up and imperial bogus “war on terror” genocide at public cost for private blood money.

This is a very old con – played out on one gullible generation after the next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the giant wurlitzer
Posted by: denk on Feb 20, 2008 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"we can play on the world's media like a giant wurlitzer" [cia]
http://www.namebase.org/scott.html

in 1965, cia/mi6 played one of its greatest hit,
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gyuse


official casualty = 500000.
unofficial casulties estimated from 1 to 2m.
amongst them were vast number of ethnic chinese, framed by cia as china's fifth columnists in indo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the wurlitzer,
Posted by: denk on Feb 20, 2008 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
preaching to choir
Posted by: whealeydj on Feb 23, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The book and aticle were good. I wonder where it will be reviewd in mainstream media. et tu thread led huge digression that was tedious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]