War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda : Information Clearing House - ICH
War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda
By John Pilger
"Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power? These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003. The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies."..snip "In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, "What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?" He replied that if we journalists had done our job "there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq." That's a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer. David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer. In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist. Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live."...snip"
Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers - all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch's empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media. The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News - but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn't Fox News; it was the New York Times. The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia - when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato. This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It's not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war."
War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda : Information Clearing House - ICH
Does this ring true?
Is our Main Stream Media distorted?
Is our MSM bought and sold?
Is our MSM infiltrated by intelligence agencies?
Do independent reports investigate or do they accept gov't media handouts?
Does MSM seem "agenda oriented?"
Poll Question
Is the MSM (main stream media) unbiased, reliable and trustworthy?
I don't automatically believe any of them, as virtually all of them appear to have bias.
Does this ring true?
Is our Main Stream Media distorted?
Is our MSM bought and sold?
Is our MSM infiltrated by intelligence agencies?
Do independent reports investigate or do they accept gov't media handouts?
Does MSM seem "agenda oriented?"
Is the MSM (main stream media) unbiased, reliable and trustworthy?
It comes down to a basic understanding of the media. Since they are all biased in some regard the smart money suggests reading as many sources as you can obtain (agree with and not agree with) on a matter then making an informed opinion based on it all. Where we go wrong is only listening to / watching / reading what we agree with and dismissing all others as monumentally wrong because of their lean. The former is a product of wanting as much information as possible and leads to reasoned discussion, the latter is intellectual laziness regurgitating what one was told by someone else.
In general, I don't believe news outlets lie so much, as they don't tell the whole story most of the time.
That is a very fine line there when considering major events we see the media report on, I may even go so far as to say in some cases on major news stories omission is lying.
Yes, but with a serious fault. There has never been a time where media was completely independent of political lean, it's ownership having political lean, or otherwise.
Of course it is, always has been.
Yes, and it has to be that way else you get government ran media. Which is far worse in both the propaganda and control departments. Shuffle on over to North Korea if you are not buying what I am saying.
Doubt it. They do not need to.
Depends on who is doing the investigating. I.E. what the lean of the "independent" reports was vs. the lean of the reporter questioning the results. At the end of the day there is no such thing as independent reporting, we all have leans to deal with. It may be mild, but it is there in some respect. Just a fact of life, no one can be completely robotic in reporting what they see.
Of course, again... always has been and always will be.
Voted "Other."
It comes down to a basic understanding of the media. Since they are all biased in some regard the smart money suggests reading as many sources as you can obtain (agree with and not agree with) on a matter then making an informed opinion based on it all. Where we go wrong is only listening to / watching / reading what we agree with and dismissing all others as monumentally wrong because of their lean. The former is a product of wanting as much information as possible and leads to reasoned discussion, the latter is intellectual laziness regurgitating what one was told by someone else.
Skepticism is always a healthy approach when it comes to news, especially in today's age. Hell, look at all the trouble Rolling Stones magazine is in when the supposed rape story blew up in their face, especially when they found out that pledges don't even happened in the fall.
To me, lying by omission is still lying. Especially if it's done consciously. What you choose to not say has a definite impact on how others perceive a piece of information.Their not lying, just not providing the proper context. There certainly doing a disservice to their viewers, but they're still not lying. It's very similar to how politicians speak. Like when Obama talks about how far deficits have dropped during his administration, like "largest deficit reduction since the second world war" is something that floats around. What he neglects to point out is how it has skyrocketed under his administrations to levels never before seen.
Context matters.
To me, lying by omission is still lying. Especially if it's done consciously. What you choose to not say has a definite impact on how others perceive a piece of information.
In a general sense I believe that our media has devolved to this level over the past several decades. They're not necessarily outright lying, but they are often lying by omission, which has the same end result.
Granted, but some omissions are more glaring than others.Part of the problem is that the media isn't just trying to tell you the news, but also provide context with it. And when you do that, you are inevitably going to leave things out. I mean, say a segment about ISIS is ten minutes long. There's no way you can go into the complete history of the organization in that amount of time, but you still have to find a way. And this is where a lot of cutting down to fit comes into place. You see, not always are they leaving some out to deceive, sometimes they just don't have enough time. Especially with Cable news, where they have and audience that expects a certain slant. Or if not a slant, then at least to hear about things they want to hear about. I mean, it's no different than if you go on Youtube or a website, you're looking for news or information that interest you.
Part of the problem is that the media isn't just trying to tell you the news, but also provide context with it. And when you do that, you are inevitably going to leave things out. I mean, say a segment about ISIS is ten minutes long. There's no way you can go into the complete history of the organization in that amount of time, but you still have to find a way. And this is where a lot of cutting down to fit comes into place. You see, not always are they leaving some out to deceive, sometimes they just don't have enough time. Especially with Cable news, where they have and audience that expects a certain slant. Or if not a slant, then at least to hear about things they want to hear about. I mean, it's no different than if you go on Youtube or a website, you're looking for news or information that interest you.
ISIS is an excellent example. How much time does any western MSM spend stating that the CIA has been arming many Islamic Fundamentalists that then fight on the side of ISIS. It's probably a coincidence that fear of ISIS, Islamic Fundamentalists, and Muslims generate much larger Military Defense/Offense budgets, or it's creative marketing. We de-stabilized Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc., but most USA think we are the victims in those Nations. Again, creative marketing and the MIC profits handsomely and that is Vulture Capitalism at its' finest, eh? The MSM can lead us in to or out of this morass of creative marketing, but they are bought and sold to the highest bidder and again it appears to be the beneficiaries of permanent war that buy the commercial airtime. That's why the question asks "unbiased," "reliable," and "trustworthy." There is more to be considered than meets the naked eye, don't ya' know? ISIS, Syria, ME, Energy, and pipelines are what the ME instability is about and how much detail does the MSM analyze of that?
Point of order: Did we cause the Arab Spring? No? Then you can't say destabilized any of the middle eastern countries involved. And bringing up Ukraine is ridiculous, the people or Ukraine, (at the very least those in the west).
CIA orchestrates "Color Revolutions" and their fingerprints are all over the "Arab Spring." If Nations won't play the energy game our US/CORPORATE/Big energy way, then we de-stabilize them and try to install a flunkie/stooge that will cooperate with our agenda. IF you haven't noticed, we have a Corporate Government and the SCOTUS says they are citizens. He who has the gold makes the rules, and that is not the lowly taxpaying donkey, like you or I. The CIA was chartered to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas and has expanded its' role domestically and within the US Military. I think their mission creep includes world domination by economic manipulation of Central Banks and Bankers.
All of that is completely debunked with the first two countries in the Arab Spring; Tunisia and Egypt. With Tunisia (a very unreported, but also only success of the Arab Spring) that started with Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, who set himself on fire on in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides. So are you proposing that Bouazizi was secretly a CIA Agent? Or maybe it was in Egypt that we got involved, where the Arab Spring ousted long time US Ally Hosni Mubarak and was replaced by a militant Islamic organization?
The Arab Spring had nothing to do with the CIA or the "Corporate Government", and everything to do with the piss poor quality of life for the average Arab, and a collection of leaders in the Middle East that are pretty much ****. I don't see how anyone could ever see anything else, except for a deep seeded hatred of the US. (Not mistrust mind you, it's fine to but cautious, but when you hate someone, you find a way to blame them from whatever. Like Republicans do with Obama, or Democrats with Bush, everything is there fault and it can never be something else.)
The USA is funding Egypt again, now that they have a military dictatorship back in control. The CIA's General Hafter is still working to get his "cred" up in Libya now that we got that no-good scumbag that gave the people free housing, free education through University, free food, and free water in the desert. Those starving schmucks must be happy now that they got equality and they're all free to be poverty stricken. We got rid of that bastard that wasted his time helping the people instead of Western Corporations. And just as soon as we can get a nice malleable dictator running that country, we'll get that OIL working again. But there ain't gonna be any more of them social freebies provided by the Nation's patrimony. That's gonna be our OIL under their dirt, eh?
War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda : Information Clearing House - ICH
War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda
By John Pilger
"Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power? These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003. The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies."..snip "In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, "What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?" He replied that if we journalists had done our job "there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq." That's a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer. David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer. In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist. Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live."...snip"
Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers - all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch's empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media. The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News - but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn't Fox News; it was the New York Times. The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia - when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato. This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It's not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war."
War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda : Information Clearing House - ICH
Does this ring true?
Is our Main Stream Media distorted?
Is our MSM bought and sold?
Is our MSM infiltrated by intelligence agencies?
Do independent reports investigate or do they accept gov't media handouts?
Does MSM seem "agenda oriented?"
Poll Question
Is the MSM (main stream media) unbiased, reliable and trustworthy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?