Media Studies for Jedi
"News
is what someone, somewhere
is trying to suppress,
the rest is just advertising"
- Lord Northcliffe, British Press Baron
This section is designed to help Jedi Knight's fully understand the news and what is being presented on the television, in the newspapers, on the radio, on the internet.
We begin by analysing the quote above. Advertising refers to the fact that governments brief journalists with what they want the people to believe. Often, there are disagreements within the government, and leaks occur to embarrass certain members of the government or their advisors. Occassionally leaks occur when something morally reprehensible is found. Other leaks are designed to introduce rumours which then become news items at a later stage.
So advertising is not just the commercial advertisements in the media, "advertisements" refers to both briefings by politicians and the press releases provided by corporations.
Suppression occurs in many different ways. This section outlines them below. By understanding news suppression, Jedi can begin to find their own path to The Real Truth.
There is no such thing,
at this date in the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You
know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you
did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected
with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you
who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street
looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before
twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
You know it and I know it.
And what folly is this - toasting an independent press? We are the tools and
vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes.
John Swinton - New York Times - New York Press Club
Problem-Reaction-Solution
Here is David Icke in an interview explaining Problem - Reaction - Solution. It is a very useful model to have in mind when analysing news stories.
David: Right, I'm not into condemning people. But I am into
pointing out what's going on. One of the things I point out with very much
back-u evidence, is how the same people, on apparently different sides of
politics, are actually connected to the same organizations. These organizations
have a proven agenda of a world government, a world central bank, a world army,
microchip population, and so forth. I show how these apparent opposites in
politics are there to persuade us we have freedom so we don't realize we're in
jail. These persons are not opposites at all but are a part of a one-party
state. The book shows very powerfully the connections between the last two U.S.
Presidents, who were apparently opposites and on different sides--Bill Clinton
and George Bush. They were both involved with the same organization
LE: Can you speak more about this?
David: The media and politicians have a cozy unwritten agreement
that projects a myth to people, which is that prime ministers, presidents and
top politicians are the top of the pyramid in terms of decision-making in the
world. The presidents and prime ministers then walk around the world stage and
act as if they are the final arbiters of power, and the media goes along with
this, which means that the echelons ABOVE the Clintons, who actually pull the
strings, never get researched and investigated because they are invisible to the
public. These are the people who decide who becomes President because they own
the money and the media. The average person may think the President is the most
powerful man in the world. No, he's not. He's only the most famous front-man in
the world!
LE: Can you give a specific example of how the media is used to
influence public opinion?
David: I mention in the book a mass mind-controlling technique
which is used all the time, which I call the
"problem-reaction-solution." A problem is covertly created and you
(whoever is doing it) make certain that someone is blamed for the problem. This
might be a war. It might be a run on the currency, or a government collapse. It
can be anything. You then use the media to stimulate public opinion in relation
to your created problem, so that the public cries out: "Something must be
done!" At that point, the public will accept anything...as long as
something is done!
LE: Okay. What next?
David: At that point, those who have created the problem got
exactly the public reaction they wanted. They then openly, in the public arena,
offer the solution to the problem that THEY created, and get the solution that
they wanted all along.
LE: Can you give an example of this?
David: Okay. If you take the world army scenario (a favorite theme
of this group of people), the last thing that the
"problem-reaction-solution" required in Bosnia was an effective U.N.
peacekeeping operation. If it was effective it could be effective in Rwanda and
Somalia. If it was effective, there would be no problem to solve. So, as a
result of the U.N. peacekeeping operation NOT working, there continued to be a
problem (and I document this in my book). The U.N. peacekeeping WAS DESIGNED not
to work. The more horrific pictures that came out of Bosnia, the louder came the
cry: "Something must be done!" And, this was understandable from the
public's point of view. The solution put forward was, and is, effectively a
WORLD ARMY...the 60,000 man force...the biggest multinational force assembled
since the 2nd World War. I could on and on, but a common theme among all the
people who have been the major peace negotiators in Bosnia, is membership in the
same organizations that have as an agenda the creation of a world army.
Spacious New York Times Square hotel in Midtown Manhattan.
And here are some examples:
Daily
Mail, Saturday, September 15, 2001
Blunkett hint on ID cards "to protect democracy"
THE U.S. outrages could hasten the introduction of identity cards in Britain,
the Home Secretary said yesterday.
David Blunkett said such a system could play a role in combating illegal
immigration.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "We need to think
through and debate how we protect our freedom and democracy while actually
maintaining that freedom and democracy".
He added: "Those are very difficult issues but they are ones we are going
to have to address if we are to protect the most basic freedom of all, which is
to live in peace and without fear".
Mr. Blunkett refused to give his own views on the matter, saying he wanted to
return to the issue later in the autumn "when things have calmed".
He continued: " I wouldn't want us to debate this issue purely on the back
of the attack in the U.S. If we are going to consider such issues we need to do
so in a much broader context of citizenship and entitlements".
His remarks will fuel speculation that the Home Office is moving towards some
kind of ID system to crack down on illegal immigration. ID cards would make it
easier for employers to tell whether a potential worker was legally resident in
this country.
Immigration Minister Lord Rooker said recently that the ease with which migrants
could work illegally in Britain encouraged them to come here instead of other
European countries, most of which demand citizens carry official identification
at all times.
The Government has been accused of introducing ID cards by stealth through the
new driving licence, which has a photograph.
An ID system - costing up to £600 million - would be criticised by human rights
campaigners as an infringement of civil liberties.
John Major's government proposed a national identity card in 1995 to fight
crime, eventually plumping for a voluntary scheme.
The plan was dropped after Labour came to power in 1997.
http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/100601a.html:
NATIONS PRESS FOR NATO EXPANSION
By William J Kole,The Associated Press
Expanding Nato to take in Eastern Europe and the Baltics will help secure the
world against the threat of global terrorism, the leaders of 10 nations pressing
to join the alliance said Friday.
Meeting under heavy security at Bulgarian President Petar Stoyanov's residence,
the leaders of 10 East European and Baltic countries said the Sept. 11 attacks
added urgency to their case for joining the 19-member alliance.
``The blows at the heart of the United States have shed new light on the need to
consolidate strength against the new evil,'' Stoyanov said.
``Even if a global anti-terrorist alliance is created, it can't be successful
without a strong NATO,'' he said. ``No nation is able to cope with the new
threats single-handed.''
Russia has vehemently opposed the eastward expansion of NATO, which would bring
the alliance to its doorstep. But this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin
softened his opposition, suggesting that Russia and NATO could find common
ground in the global fight against terrorism.
Stronger relations with emerging democracies are essential to counter the
terrorist threat in Afghanistan, NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said.
``Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists precisely because it does not have
a viable state structure. It is a black hole,'' Robertson said. ``That is why
NATO is engaged in southeast Europe - to prevent such black holes from emerging
on our doorstep. ... The new democracies have demonstrated once again that they
are not just fair-weather friends.''
Friday's meeting brought together the heads of state of potential newcomers
Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania,
Macedonia and Albania. They issued a ``declaration of solidarity'' that ``our
governments will fully support the war against terrorism.''
``The lesson we draw from the terrorist attacks in the United States is that the
security of America and Europe is more intertwined than ever before,'' it said.
``The new democracies of Europe can help counter terrorist and criminal threats
to the community of the West.''
It was their last gathering before a November 2002 summit in Prague, where NATO
members are expected to clear the way for several new nations to join. Former
Warsaw Pact members Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined in 1999.
``Your determination to stand side by side with the United States and the NATO
alliance during this hour of trial sends a powerful message against the tyranny
of terror,'' President Bush said in a message to the gathering. ``The United
States supports NATO membership for all of Europe's new democracies - from the
Baltics to the Black Sea - who share our values.''
On Thursday, the NATO allies granted the United States automatic and unlimited
access to their airfields and ports and agreed to deploy ships and early-warning
radar planes in Washington's campaign against terrorism.
Robertson said the process of enlarging NATO would continue and ``will not be
held hostage to any terrorist campaign.''
But he cautioned the candidate countries: ``The strong logic of enlargement must
be matched by the effort needed to make it happen. Aspirant countries must meet
NATO's political and military standards before they can be admitted.''
On the Net:
NATO: http://www.nato.int/
We have the finest innovative smoking glass pipe at stock.
Spin Doctors
The role of a political spin doctor is to place stories within the media about the government in as favourable light as possible. Spin Doctors will brief the breakfast television programmes, so that the breakfast news is not what has happened or is happening, but what will happen. Speeches by politicians are provided in advance so that newsreaders can tell us what so and so is thought be saying at lunchtime.
Spin Doctors are also used to ensure that the people do not find out the truth about events.
Below is an extract from Secret Weapons for Quiet Wars. It could be argues that this is not a genuine document. Many non-Jedi will not read it, and those that do can not contemplate government organisations referring to their people as "no better than animals".
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue, "who will be the beneficiary?".
In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.
CONSEQUENTLY, in the interest of future world order, peace, and tranquility, it was decided to privately wage a quiet war against the American public with an ultimate objective of permanently shifting the natural social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy few.
In order to implement this objective, it was necessary to create, secure, and apply new weapons which, as it turned out, were a class of weapons so subtle and sophisticated in their principle of operation and public appearance as to earn for themselves the name "silent weapons".
In conclusion, the only objective of economic research, as conducted by the magnates of capital (banking) and the industries of commodities (goods) and services, is the establishment of an economy which is totally predictable and manipulatable.
In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the lower class elements of the society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be house-broken, trained, and assigned a yoke and long term social duties from an early age, before they have an opportunity to question the propriety of the matter. In order to achieve such conformity, the lower class family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of government operated day care centers for the occupationally orphaned children.
The quality of education to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so that the moat of ignorance isolating the inferior class from the superior class is and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap, even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to maintaining some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling upper class.
However, the Jedi now needs to look at what Tony Blair is saying about the war on Terrorism, at the Labour Party conference in Brighton
Tony Blair yesterday turned his battle against the terrorists who ravaged New York into a far wider struggle for a new world order that would uphold human dignity and social justice "from the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan".
Admitting his own helplessness in the face of so much bereavement on September 11, Mr Blair had earlier said of the dead: "They don't want revenge, they want something better in memory of their loved ones. I believe their memorial can and should be that out of the shadow of this evil should emerge lasting good."
"This is a moment to seize," he said. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do let us reorder this world around us and use modern science to provide prosperity for all.
"Science can't make that choice for us, only the moral power of a world acting as a community can."
The commentary can be seen in full here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4269113,00.html
So, here is Blair using the much televised speech to take the moral high ground.
But one hour after the air strikes on the World Trade Centre, one of Blair's spin doctors, Jo Moore, Jo Moore, special adviser to Stephen Byers, Secretary for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, told colleagues in an e-mail that September 11 was “a good day to get out anything we want to bury”.
Here is an extract from the The Times:
"Jo Moore, special adviser to Stephen Byers, Secretary for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, told colleagues in an e-mail that September 11 was “a good day to get out anything we want to bury”. The message was sent about an hour after the second passenger jet struck the World Trade Centre in New York.
Ms Moore, 38, issued an apology yesterday and was formally reprimanded by Mr Byers. He did not ask her to resign, however, saying that he continued to value her skills and experience.
The Prime Minister has decided that although Ms Moore was guilty of a serious error of judgement for which she had apologised and been reprimanded, he didn’t believe that her career should be destroyed as a result of it, his official spokesman said. Ms Moore was also given an official warning by Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
Relatives of those who died and senior Labour MPs insisted, however, that Ms Moore should stand down."
The story continued, with the Labour Government supposedly trying to bury the story by accusing Kate Adie of leaking the whereabouts of Blair - have a read of the full article at http://media.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,7541,567369,00.html
"Adie will decide whether to sue Mr Kelly upon her return and is also considering a case against the Sun, which ran the story on its front page yesterday under the headline: "Sack Kate Adie".
There is speculation that Downing Street promoted the story to bury the row over the Stephen Byers' adviser Jo Moore, who suggested shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre that September 11 was a "very good day" to release sensitive announcements.
It is thought that the Sun had been planning to lead its paper on the Moore row until the Adie story emerged."
Jedi's must now decide
1) Is this is one-off misjudgement, or is there a climate of cynical spin inside the Blair Government?
2) Why did Jo Moore only appear to be reprimanded once the email was leaked? We have not seen any reports to say that she was reprimanded as soon as her bosses read the sickening email.
3) Should Jedi still believe that Blair is a morally upright person, when he is happy to maintain the services of Jo Moore - note that Byers "continued to value her skills and experience."
4) Is this is an email that is leaked, does it suggest that the Blair Government, just like the US Government (as reported in the Secret Weapons report) has no respect for the British public?
5) Blair has said that the war on terrorism is a war to defend the "civilised world's" democracy. Is it democratic to have such cynical and unelected advisors paid to manipulate bad news in this manner?
6) If this has been leaked, are there any other types of behavious going on inside the governemt that are as dubious as this?
7) Is Blair now still justified in criticising members of the public and certain journalists for being cynical about the government's agenda?
Government Whips
Of course the Media are not always to blame. Sometimes they can break very interesting stories, such as The Mail on Sunday's extraordinary publishing of a conversation between a Labour Government Whip and Labour MP Peter Marsden.
Here is the conversation and also commentary that appeared in The Times:
From The Times - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-2001365349,00.html
TUESDAY OCTOBER 23 2001
'It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938'
Hilary Armstrong: Paul, we are all comrades together in the Labour Party and we are all supposed to be on the same side. I want to improve your communications skills.
Paul Marsden: What do you mean?
HA: I want you to join the mainstream of the party.
PM: What do you mean by the mainstream?
HA: Come on Paul, you know what I mean.
PM: No, I don’t. Explain it to me.
HA: Look, Paul, let me put it another way, those that aren’t with us are against us.
PM: Name names.
HA: We don’t really know each other, do we? We haven’t had a chance to speak properly in the last four years.
PM: But we have, Hilary. When you were Environment Minister I came to lobby you about a regeneration project in Shrewsbury and you gave us £1.4 million. I brought a delegation to see you about getting more money for education and social services in Shropshire, and I also came to see you about local government reform.
HA: Oh yes, I do remember now.
(She picked up an inch-thick brown file and waved it in his face, opening it to reveal articles written by Marsden for his local Shropshire Star newspaper; speeches he had made; transcripts of radio interviews he had given.)
HA: I want a guarantee that you will not talk to the media unless you speak to me first.
PM: I won’t do that. I believe it is my right to speak to whoever I choose.
HA: I have been looking at your file — you are clearly very inexperienced and your attendance record is poor.
(In Marsden’s first two years as an MP, between 1997 and 1999, he had spent a lot of time away from the Commons. His wife Shelly was seriously ill and at the same time had given birth to their second child, Richard, now three. The former Chief Whip Nick Brown gave him compassionate leave.)
PM: I take great offence at that. I am not inexperienced and my attendance record is certainly not poor. My wife was being cut open in the operating theatre and Nick Brown kindly allowed me extra time at home to carry out family responsibilities. You must know all that. What the hell has it got to do with all this?
HA: Your attendance record was not good last year either. You missed more votes than most others.
PM: That is not true. We were fighting a general election and you lot told us to go home and campaign to win it.
HA: You made a complete fool of yourself the other day when you got up in the Commons.
(Armstrong was referring to Marsden’s question to Blair in the October 8 emergency Commons debate on the Afghan crisis, when the MP said that the decision to go to war should be approved by a vote of all MPs, not by the Prime Minister alone. Blair brushed it aside.)
HA: You just don’t understand the rules here, you’re too inexperienced.
PM: There’s no need to insult me. I know the rules, I consulted the Speaker’s clerk about voting procedures.
HA: In fact we may well hold a vote.
PM: Great.
HA: But, if we do, it will be whipped.
PM: That is outrageous. You won’t even give us a free vote on whether we go to war — it is an issue which should be a matter of conscience.
HA: War is not a matter of conscience! Abortion and embryo research, they are matters of conscience, but not wars.
PM: Are you seriously saying that blowing people up and killing people is not a moral issue?
HA: It is government policy that we are at war! You astound me. We can’t have a trusting relationship if you keep talking to the media without permission.
PM: It would help if your deputy didn’t send me snotty letters disciplining me.
HA: I did leave a message at your office on Monday night saying to call me.
PM: Are you sure?
HA: Yes. Why?
PM: You couldn’t have phoned the Shrewsbury office because you didn’t leave a message on the answer machine. You can’t have left a message in London, either, because I was in the office and there was no voicemail left there.
HA: But I spoke to someone and left a message with them.
PM: You didn’t. I checked the telephone log and there are no messages left.
HA: Er, perhaps I got the wrong number.
PM: Let’s get this straight. You did not call me.
HA: Anyway, you must stop using the media.
PM: That’s a bit rich coming from people like you and Downing Street, when Stephen Byers’ spin-doctor, Jo Moore, says September 11 is a good day to bury bad news.
HA: Jo Moore didn’t say that.
PM: That is exactly what she said in her e-mail.
HA: We don’t have spin-doctors in No 10 — or anywhere else!
PM (laughing): You aren’t seriously telling me that you don’t have spin-doctors and they don’t exist. You are losing it, Hilary.
HA (shouting): You wait until I really do lose it. I am not going to have a dialogue with you about that. It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938!
PM: Don’t you dare call me an appeaser! I am not in favour of appeasing bin Laden or anyone. I simply disagree with the way the Government is going about stopping him. That’s the official line now, is it? We are all appeasers if we don’t agree with everything you say?
HA: Well, what would you do about bin Laden, then?
PM: I think we should indict him on criminal charges. It could be done very quickly and then the UN should take charge of the military action, not the USA. It would be much more effective. By all means send in the SAS, but let’s get the UN on side first.
HA: The trouble with people like you is that you are so clever with words that us up North can’t argue back.
PM: Do you mind? I’m a Northerner myself. I was born in Cheshire. I spent four years at Teesside Polytechnic near where you come from.
HA: You do realise that everything that is said in here is private and confidential, don’t you? You cannot go out and tell the media.
PM: I haven’t got the media outside and I won’t go to them. But if they come to me I will talk to them: I represent the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham and I will continue to speak out on their behalf when I feel it is appropriate. Armstrong stood up, touched Marsden on the elbow and guided him out.
© Simon Walters, The Mail on Sunday
As background, here is the accompanying Time article - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-2001365349,00.html
TUESDAY OCTOBER 23 2001
No 10 denies stifling rebel MPs
BY PHILIP WEBSTER, POLITICAL EDITOR
DOWNING STREET was struggling last night to defuse claims that the Government is trying to stifle backbench dissent over the conflict in Afghanistan.
In a concerted damage limitation exercise the Prime Minister’s spokesman and senior ministers spread the word that they were happy for MPs to express their views even if they were contrary to stated government policy.
In a highly unusual development, the whips’ tradition of public silence was broken as a junior whip defended the action of her boss, Hilary Armstrong, in trying to persuade the rebel MP Paul Marsden to back the Government.
Their move followed new charges of “control freakery” levelled against ministers after it was revealed that Ms Armstrong had accused Mr Marsden of behaving like politicians who appeased the Nazis in the Thirties. Ministers went out of their way to emphasise that neither Mr Marsden nor other backbench opponents of the bombing of Afghanistan would be disciplined. Ms Armstrong’s apparent hardline treatment of Mr Marsden, disclosed by the MP when he published his own record of the conversation, clearly embarrassed the Government. Ministers were unrepentant yesterday about the practice of holding Commons debates on technical motions rather than substantive resolutions which would allow MPs to vote against the conflict.
The Commons is expected to hold its fifth debate since the September 11 atrocities next week and it is expected that it will again be held on a motion to adjourn the House.
Only once since the Second World War has the Commons been asked directly to approve military action. Mr Blair asked MPs in February 1998 to back the use of force against Iraq. There was no such request by Clement Attlee over Korea, Sir Anthony Eden during the Suez operation, Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands conflict or John Major in the run-up to the Gulf War.
Senior MPs pointed out that if Mr Marsden and other critics wanted to force a vote at the end of the debate they could do so, as had occurred in the past, by calling for the debate to be “closed” and putting up tellers for both sides in the division. Mr Marsden claimed yesterday that his critics were trying to discredit him by spreading gossip about him.
He is one of several Labour MPs — others include Tam Dalyell, Alan Simpson, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Lynne Jones, Alice Mahon and George Galloway — who have consistently opposed the bombing. Up to 20 others are believed to have doubts about the strategy.
The Government’s discomfort was made plain by the decision to put up the junior whip Anne McGuire to defend Ms Armstrong’s action. In a series of interviews she denied that Mr Marsden and other rebel MPs had been told not to speak out over the war.
Ms McGuire told BBC Radio 4’s World at One: “The Chief Whip is entitled and is actually charged with speaking to individual MPs where they have concerns over issues of policy. She would have been failing in her duty if she had not asked if Paul wanted to speak to her.”
Ms McGuire declined to discuss the contents of Mr Marsden’s conversation with Ms Armstrong, saying only that the “so-called transcript” was simply the backbencher’s “interpretation” of what had been said.
“It is a bit of fun that the media can set us up as some sort of ogre. That’s not how we operate. There has been absolutely no way in which anyone has been restricted in what they have been able to say in the three recalls of Parliament.
“Nobody has said that Tam Dalyell, George Galloway or Paul Marsden can’t voice their opinion. I think it is slightly dishonest of people to try to manufacture a situation that doesn’t actually exist.”
Mr Marsden told Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday: “I will not be silenced and I know others within the party will not be silenced either.”
Analysis of Newspaper Headlines
Jedi's need to be careful when reading newspapers as this article by David Icke shows.
ANALYSIS OF A HEADLINE: FBI LINKS HIJACKERS
DIRECTLY TO BIN LADEN
By David Icke
Headlines are a
key means for the media to mislead the public (unknowingly in many cases)
because often the theme of the headline is all that people remember about a
story.
The headline above gives the impression that the FBI has proved a considerable
link between all the hi-jackers (there is no "some" nor even
"many", just highjackers) and Osama bin Laden. This and similar
headlines can be found across the world media today at the top of this story.
Now read on and see what the FBI actually CLAIM to have established:
By Karen Gullo,
The Associated Press
THE FBI released photos Thursday of the 19 suspected suicide hijackers with a
plea for citizens to help with identities of some that are still in doubt.
Director Robert Mueller said some [only now do we get "some"]
attackers had been linked to Osama bin Laden's network. [But he does not say how
and to what extent, and we only have his word for it].
Separately, more arrests were made of Middle Eastern men who obtained bogus
licenses to haul hazardous materials. The FBI said those men were not connected
to the hijackers, who crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
[Note "the FBI
said", which is the only source throughout this story and so much of the
"information" presented by the media since the attacks, and the FBI is
an organisation you can trust, of course, as we saw after the Kennedy
assassination when they covered up the murder of a President and pointed the
finger at Lee Harvey Oswald who could not possibly have fired the fatal
bullets].
The FBI isn't certain about the identities of all the hijackers. [Then
how on earth can they be so definite about links to bin Laden?].
``It is our hope that the release of these photos will prompt others who may
have seen the hijackers to contact the FBI with any information they may have
that would be helpful to the investigation,'' said Attorney General John
Ashcroft [another man you
could trust to sell you a used car!].
The release of the photos, which come from passports, driver's licenses and
other documents identified with the hijackers, marked a change for authorities,
who until now have kept them under wraps so that potential witnesses and others
shown the photos get a fresh look at the men.
[So does this mean that the
FBI have now interviewed all potential witnesses, then? What, already?].
Mueller said the FBI believes the names and photographs match those on the
manifests of the hijacked planes. But questions remain about whether those are
the true names of the hijackers.
[If they say they are not
certain that these are the true names of the hi-jackers, how can the FBI be so
sure of a link at this stage from the hi-jackers to bin Laden?].
``What we are currently doing is determining whether, when these individuals
came to the United States, these were their real names or they changed their
names for use with false identification in the United States,'' said Mueller.
[And telling us they are
linked to bin Laden before they have done any of this!!].
He said there was evidence that one or more of the hijackers [note
the use now of the term "one" now]
had had contacts with al-Qaida, the network associated bin Laden. He declined to
be more specific. [I bet he
did - but we still have the headline: FBI Links Hi-Jackers to bin Laden"].
Manipulation by headline,
whether intended or otherwise, is a major means of distorting
"information". Any other examples you see would be most welcome.
Срочный ремонт Apple сервис apple a-service.in.ua, А-сервис .
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/mediamanip.html
Censorship
Censorship can take a number of forms. You could try sacking any journalists who decide to criticise you. The article below suggests that the sackings of two US journalists was related to their views on Bush.
Columnists Fired After Criticizing
Publishers Won't Tie Decisions To Columns
By Joel Davis
http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/home.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif.-Two columnists for dailies in
Texas and Oregon have been fired after writing pointed opinion pieces critical
of President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United
States.
Columnist Dan Guthrie, an employee of the Grants Pass, Ore., Daily Courier since
1991, and Tom Gutting, 23, city editor for the Texas City (Texas) Sun since
June, were fired within days of writing columns that incited overwhelmingly
negative reader response. Both papers apologized in print for the columns.
Publishers at both dailies would not say if the columns led directly to the
firings, but they appear to have played central roles, especially at the Texas
City Sun, where Gutting wrote, among other things, that Bush on Sept. 11
"was flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his
mother's bed after having a nightmare."
While Publisher Les Daughtry Jr. declined to discuss Gutting's firing, he did
write a Page One apology in the 5,966-circulation, Galveston Newspapers
Inc.-owned Sun as well as an Op-Ed piece titled, "Bush's leadership has
been superb."
Although Gutting regrets not showing the column to the publisher or managing
editor before it appeared, he told E&P it was not required, which Daughtry
acknowledged in the apology. Gutting added that this was his first newspaper
job, that he was routinely allowed to write columns that went into the paper
unseen by colleagues, that he was "encouraged to write controversial
stuff," and that he "really believes" he was fired because of the
column, though he said he was not given a specific reason.
In Grants Pass, newsroom veteran Guthrie was let go after penning an acerbic
column for the 16,987-circulation, family-owned Daily Courier titled, "When
the going gets tough, the tender turn tail" that criticizes a variety of
people, especially Bush.
Both Publisher Dennis Mack and Editor Dennis Roler denied that the column
specifically led to Guthrie's ouster, though Roler-who read the column before it
was printed and then wrote an opinion-page apology after it ran-conceded it
played a role. "We shouldn't go after somebody personally when talking
about public policy. If you descend to that level, it shouldn't be a level we
operate at," Roler said. Guthrie could not be reached by E&P.
Ironically, a Walter Lippmann quotation that currently sits atop the Daily
Courier Web site (http://www.thedailycourier.com) reads, "The theory of a
free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be
presented perfectly and instantly in any one account."
Ethics and First Amendment experts contacted by E&P said that while the
newspapers had the right to fire the columnists and write apologies, they were
concerned that doing so sends a message that unpopular or dissenting views may
not be tolerated.
"Certainly, the editors and publishers have a right to demand a certain
kind of content in their newspapers," said Paul McMasters, First Amendment
ombudsman for the Freedom Forum. "But once they've given permission to an
individual on staff to express opinions, then generally the widest latitude is
given."
Aly Colon, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute in St.
Petersburg, Fla., voiced a similar opinion, while also questioning the wisdom of
letting columns into the paper unseen by a second pair of eyes, as was the case
in Texas. "I think that's unfair to [Gutting]," he said. "All
writers benefit in some fashion from an editor's feedback."
Укркаргобуд
It is interesting, because as this article shows, The White House lied about the threats to Bush on the day of the attacks. It provides good commentary on the uncritical nature of mainstream media.
Note: CBS Evening News reported
September 25 that the call "simply never happened." "Call"
was alleged terrorist threat...
Rense.com
Did White House Lie About Threat To Air Force One? By Jerry
White
From www.wsws.org 9-28-1
The White House has been caught in a lie about the alleged terrorist threat
against Air Force One which it had cited as the reason for President Bush's
absence from Washington for most of September 11. According to reports by CBS
News and the Washington Post, White House officials have acknowledged that the
Secret Service never received a phone call warning of a direct threat to the
president's airplane. The government's reversal has gone largely unreported in
the media.
In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, Bush's movements became a matter of controversy within political
and media circles. As the destruction in New York and Washington unfolded and
unconfirmed reports emerged of a car bomb at the State Department and the danger
of further hijackings, Bush, who began the day in Florida, was whisked from one
military installation to another by the Secret Service.
Looking pale and shaken, he taped a brief initial message from an underground
bunker at an air force base in Louisiana. Several hours later?when all non-US
military aircraft in American air space had been grounded?Bush was flown to
another fortified location at the Strategic Air Command headquarters in
Nebraska. The president did not return to Washington until 7 p.m., nearly 10
hours after the initial attack.
Bush's failure to quickly return to Washington sparked pointed criticism,
including from within the Republican Party. Under conditions of a massive attack
on US civilians, involving the destruction of a symbol of American financial
power and the partial destruction of the nerve center of the American military,
any appearance of indecisiveness or panic on the part of the US president was of
great concern to the American political and financial elite.
New York Times columnist William Safire, a one-time Nixon aide and fixture
within the Republican Party, suggested that Bush had panicked and all but
abandoned his post in the first hours of the crisis. Writing in a September 12
op-ed piece, Safire said, "Even in the first horrified moments, this was
never seen as a nuclear attack by a foreign power. Bush should have insisted on
coming right back to the Washington area, broadcasting?live and calm?from a
secure facility not far from the White House."
Stung by such criticisms, Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove and other
top administration officials worked feverishly to reassure the political,
corporate and military establishment, and bolster Bush's authority among the
population at large. By the afternoon of September 12, the Associated Press and
Reuters were carrying stories, widely circulated throughout the media, that were
intended to diffuse criticism of Bush's actions the previous day. They quoted a
White House spokesperson saying, "There was real and credible information
that the White House and Air Force One were targets of terrorist attacks and
that the plane that hit the Pentagon was headed for the White House." White
House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer repeated this claim at an afternoon news
briefing that same day, saying the Secret Service had "specific and
credible information" that the White House and Air Force One were potential
targets.
In a further column in the New York Times on September 13, entitled "Inside
the Bunker," Safire described a conversation with an unnamed "high
White House official," who told him, "A threatening message received
by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that 'Air
Force One is next.'" Safire continued: "According to the high
official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that
made the threat credible."
Safire reported that this information was confirmed by Rove, who told him Bush
had wanted to return to Washington but the Secret Service "informed him
that the threat contained language that was evidence that the terrorists had
knowledge of his procedures and whereabouts."
Two weeks after these astonishing claims, the administration has all but
admitted it concocted the entire story. CBS Evening News reported September 25
that the call "simply never happened."
The fact that top officials, at a time of extraordinary crisis and public
anxiety, lied to protect the president's image has immense implications. If,
within 24 hours of the terror attacks, the White House was giving out
disinformation to deceive the American public and world opinion, then none of
the claims made by the government from September 11 to the present can be taken
for good coin.
If Bush lied about his activities on the day of the attacks, why should anyone
assume he has not lied about the government's investigation, the identity of the
perpetrators, the motives and aims of US war preparations, and the intent and
scope of expanded police powers demanded by his administration to wiretap,
search and seize, and detain suspects?
This entire episode provides ample grounds for the American people to treat all
claims by the government with the utmost suspicion and not accept any of its
assertions without independent and verifiable information.
The duplicity of the government is all the more significant since the Bush
administration has taken the position that people not only in the US, but
throughout the world, must accept on faith its assertions that Osama bin Laden
and his Al Qaeda network are responsible for the attacks, and that the Islamic
fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan bears direct responsibility
because it harbors bin Laden.
It is quite possible that bin Laden played a role in the September 11
atrocities. To date, however, Bush has offered no evidence, and, apparently, has
no intention of doing so. Instead the administration insists that the American
people place blind trust in the White House and give it a blank check for waging
war and trampling on civil liberties.
The phony Air Force One story not only exposes the duplicitous methods of the
Bush administration, it also underscores the shamelessness and complicity of the
media. When the White House came out with the story of a terrorist phone threat
against the president's plane, the media uncritically repeated it, with banner
headlines and chilling segments on the evening news. As it has throughout the
present crisis, the media functioned unabashedly as a propaganda arm of the
government.
But when the White House, two weeks later, retracted the story, most networks
failed to even report the fact, as did leading newspapers such as the New York
Times. The Washington Post, for its part, buried the government's about-face on
its inside pages. No media outlet made an issue of this incriminating admission,
or discussed its broader implications.
Patriots attack media
amid cries of treason
Flags have been lowered, accusations of treason made, and TV shows placed
under threat in a censorship furore that is sweeping the US, writes Duncan
Campbell
Duncan Campbell
Guardian Unlimited
Wednesday October 3, 2001
Just as the war-or-no-war
debate has been conducted over the internet in ways perhaps not always reflected
in the mainstream media, so, too, is the debate over patriotism and what it now
means. It started, as has been reported now at some length, with the television
show Politically Incorrect.
To recap, comedian Bill Mayer, the host of the LA-based ABC network chat
show, had on September 17 as his guest the writer and political commentator
Dinesh D'Souza, who had taken issue with President Bush's frequent references to
the terrorists as "cowards". Mayer agreed, saying: "We have been
cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying
in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."
Initially, the remarks went almost unnoticed but Dan Patrick, a talk show
host in Houston, Texas, had heard them and the next morning launched an attack
on Maher, telling listeners to call FedEx and Sears, two of the advertisers on
the show, to express their outrage.
Sears noted the calls coming in from Texas, looked at tapes of the show and
the transcripts and pulled their ads. FedEx have done the same.
Maher has since apologised for offending people and said that his attack was
not on the American armed forces but on politicians who make the military
decisions.
A campaign is under way to have him sacked and the show closed down, and this
has led to a counter-campaign in Maher's support headed by the writer and former
Republican Arianna Huffington, who was another guest on the show. Her website,
ariannaonline.com, has now received more than 10,000 emails in Maher's support,
she said. Only a few 100 wanted him sacked, she said.
Ms Huffington, author of How to Overthrow the Government, said that open
discussion about September 11 was already inhibited.
"The worst side of this is the self-censorship, what people do not
say," said Ms Huffington. "I'm all in favour of being very respectful
but that doesn't mean there should be no dissent." The attack on Maher, she
said, could be a sign of what could lie in store: "A lot of people are
saying it is the beginning of a very slippery slope."
The ABC news anchor, Peter Jennings, received more than 10,000 emails after
making the following remarks on air: "The country looks to the president on
occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation. Some presidents do it well,
some presidents don't."
Rightwing talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, alerted his listeners, suggesting
that Jennings had questioned the president's character and the emails were
launched.
Students who have already started demonstrating - 150 campuses took part in
anti-war protests last weekend - have been effectively accused of treason in
advertisements taken out in student papers.
Behind the ads is David Horowitz, the former radical turned conservative
commentator, who caused a stir on campuses earlier this year with ads attacking
the reparation movement in the US.
The current ads, which appear in full on the internet on
FrontPagemagazine.com, state: "If I have one regret from my radical years,
it is that this country was too tolerant towards the treason of its enemies
within.
"If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defence of their
country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted
us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of
those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided.
"And they might have stopped us in our tracks. This appeal is for those
of you who are out there today attacking your country, full of your own
self-righteousness, but who one day might also live to regret what you have
done."
Some public figures have already taken pre-emptive action. Barbra Streisand's
website, barbrastreisand.com has removed many items critical of President Bush.
She said the removals were made "in an effort to encourage national unity
instead of partisan divisions".
People who are not public figures have also felt the necessity to fly the
flag, either literally or metaphorically. School superintendent Louis
Ripatrazone in Roxbury, New Jersey, rescinded his order to remove "God
Bless America" from school signs because he felt that a religious reference
might be offensive to some at school. After angry protests, he changed his mind.
In Fort Myers, Florida, the head librarian at Florida Gulf Coast University
apologised for ordering employees to remove "Proud to be an American"
stickers to avoid offending foreign students. University president William
Merwin rescinded the order after protests and commented: "Patriotism on
campus is welcomed."
Muslim, Arab and Sikh stores and cab drivers in New York and LA all
prominently display the flag. At an anti-war demonstration in LA last Saturday,
which attracted about 5,000 people, protesters carried signs reading "being
for peace is patriotic" while anti-anti-war demonstrators on the other side
of the street held signs saying "God bless America".
Censorship can also take form of either translations, or selective editing, as this article shows:
CNN And AP Censorship Of bin Laden's Al-Jazeera Broadcast?
Visual News Stories
The war on terrorism is interesting. There is one school of thought that suggests we should not punish a person until proven guilty. There is another school of thought (perhaps) that suggests even without showing us evidence, we should still bomb a country because there is one person there who Bush has decided he wants "dead or alive".
This is the argument of retaliation (getting your own back) or justice.
Here is an extract from the article "They Said This War Would Be Different" by Charlotte Raven of The Guardian
"The aerial bombardment of Afghanistan was a strategic Xerox of the operations in Kosovo and the Gulf. Watching it on TV, I was struck by a deadening sense of deja vu as flash after grainy flash illuminated what we were told was the night sky over Kabul. It could have been anywhere. Now that the US has decided to proceed with this matter in the manner it understands best, all targets look the same as in all previous sorties. In an instant, the uniqueness of this situation is sacrificed to the allies' need to have an enemy they can fight by the book.
This desire was the motivation behind the decision to conflate the pursuit of Bin Laden with a war on Afghanistan. Without a nation to engage in battle, the US had no hope of appeasing its desire for revenge. However successful any pursuit of al-Qaida might have been, it would have been bereft of televisual moments. Without them, the US would be unable to convince itself that anything had actually happened."
And we must remember to watch the front page of tabloids and broadsheet newspapers alike.
Notable Exceptions
John Pilger has just joined the Mirror. He was The Mirror's former Chief foreign correspondent. As The Sun continues it's front pages with celebrity trivia (October 2001), the Mirror ran with this front page, full article here. John Pilger talks about the Murdochisation of the media at his website, well worth a visit. Rupert Murdoch owns the Sun, News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times as well as numerous other world media companies.
Other notable newspapers are The Guardian and Independent.
The Bilderberg Group
Jedi should spend time on the deep and comprehensive site http://www.bilderberg.org/ "Research into The Power Elite's secretive Bilderberg Conferences"
TG 08Feb00 - The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the conferences to be '...private in order to encourage frank and open discussion'. Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing the discussing are some of the very most powerful heads of state, financiers and media tycoons in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good of ordinary people why not publicise it! Isn't it a perverted use of the word 'open' when no-one can find out what they're saying?
When such rich and powerful people meet up in secret, with military intelligence managing their security, with hardly a whisper escaping into the mainstream media of what goes on inside, people are right to be suspicious.
Here are a list a UK attendees. Have a look at their backgrounds. Politicians (from all parties), Media Tycoons, Heads of major corporations.
| Sainsbury, Sir John, Chairman, Sainsbury PLC |
| Roll, Eric (Lord Roll of Ipsden). Senior Adviser, UBS Warburg Dillon Read |
| Carrington, Peter, ex-NATO Sec Gen, ex-Chair of Christies (x st) |
| Clarke, Kenneth - Member of Parliament; ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer |
| Knight, Andrew, Non Executive Director, News Corporation (x st); ex-Daily Telegraph |
| Taylor, J. Martin, Chair, WH Smith Group plc; Internatnl. Advisor, Goldman Sachs Int. |
| Micklethwait, R. John - United States Editor, The Economist |
| Wooldridge, Adrian D., Foreign Correspondent, The Economist |
| Amiel, Barbara, Columnist, Sunday Times |
| Avery, Graham; Chief Adviser for Enlargement, European Community (IN) |
| Blair, Tony, MP, Shadow Home Secretary, Labour Party |
| Braithwaite, Rodric, Foreign Policy Adviser to the Prime Minister |
| Brittan, Leon - Vice President of the European Commission (IN) |
| Brown, Gordon, Member of Parliament, Labou Party |
| Browne, E. John P., Group Chief Executive, The British Petroleum Company p.l.c. |
| Buchanan, Robin W.T., Senior Partner, Bain & Company. |
| Cradock, Percy, Former Ambassador to China; Former For. Pol. Adviser to the PM |
| Craig, James, Director General, The Middle East Association |
| Cranborne, Robert M.J.C. Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords. |
| Crockett, Andrew - General Manager, Bank for International Settlements (IN) |
| Freedman, Lawrence, Head of Dept of War Studies, King's College |
| Garton Ash, Timothy, Fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford |
| Grierson, Ronald H, Former Vice Chairman, GEC |
| Griffiths of Florestfach, Lord, adviser Goldman Sachs Int.; ex-head of PM's Policy Unit |
| Hague, William - Leader of the Opposition |
| Hannay, David - PM's Personal Envoy for Turkey; ex-Perm. Rep. to the United Nations |
| Healey, Denis W, former Defense Secretary and Finance Minister |
| Henderson, Nicholas, Former Ambassador to Poland, Germany, France and the USA |
| Hogg, Christopher - Chairman, Reuters Group plc, ex Chair Courtalds |
| Hutton, Will. Editor, The Observer. |
| Jacobi, Mary Jo. HSBC Holdings plc; Former US Assistant Secretary of Commerce. |
| Jenkins, Michael - Vice Chairman, Dresdner Kleinwort Benson |
| Job, Peter, Chief Executive, Reuters Holding PLC |
| Kaletsky, Anatole - Associate Editor, The Times |
| Keegan, John, Military Historian; Defence Correspondent, The Daily Telegraph |
| Lamont, Norman, MP, Fmr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Director of N.M. Rothschild |
| Mabro, Robert E. Director, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. |
| Mandelson, Peter - Member of Parliament |
| Monks, John, General Secretary, Trades Union Congress (TUC) |
| Owen, David, EC Mediator, International Conference on Former Yugoslavia |
| Porrit, Jonathon - Programme Director, Forum for the Future |
| Prendergast, Kieran - Under-Secertary General for Political Affairs, United Nations (IN) |
| Prior, Lord, Chair, GEC plc; fmr Sec State for Northern Ireland & for Employment |
| Purves, William - Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc. |
| Radice, Giles, Chairman of Euro Movement MP |
| Rees-Mogg, William, Chair, Broadcast. Stnds Coun, Chair Amer. Tradg; ex-Ed The Times |
| Rifkind, Malcolm, Foreign Secretary |
| Robertson, George - Secretary of State for Defence |
| Robertson, Simon. Former Chairman, Kleinwort Benson Group plc. |
| Rothschild, Emma, Dir Ctr for History and Economics Cambridge |
| Rothschild, Evelyn de - Chairman, N M Rothschild and Sons |
| Scholey, David G, Chairman, SG Warburg, Group plc |
| Sheehy, Patrick, Chairman, BAT Industries |
| Smith, John, MP, Labour Party, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (x st) |
| Stevenson, H Dennis, Chair, SRU group |
| Villeneuve, Andre-Francois H. Executive Director, Reuters Group Holdings plc. |
| Waldegrave, William - Minister of Agriculture; ex-Minister for Housing & Planning |
| Weidenfeld, Lord, Publisher |
| Wolf, Martin - Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times |
| Wright, Patrick, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, and Head of Diplomatic Service |
| Yahuda, Michael B. Professor of International Relations, London School of Economics. |
Bilderberg.org has a very good section on the media. Check out the section on Culture, Communication and Control. Jedi should acquaint themselves with the information, and look at which members of their own country are attending.
Back to this war on terrorism. Blair tells us we are fighting for democracy, for freedom. However, this is the same man who has lied to parliament about attending Bilderberg meetings. Blair has denied attending the meetings, but here is plenty of evidence of his attendance.
Jedi now have to ask themselves
In theory, a large conference where leaders from different industries and government leaders is no bad thing. It could create useful dialogue. But there is a huge amount of secrecy about these meetings.
1) If these meetings are so useful to open dialogue and of benefit to the common people, why the secrecy?
2) Can we now believe all we read in the media where the proprietors attend these meetings?
3) Can we believe Tony Blair is telling the truth, when he has secret meetings with members of the "opposing" political parties?
4) Does his mission to lead the world fight against terrorism while ignoring his own cabinet ministers now make sense?
Satire and Humour
Satire and Humour can often be used to bring out extreme positions, which then help in understanding actual events which may be more blurred when portrayed in the media.
Example 1 - The Onion
The Onion is an American on-line satirical magazine
Have a read of this article - Freedoms Curtailed in Defence of Liberty
Example 2: David Icke comments on the differences between Bush and bin Laden
Confused?
Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy guide
to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government:
TERRORISTS:
Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely
wealthy oil family
US GOVERNMENT:
Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely
wealthy oil family
TERRORISTS:
Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any
nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any
means are justified.
US GOVERNMENT:
Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any
nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any
means are justified.
TERRORISTS:
Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred,
intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
US GOVERNMENT:
Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred,
intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
TERRORISTS:
Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair
democratic election
US GOVERNMENT:
Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair
democratic election
TERRORISTS:
Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded
bombings
US GOVERNMENT:
Kills (tens of) thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold
blooded bombings
TERRORISTS:
Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many
countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
US GOVERNMENT:
Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries;
uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
TERRORISTS:
Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
US GOVERNMENT:
Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
Example 3: Private Eye
Private Eye can often be very close to the bone. In the face of tragedy editors have to tread a line between using humour to illustrate important truths about ourselves while picking on the right targets. Here is the cover after the death of Diana. This issue was removed from WH Smiths for being too insensitive.
Not Reporting Stories
Newspaper editors have to decide not only on how to report a story, but whether or not to report it at all. Not reporting a story is different to say distorting stories with the images that go with them or using headlines or spin.
Both the Governments and Media Companies engage in ensuring that stories are not reported:
Example 1: The Missing Oil Story
For the full article click here
Example 2: The US Buys Up All Satellite War Images
The Pentagon has spent millions of dollars to prevent western media from seeing highly accurate civilian satellite pictures of the effects of bombing in Afghanistan, it was revealed yesterday.The images, which are taken from Ikonos, an advanced civilian satellite launched in 1999, are better than the spy satellite pictures available to the military during most of the cold war.
For the full article click here
Example 3: Anthrax - A Media Scare, and Who Could Potentially Be Behind It
Here is a headline in the Guardian - Biological Weapons Link To Al Quaida
Here is a quote from the article - note the headline and the fact that even Dick Cheney is saying there is no evidence!
In spite of finding no firm link between the anthrax and al-Qaida, Vice-President Dick Cheney had already acknowledged that "we have to be suspicious". He pointed out that terrorist manuals known to have been used by Bin Laden supporters contained instructions for the use of biological weapons.
He said: "We know that [Bin Laden] has over the years tried to acquire weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical weapons. We know that he's trained people in his camps in Afghanistan. For example, we have copies of the manuals that they've actually used to train people with respect to how to deploy and use these kinds of substances.
"So, you start to piece it altogether. Again, we have not completed the investigation and maybe it's coincidence, but I must say I'm a sceptic."
And here is the full text of an article that no one is going to read in either the US or UK mainstream press. Given that there is no evidence, then why not explore a range of suspects? Jedi know to keep an open mind and gather evidence before deciding.
And here is a back up story with the FDA statement