Control works like this. Five multinational corporations now own the entirety of the mainstream media in US, they essentially determine what you see and cannot see (or read or hear). With this stranglehold over the media, here’s how they control their output. Let’s pretend there’s a hotshot journalist that graduates from college, and he lands his first job at a small-town newspaper. Young and idealistic, he writes articles about township council meetings and profiles on little old ladies growing petunias in their backyard. Everything is running smoothly, and life is good.
Within a year the kid moves on to a small city paper, keeps shining, and soon finds himself writing at a nationally known publication. He soon gets married, has two children, and buys a big house in a nice neighbourhood. He even wins a few awards along the way. His future is bright.
Then, when all seems settled and cool, this reporter gets tipped-off to an incredibly horrendous program that is secretly being implemented on and against the American people without their knowledge. The reporter, outraged, does some research and discovers that, yes; this shit really is going down. So, with facts in hand and a belly full of bravado to back him up, he storms into his editor’s office and lays it all out, saying that he wants to expose this obvious injustice.
Now here’s where things get sticky. The editor obviously knows what’s going on, so he sits the reporter down and tells him quite frankly that these types of stories “CANNOT” be covered because of the potential damage it could cause to the Controllers. The reporter freaks out and says that if his newspaper won’t blow the lid off this story, he’ll take his notes and sources to another outlet. The editor, who’d been through this same routine twenty years earlier, explains to the man that he’s a great reporter with tons of potential, but if he pursues this story, he’ll be blackballed within the Industry. Sure, he might get an underground publication to run his story, but in the mainstream, he’s all washed-up. That means no more cushy assignments, hobnobbing with influential personalities, no more killer salary, and no more promotions or vacations in Hawaii. Hell, in all likelihood, he’ll probably be shit-canned in the near future if he causes any more trouble. The reporter protests, but his editor tells him to consider the impact on his career. Without the big money rolling in, how can he pay his mortgage, keep his trophy wife in pretties, send their two children to private school, and dine at the finest restaurants? He’ll go from prince to pauper, get divorced, and live a shit life.
So, the reporter goes home and discusses his options with his wife, then returns to work the next day to tell his editor that, yes, he’ll can the expose and bury it. Pleased, the editor lets his “higher-ups” know that this guy is a “team player,” and soon he gets another promotion. Then, a couple of years down the line he gets assigned to be the Executive Editor at a mid-sized newspaper. That’s when some hotshot citizens come to him with a story that’ll blow the lid off a government scam. They have tons of information, sources, and data – and want the new editor to run their story.
By this time, though, the editor knows how the game is played. He wasn’t assigned to this job to report on news that benefits the community. He was put there to “keep a lid” on everything – to not blow any covers. So the editor tells his “higher-ups” what’s going on, and asks how he should handle it. They tell him, and the editor puts a dagger through the story and kills it. It’s dead, done, and over, and no one’s the wiser. The “higher-ups” are again pleased with him for being a “team player,” and soon he’s promoted to editor at a big-city paper. And well uh, the game goes on and the System stays intact.
That’s the way it works, but not only in the newspaper business. It’s the same in:
Television – The same concept applies. Ask Dan Rather – he made his entire career by scamming the JFK Assassination in Dallas where he was the “chosen” reporter. He soon replaced Walter Cronkite as the anchor at the CBS Evening News. What’s the frequency, Dan?
Politics – If a candidate doesn’t toe the line, and instead tries to reveal the boatload of crap that’s flowing through the bowels of our political system, all of a sudden the big Party Machine money from the Republicans and Democrats that had gone to their re-election campaigns suddenly dries up and is funnelled to another candidate that is better “trained” in following the rules. If this candidate insists on trying to expose the inner workings of the Machine, the media conveniently uncovers a “scandal,” and the politician is publicly humiliated, insuring that they’ll never be re-elected again. Almost all “falls from grace” are not because a certain politician is any dirtier than the rest; it’s because they’re bucking the System and trying to bring to light all the shit and graft and underhanded schemes.
Academia – If an instructor or professor adheres to the accepted “curriculum” and doesn’t stray or tell the truth (especially in history, political science, economics, archaeology, and the science fields), they’re in the running for all the benefits of academic life. But if they venture into forbidden territory, the promotions, cushy conference trips to Florida in January, the research money, and tenure fade away into oblivion. In other words, teach what is included within the narrow confines established by the Controllers, or else you’ll be passed over time and again for someone who is more of a team player.
The same rationale applies to the business world, medical profession, and the dog-eat-dog trenches of the legal profession. Either conform, or get bounced and/or rejected.
Yes, very interesting...They are all bought and paid for. I have thought for a long time that the demise of Charlie Sheen was planned and executed to make him look as stupid as possible, and off the mental rails. I saw a piece where Brand was hosting some MTV awards on Utube, and was laughing at Charlie in the audience by saying he had coke and women under his seat. Charlie seemed thankful for the attention ! Now, I don't know if any of you are aware, but just a few years ago, Charlie was posing some very difficult and real pertinent questions with regards to 9/11 and certain other things. No one in general, remembers this though, as all they think of is loony with porn stars. I would not mind betting the Porn Stars were paid to go along with him and fuck him up in more ways than one. This successfully led to him being looked at as a joke. I Ain't buying it, and I am no fan of any of these people, but I do believe Charlie was genuine in what he was saying and believed a few years ago. Now, amazingly, no one in their right minds would look at anything he says as anything other than a load of bollocks ! Hence, Job Done !!!
p.s. I have also noticed the tv stations recently spreading the propaganda of their secret racism. This is especially true of channel 5, with gypsies on benefits etc etc. I think this is in pace to have people thinking our great country is under attack from these people. The reality is, that it is a shit hole anyway, and people who were born here can't even get the benefits they need, let alone some fucking foreigners.
Also, I noticed the labour party have employed the services of David Axelrod, to guide their election campaign. If that does not set the alarm bells ringing and let people know they are all in it together, fuck knows what, will.
Why I Never Watch the News When I was a child I remember my parents watching this show on television that seemed really boring. The people on the show would just sit there and talk, back and forth. It wasn’t even animated! When I tried to get my parents attention while they watched this show, they would shush me. I was very concerned that when I grew up I would somehow be turned into this zombie who sat in front of the tv watching grown ups just talk. What a horrible fate! I found out later this abominable program was called “the News.” I never watched it.
Once I got to high school, I realized what this show was all about. Journalists and reporters would find out what was going on in the world and report it on television or in the newspaper. Apparently, to be a responsible adult in our society, you had to know the latest news, weather, and sports. So I watched the news upon occasion to find out what was going on in the world. I figured the world must be in a pretty sad state since 95% of the news reported seemed really bad, and very dramatic I might add. People were getting murdered, countries were at war, children were drowning in backyard swimming pools, celebrities were being arrested, there were hurricanes all over the place, and some sports team I’d never heard of won a cup or a ribbon or something else that seemed terribly important.
After college I really began to notice some things. For one, I noticed that the reporters would talk about some new miracle drug on the market and then they would cut to a commercial and that same company would be … oh shock of shocks… advertising that very drug. Hmm, weird coincidence. Um, isn’t that drug company essentially paying those reporters’ salaries? I noticed that the headlines they used to get you to watch the news were just a wee bit exaggerated and usually kind of scary (“what you don’t know about eating at fast food restaurants that could kill you! News at 11.”) How could I not tune in? My very life was on the line! Sometimes the news would cut into another program with “breaking news.” It was never good. Someone important was usually dead, or there was a hostage situation somewhere that we simply had to watch, or the police were chasing a vehicle down a crowded highway.
I remember wondering why they never reported the good news. And one channel actually did! I remember it was ABC, and the show was called “And the good news is…” and they spent 30 minutes from 11pm to 11:30pm talking about all the wonderful things going on in America. But no one watched it and it was cancelled shortly after it began. And that really got me wondering… Why do people watch the news? To see how bad other people’s lives are going? To be the first to know if Brad and Angelina had their baby? To find out what country we’re invading? To see dead bodies burning in a ditch?
It took me until my 30’s to realize something about the news. It’s all fear-based. If someone isn’t dying or crying we don’t want to know about it. What does that say about us as a society? When people tune into the news and all they see is death and destruction they start to become a vibrational match for that; they start to expect it. They go around saying or thinking, “Our world is in such a bad state. People are dying all over the planet. Our environment is going to hell in a handbasket. People are invading countries and killing women and children. When is Brad going to dump Angelina and go to back to Jennifer? And gosh darnit, my favorites sports team lost again! What is the world coming to?!”
When you watch the news you are accepting that version of reality. And it’s not always reality! Sometimes a reporter risks being fired if they tell the truth because it might shed a bad light on one of their company’s biggest advertisers. I remember a case in Florida where two reporters were fired for refusing to water down an investigative report on Monsanto’s controversial milk hormone, rGBH. What do you think happens to the truthfulness in news when big, powerful companies are the ones paying everyone’s salaries? That’s kind of like having the people that approve vaccines also holding stock in the vaccine companies. Couldn’t happen here, right? Oh no, not in America.
On a spiritual level, when you accept what you see on the news as reality then you are sending out a vibration to the Universe to bring more of it. Instead of being anti-war, we need to be pro-peace. Instead of a War on Terror, we need to work on being a Peaceful Nation. When do we ever hear news anchors tell us how close we are to achieving World Peace? “98% of the world is at peace today, folks. Let’s hear it for them! We’re almost there, everyone! Keep up the great work!”
When you watch the news with all its propaganda, spin doctors, and edited footage you are being brain-washed into accepting that our world is in a state that it is not in!
Yes, we need to know what’s happening in the world. We need to know if people need help. We need to know if a level 5 hurricane is coming. We need to know if we are being bombed. But the way the news is today, it’s more about selling newspapers and being the number one news show on television than about letting people know the true state of our world. It’s all about money.
Don’t give all the hype all of your power and attention. Don’t reinforce to the Universe that we are living in a time of war, famine, murder, and disease. You get what you think about (or are told to think about). Let the Universe know that there are people on this planet who are loving, kind, compassionate, and peaceful. Keep your thoughts loving, kind, compassionate, and peaceful so we get more of that.
Don’t walk around in a state of fear generated by outside sources who may not even be telling us the full story. Let your mind see the beauty in our world, the love, the justice, the everyday man or woman helping out their neighbor. Let those thoughts and experiences fill you with hope. Reflect those experiences back to the Universe and more of them will come.
Has Fleet Street been over-run by the intelligence agencies? David Leigh unravels the hidden network of spooks at the heart of the British press. Guardian - Monday June 12, 2000 British journalists - and British journals - are being manipulated by the secret intelligence agencies, and I think we ought to try and put a stop to it.
The manipulation takes three forms. The first is the attempt to recruit journalists to spy on other people, or to go themselves under journalistic "cover". This occurs today and it has gone on for years. It is dangerous, not only for the journalist concerned, but for other journalists who get tarred with the espionage brush. Farzad Bazoft was a colleague of mine on the Observer when he was executed by Saddam Hussein for espionage. In a sense it didn't matter whether he was really a spy or not. Either way, he ended up dead.
The second form of manipulation that worries me is when intelligence officers are allowed to pose as journalists in order to write tendentious articles under false names. Evidence of this only rarely comes to light, but two examples have surfaced recently, mainly because of the whistleblowing activities of a couple of renegade officers - David Shayler from MI5 and Richard Tomlinson from MI6.
The third sort of manipulation is the most insidious - when intelligence agency propaganda stories are planted on willing journalists, who disguise their origin from their readers. There is - or has been until recently - a very active programme by the secret agencies to colour what appears in the British press, called, if publications by various defectors can be believed, information operations, or "I/Ops". I am - unusually - in a position to provide some information about its operations.
Let us take the third allegation first. Black propaganda - false material where the source is disguised - has been a tool of British intelligence agencies since the days of the second world war, when the Special Operations Executive (SOE) got up to all kinds of tricks with clandestine radio stations, to drip pornography and pessimism into the ears of impressionable German soldiers. Post-war, this unwholesome game mutated into the anti-Soviet Information Research Department (IRD). Its task was ostensibly to plant anti-communist stories in the developing-world press, but its lurid tales of Marxist drunkenness and corruption sometimes leaked back to confuse the readers of the British media.
A colourful example of the way these techniques expanded to meet the exigencies of the hour came in the early 70s, when the readers of the News of the World were treated to a front-page splash, "Russian sub in IRA plot sensation", complete with aerial photograph of the conning tower of a Soviet sub awash off the coast of Donegal. That was the work of Hugh Mooney of the IRD, which was eventually closed down in 1977.
Its spirit did not die, however. Nearly 25 years later, readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with with the dramatic story of the son of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper's chief foreign correspondent and it was falsely attributed to a "British banking official". In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years.
The origins of that November 1995 newspaper article only came to light when they were recently disclosed by Mark Hollingsworth, the biographer of renegade security service officer David Shayler. Shayler had worked on MI5's Libya desk at the time, in liaison with his counterparts in the foreign espionage service, MI6, and had come away with a detailed knowledge of events, and a bundle of secret documents to back them up.
The allegations were confirmed from an unexpected direction. The Sunday Telegraph was served with a libel writ by Gaddafi's son. The paper was unable to back up its suggestion that Gaddafi junior might have been linked to a fraud, but pleaded, in effect, that it had been supplied with the material by the government.
In a long and detailed statement, which entered the public domain in the course of a judgment given in an interlocutory appeal on October 28 1998, the paper described how, under Charles Moore's editorship, a lunch had been arranged with the then Conservative foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, at which Con Coughlin had been present. Told by Rifkind that countries such as Iran were trying to get hold of hard currency to beat sanctions, Coughlin was later briefed by an MI6 man - his regular contact.
Some weeks later, he was introduced to a second MI6 man, who spent several hours with him and handed over extensive details of the story about Gaddafi's son. Although Coughlin asked for evidence, and was shown purported bank statements, the pleadings make clear that he was dependent on MI6 for the discreditable details about the alleged counterfeiting scam. He was required to keep the source strictly confidential.
Throughout the formal pleadings, the Telegraph preserved the figleaf of its sources by referring to a "Western government security agency". But this veil of coyness was blown away by City solicitor David Hooper in his book on libel published last month, Reputations Under Fire, in which he says: "In reality [they were] members of MI6."
So, unusually, an MI6 exercise in planting a story has been laid bare. Now, there is no suggestion that Con Coughlin is dishonest in his work. He is a perfectly conscientious journalist who I expect did his best to substantiate his facts and undoubtedly believed in their truth. But nevertheless, those facts may not have been true. And I believe he made a serious mistake in falsely attributing his story to a "British banking official". His readers ought to know where his material is coming from. When the Sunday Telegraph got into trouble with the libel case, it seems, after all, to have suddenly found it possible to become a lot more specific about its sources.
This was not an isolated example of recent MI6 I/Ops. In August 1997, the present foreign editor of the Independent, Leonard Doyle, was also in contact with MI6 while he was at his previous post at the Observer. I know, because I became involved in an MI6-inspired story as a result. Doyle's MI6 contact supplied him with intelligence information about an Iranian exile who, while running a pizza business in Glasgow, was also attempting to lay hands on a sophisticated mass spectrometer which could be used for measuring uranium enrichment - a key stage in acquiring components for a nuclear bomb.
We were supplied with a mass of apparently high-quality intelligence from MI6, including surveillance details of a meeting in an Istanbul hotel between our pizza merchant and men involved in Iranian nuclear procurement.
I should make clear that we did not publish merely on the say-so of MI6. We travelled to Glasgow, confronted the pizza merchant, and only when he admitted that he had been dealing with representatives of the nuclear industry in Iran did we publish an article. In that story we made it plain that our target had been watched by Western intelligence.
Nevertheless, I felt uneasy, and vowed never to take part in such an exercise again. Although all parties, from the foreign editor down, behaved scrupulously, we had been obliged to conceal from our readers the full facts and had ended up, in effect, acting as government agents.
Now, after the Tomlinson/Shayler defections and the subsequent revelation of MI6's continuing I/Ops programme of which my Iranian experience was plainly a part, I think the cause of honest journalism is best served by candour. We all ought to come clean about these approaches, and devise some ethics to deal with them. In our vanity, we imagine that we control these sources. But the truth is that they are very deliberately seeking to control us.
The second intelligence tactic of manipulation which gives concern is the habit of allowing spies to write under false names. It was Tomlinson, I suspect, who, having worked in the area, first blew the whistle on this one. And it was a recently published book - MI6 by Stephen Dorril - which once again added the final piece of the jigsaw.
Two articles appeared in the Spectator in early 1994 under the byline Kenneth Roberts. They were datelined Sarajevo, and Roberts was described as having been working with the UN in Bosnia as an adviser. In fact, he was MI6 officer Keith Robert Craig (the pseudonym was a simple one), whose local cover was as a civilian "attached" to the British military unit's Balkan secretariat.
At the time, Bosnia was the site of attacks and atrocities from neighbouring Serbia, and also the focus of some passionate reporting from British journalists. The British military was there in a UN peacekeeping role, but anyone who read Roberts's articles might have begun to wonder whether it was not a better policy for British troops to go home and leave the Serbs a free hand.
The first article on February 5 rehearsed arguments for a UN withdrawal, pointing out that all sides committed atrocities. The second piece complained, baselessly, about "warped" and inaccurate reporting by journalists, including the BBC's Kate Adie.
It is possible, of course, that Craig was merely overcome with private literary urges whilst marooned in the Balkans, and thought it more politic to express his own opinions under a nom de plume . But one of the traditional roles of I/Ops is to plant stories. What is not clear is how the introduction to the Spectator was made, or whether Craig confided his real trade to the then editor of the Spectator, Dominic Lawson. In his recent book about MI6, Stephen Dorril points out that Dominic Lawson's brother-in-law, Anthony Monckton, was himself a serving MI6 officer, who was to take over the Zagreb station in the Balkans in 1996. (Rosa Monckton, his sister and Dominic Lawson's wife, was the late Princess Diana's close friend.)
These relationships - which the disenchanted Tomlinson knew all about because he had himself served undercover in the Balkans in the same time-frame - have only slowly emerged into the public domain. There is no reason to believe the then editor of the Spectator did anything improper at all, and certainly no reason to think that he was acting as an agent of MI6, whether paid or unpaid. But, as an editor, wittingly or not, it must be a bad idea to end up in a position where an MI6 officer is writing for your publication on matters of political controversy, under a false name.
The final malpractice which the Tomlinson/Shayler defections have brought to light is the continuing deliberate blurring by MI6 of the line between journalist and spy. This is an old crime - Kim Philby, former foreign correspondent of the Observer would have had plenty of stories to tell about that. But it should be exposed and stopped. Tomlinson himself, by his own account, spent six months in 1993 travelling around Croatia and Serbia trying to recruit informants, under the guise of a British journalist. Dorril, in his book, publishes the further assertion that the Spectator itself was unknowingly used as cover by no fewer than three MI6 officers working in Bosnia, Belgrade and Moldova.
The most dismaying allegation floated by Tomlinson was that he had heard within MI6 of a "national newspaper editor" who was used as an agent, and had received up to £100,000 in covert payments, accessed at an offshore bank, via a false passport obligingly supplied by MI6 itself. This claim set off a hue and cry, during which the hapless Dominic Lawson, now editor of the Sunday Telegraph, issued his denial, and other editors came under suspicious scrutiny.
In fact, I believe Tomlinson has been wrongly reported. Those who have talked to him in detail say that he has no first-hand knowledge, but merely knew of something a colleague obliquely mentioned. Hearing the words "editor" and "national newspaper", Tomlinson jumped to the wrong conclusion, and then started guessing. Spies are, after all, very like journalists in their methods - but merely less reliable. What those in the newspaper business know is that there is all the difference in the world between "the editor" and "an editor". Newspapers have, for example, education editors, environment editors and defence editors (not, I should say, that I have any evidence against any individual members of these categories).
And a senior journalist at that level - who could travel, see things, report back - would be of more practical use in the business of espionage than, say, the editor of any national newspaper. So the hunt is still on for the miscreant. And, make no mistake, this kind of behaviour by journalists is dangerous and wrong.
Our first task as practitioners is to document what goes on in this very furtive field. Our second task ought to be to hold an open debate on what the proper relations between the intelligence agencies and the media ought to be. And our final task must then be to find ways of actually behaving more sensibly.
This article appears in the current edition of the British Journalism Review. Copies, £4.95 from BR&D Ltd (01702 552912).http://www.bjr.org.uk