Why are 'they' scaring us away from the news?

[NavnDansk]

My post that I took so long to compose disappeared when I was redirected to EZBoard home.<br><br><br>Response to Ray McGovern's challenge of Rumsfeld's lies:<br><br>=Who are these idiots appaluding for Rumsfeld and hushing the questioner??? Do these Kool Aid drinkers follow the news? It absolutely sickens me how so many people in this country are willing to throw truth under the train wheels in order to cover up for these a-holes in the Bush regime!=<br><br>Albrech Speers said when he was released from prison that if the Nazis had had television there would have been no stopping them.<br><br>Thoughts on subliminal influence and the quick cuts and flashing lights on shows and commercials? <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

Rolling Stone October 20, 1977<br><br>THE CIA AND THE MEDIA<br><br> <br>How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up<br> <br>BY CARL BERNSTEIN<br> <br>In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.<br> <br>Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America’s leading news organizations.<br> <br>The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .<br>Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Pres International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.<br>By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.<br><br>~snip~<br>____________________________________________________<br><br><br>So, do we think CIA/Gov't influence has lessened since 1977? Considering nothing has been done about it, the answer is obvious. Do we think this influence has restricted itself to the news divisions of media corps, or have they branched out into entertainment divisions? What was stopping them from doing so? Nothing. Believing cash-strapped and/or greedy and/or fame obsessed artists are immune from being persuaded and/or coerced by determined professional covert spooks and/or power mad corporatists is beyond naive, it is the epitomy of obtuse. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

Sunny--<br><br>I agree with you there. If these creeps at the CIA (and other places) go so far as to flood the nation with drugs (remember the research of Gary Webb from the San Jose Mercury News) and perpetrate the attack on the WTC....why would they stop short of heavyhanded propagandizing in the entertainment media. It's absurd. <p></p><i></i>

[Lizzy Dearborn]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Thoughts on subliminal influence and the quick cuts and flashing lights on shows and commercials?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I have never reasearched it, but my gut tells me it's one of the many tools. <p></p><i></i>

[Wolfmoon Lady]

Sorry you lost your post, NavnDansk. Try composing it in Notepad and then cutting/pasting. If you're including links, you'll have to deal with that before you add your reply.<br><br>As for your comment:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Albrech Speers said when he was released from prison that if the Nazis had had television there would have been no stopping them.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> This says it all, imho. Done.<br><br>Morgan <p></p><i></i>

[*]

<br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">medium</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> is the massage</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. See Jerry Mander's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->:<br><br><br>Excerpts From<br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Argument One</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: The Mediation of Experience<br> As humans have moved into totally artifical environments, our direct contact with and knowledge of the planet has been snapped. Disconnected, like astronauts floating in space, we cannot know up from down or truth from fiction. Conditions are appropriate for the implantation of arbitrary realities. Television is one recent example of this, a serious one, since it greatly accelerates the problem.<br><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Argument Two</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: The Colonization Of Experience<br> It is no accident that television has been dominated by a handful of corporate powers. Neither is it accidental that television has been used to re-create human beings into a new form that matches the artificial, commercial environment. A conspiracy of technological and economic factors made this inevitable and continue to.<br><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Argument Three</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: Effects Of Television On The Human Being<br> Television technology produces neuro-physiological responses in the people who watch it. It may create illness, it certainly produces confusion and submission to external imagery. Taken together, the effects amount to conditioning for autocratic control.<br><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Argument Four</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: The Inherent Biases Of Television<br> Along with the venality of its controllers, the technology of television predetermines the boundaries of its content. Some information can be conveyed completely, some partially, some not at all. The most effective telecommunications are the gross, simplified linear messages and programs which conveniently fit the purposes of the medium's commercial controllers. Television's highest potential is advertising. This cannot be changed. The bias is inherent in the technology.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.west.net/~antipas/magazine/tv/4_arguments_book/contents.html">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Although I've never looked into the Titanic sinking from a conspiracy viewpoint, it is interesting to me that you apparently dismiss 'out of hand' the possibility that this "Titan" story, written (as you say) fourteen years before the Titanic...could have been connected to the actual event. Really?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah. I'd say that is extremely unlikely -- verging on zero chance of possibility. Are you saying that the Titanic sinking was a planned event?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It would seem to go without saying that...there is NOTHING extraordinary about this CD cover if you understand that a good number of people knew about the attack before it happened. (I certainly don't think it would've required any great skill to manipulate of couple of young kids into putting that particular depiction on their cover, without their knowledge of the actual future attack.)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Dude, shit happens. It's a big fucking world, and sometimes interesting coincidences coalesce out of the bazillions of possibilities. Read up on synchronicity for some mind-blowing examples -- it's best to start with Jung, who coined the word.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Please understand-- I have no particular interest in ascertaining the 'story' behind this CD cover. It's just that the reasoning is falling short, for me. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Seeking literal correspondences for everything will drive you into very dark realms of paranoiac delusion. I've seen it happen. When you start connecting every dot on a page, you wind up with an inscrutable puddle of ink. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br>Mr. Pan---<br><br>Not to get too feisty but...I couldn't help notice that you quoted in full, two of my four little paragraphs (nine posts up), and then proceeded to express confusion and questions...<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>which are directly addressed in the remaining two paragraphs.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> What's up with that (if you don't mind me asking)?<br><br>You quote my first paragraph, then turn around and ask me if I hold to the belief there is a Titan/Titanic connection. Huh? My line of reasoning continued on into the next section. All you had to do was continue reading, to see what I was getting at (?).<br><br>The point you'll find there is not that I believe in a Titan/Titanic connection, necessarily...it is that your (very authoritative) dismissal of the possibility, is without factual basis.<br><br>Many (evil) people knew about the WTC attack well in advance, for example. So...how many years in advance was this planned...and might we be able to point out some 'Titan'-like foreshadowings? You know...government manuals that depicted the WTC in some crosshairs...or an obscure rapper CD cover. Or some scenes in a movie ("Fight Club") where two towers which bear close resemblance to the WTC, collapse (long before 9/11) while an MPD/DID victim watches.<br><br>Oh, wait a minute. All of that DID happen.<br><br>You point to this "Titan" story as being written fourteen years before the actual sinking of the Titanic. It was quite clear to me that, in your mind, you were presenting automatic and literal 'proof' of so-called "synchronicity". To do such is the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'rigorous'.<br><br>How would you know there is no connection? In the light of the WTC attack, not to mention Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination, and any number of other huge hijinks from the PTB, you're curiously selling the PTB very short in literally announcing your conclusion about the Titan/Titanic "coincidence"...prior to any rigorous researching.<br><br>In fact, now that you mention this Titanic thing (again, I've never looked at this topic)...just from a 'big picture' standpoint, one might do well to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>indeed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> take a very close look at the sinking of the Titanic. For any self-respecting crime syndicate, money could be made in the building of the ship...and money could be made in the sinking of the ship. <br><br>Just ask Larry Silverstein and Westfield. They bought the WTC a few months before the attack and made sure they had a nice big fat insurance policy that specifically covered "terrorist attacks". <br><br>(Come to think of it, I think I did once read something about a Titanic conspiracy. I don't remember where.) <br><br>Now as far as the CD cover, I'm stumped as to how your missing my point.<br><br>I didn't say it WASN'T a coincidence...I was saying that your position that it HAS TO BE a coincidence, doesn't make any sense. You are illogically ruling out a perfectly viable possibility, given the fact that some (obviously powerful and influential) folks knew about the attack beforehand, and might very well have wanted to brag about it. And those young kids could've easily been manipulated.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

There's no point in talking sense, Pan. They <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>want to believe</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://xfiles.wearehere.net/images/office.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

That poster, if I recall, is from Mulder's office in the X-Files.<br><br>I'm going to have to say I'm going to disagree with Pan on this, but without necessarily embracing the level of micromanagement by corporate press owners as some suggest. But the influence of the press on the news is well documented. Chomsky is famous for it (but pretty particular about the examples he uses....East Timor yes, JFK no). I'm more critical of Uncle Noam these days, but the movie of Manufacturing Consent blew my mind when I was young.<br><br>All the way back to Randolph "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war" Hearst, we see the press going beyond reporting to creating news and providing propaganda. Operation Mockingbird is quite real and sometimes the bad guys slip up such as when it was revealed they Psy-ops folks were "interning" at CNN during the Kosovo war.<br><br>In addition to overt manipulation and propaganda, there is a certain level of self-censorship that goes on...a certain unstated set of assumptions or boundaries that the media won't go past. From UFO's to JFK to WMD's (before it was okay to question) etc, in various ways, subtle and not so subtle, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are laid and things outside those boundaries given a ridicule factor. <br><br>I won't go on just now on that topic, but I could. It's pretty easy to show the influence of corporate bosses on news content...sometimes with intel complicity sometimes just to make sure opinion stays within certain acceptable limits.<br><br>Fox and the Murdoch empire are helpful to look at, just because they are so blatant..but at least you see one company that clearly does this... In my view, it's the more subtle and sophisticated versions that are worrisome.<br><br>But you don't even have to get too conspiratorial. They are in business to make money. You don't bite the hand that feeds you..as in advertisers. <br><br>So, despite other criticisms of Noam Chomsky...maybe Manufacturing Consent is a good place to start.<br><br>But what about in entertainment media? I think that's Pan's biggest objection. But the history of entertainment media's collaboration with the military is pretty well documented. Think of all the WW2 movies. <br><br>I might suggest this book: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591021820/103-7393203-3376617?v=glance&n=283155">Operation Hollywood</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> for a look at direct Pentagon influence on Hollywood. I haven't read it, but I've read similar sorts of exposes.<br><br>then there's all the Cold War masterpieces. <br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.film.org.pl/soundtrack/images/rocky4.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0792838041.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I was saying to him that since many people knew about the attack before it happened (the perpetrators knew!) there wouldn't neccessarily be anything extraordinary about the CD cover. What if the 'powers that be' wanted to have a little 'insider' bragging fun? Couldn't they easily manipulate a couple of young kids into a certain cover design?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>See, that's what'll get you in trouble: Assuming a sinister premise to the phenomenon. There may very well be one. The band could be connected to the tendrils of the devious elite. But there could just as easily be a positive backstory to the CD cover. Suppose that...by way of their radical politics, the group is in touch with a handful of disaffected ex-intel agents one of whom got tipped off and likewise tipped off the band to "things that might happen", one of which was the WTC scenario that made their cover, which was pretty much all they could do with the info if: with no evidence/details they would be unable to alert the media/authorities effectively in time to prevent it, so they put it out there to indict the real perps in retrospect. You could suppose the same positive backstory to the Lone Gunmen pilot -- and actually the two coincidences, whose hosts (the LG and The Coup) coincidentally share a paranoid leftist perspective, coincidentally happen to involve the same scenario: remote control destruction of the WTC orchestrated by The Man. So instead of impugning sinister motives to the LG writers or The Coup album designers...perhaps we should just be kicking ourselves for not <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>getting</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> the message. People knew in advance, and they knew it would happen <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>this way</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Whether or not it was bad guys or good guys telling us, whether they had bad intentions or good, it doesn't really matter. The proof is there: remote control.<br><br>...That's the way I see it. The two coincidences also could have coincided just because the Platonic intimations of 9/11 were floating in the Sheldrakian sphere and sucked up by two similarly-minded groups of people. Now I'm open to the idea of extrasensory and extradimensional worlds and whatnot, but...That's a little far-fetched to me. It requires a fundamentally counter-intuitive assumption about thoughts existing outside our brains in a floating network of 6th sense correspondence. I'm down for that assumption, but after the more realistic assumption that there is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>not</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> such a thing as mind-field correspondence, and that the most likely sources of the LG pilot and Coup cover were spoken/written tipoffs or underhanded suggestions. The next likeliest source is coincidence. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Then</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> we have the mind-field. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 5/10/06 11:18 am<br></i>

[rothbardian]

Pan's response to things is strange to me. In hearing about the story of "Titan" having been written fourteen years before the sinking of the Titanic, my response is "Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if there's a connection."<br><br>Pan's response is an unequivocal "Move along. There's nothing to see here." I find that odd.<br> <br>Qutb, you need to re-read some of the earlier posts. It's not about what I "want to believe". It's about what Pan doesn't want to believe.<br><br>The rapper CD cover is a good example-- The PTB has the immense power to pull off 9/11 AND keep it largely hidden from the public...but they couldn't arrange a little insider bragging (via the CD cover)? That's ridiculous. (Again, I don't have an opinion either way on the CD.)<br><br><br>FourthBase--<br><br>You make the comment: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"See, that's what'll get you in trouble: Assuming a sinister premise to the phenomenon."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I'm not sure I understand your point. There was plenty of "sinister" to spare...in being able to perpetrate the 9/11 attack. What's the 'big deal' on this CD cover? Let's say the graphic artist (who got a call from his boss...who in turn got a call etc.) shows these young kids the 'proposed' cover design and pumps them up-- "The big boss says this cover will have huge impact. This might put you on the map for being 'dangerously counterculture, blah, blah..." Bada-bing...there's your CD cover depicting a WTC attack.<br><br>As far as your other comments ("mind-fields" etc.)...I don't know about that sort of thing. That's waay outside my field. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>he band could be connected to the tendrils of the devious elite. But there could just as easily be a positive backstory to the CD cover. Suppose that...by way of their radical politics, the group is in touch with a handful of disaffected ex-intel agents one of whom got tipped off and likewise tipped off the band to "things that might happen", one of which was the WTC scenario that made their cover, which was pretty much all they could do with the info if: with no evidence/details they would be unable to alert the media/authorities effectively in time to prevent it, so they put it out there to indict the real perps in retrospect.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Sure. It's not impossible. But is it probable? <br><br>It's also possible that The Coup's graphic designer is a time traveler. It's possible the band uses remote viewing and spied a secret plan in the Pentagon. It's possible that the lead rapper is a prophet and God told him. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...That's the way I see it. The two coincidences also could have coincided just because the Platonic intimations of 9/11 were floating in the Sheldrakian sphere and sucked up by two similarly-minded groups of people. Now I'm open to the idea of extrasensory and extradimensional worlds and whatnot, but...That's a little far-fetched to me. It requires a fundamentally counter-intuitive assumption about thoughts existing outside our brains in a floating network of 6th sense correspondence. I'm down for that assumption, but after the more realistic assumption that there is not such a thing as mind-field correspondence, and that the most likely sources of the LG pilot and Coup cover were spoken/written tipoffs or underhanded suggestions. The next likeliest source is coincidence. Then we have the mind-field.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You should study probability before making that statement. And no woo-woo, paranormal theories are required to explain coincidences, just plain old probability theory.<br><br>As I suggested when replying in the other thread (not to hijack it, but that was where you started this inquiry), look into the historical examples of coincidence for a wealth of examples of striking coincidences that are not causally related. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

I'm saying that there's just as much reason to speculate that the CD cover was a product of someone's wanting to prevent the attack and/or help us catch the real perps as there is to speculate that it was the product of the PTB wanting to brag and/or poison the well.<br><br>I can definitely see your scenario happening, I can definitely see my scenario happening, I can somewhat see it being a spectacular coincidence, I can barely see something "morphogenic" happening.<br><br>I think part of the problem is people misinterpreting the Coup cover. Some people see it as the band itself blowing up the towers. I see it as the band telling us how someone <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>else</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is blowing up the towers.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://seekers.100megs6.com/Photos/TheCoup-PartyMusic-OriginalWTC.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sure. It's not impossible. But is it probable? <br><br>It's also possible that The Coup's graphic designer is a time traveler. It's possible the band uses remote viewing and spied a secret plan in the Pentagon. It's possible that the lead rapper is a prophet and God told him.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You should study probability before making that statement. And no woo-woo, paranormal theories are required to explain coincidences, just plain old probability theory.<br><br>As I suggested when replying in the other thread (not to hijack it, but that was where you started this inquiry), look into the historical examples of coincidence for a wealth of examples of striking coincidences that are not causally related.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>You've been a real shithead lately, Pan.<br>Maybe I just never noticed before.<br><br>Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?<br>If so, then some people knew in advance.<br>All it would take is gossip between a few acquaintances...<br>And you have that album cover and the LG pilot.<br><br>Not that improbable. So don't even fucking play, hear? <p></p><i></i>