This Is How The US Government Convinces A Newspaper To Kill A Story | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Under President George W. Bush, the White House urged reporters to withhold accounts about many of the most contentious aspects in the war on terrorism: the existence of a secret prison in Thailand, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation and detention program, warrantless wiretapping and government monitoring of financial transactions.

The Obama administration has persuaded reporters to delay publishing the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia, the name of a country in which a drone strike against an American citizen was being considered, the fact that a diplomat arrested in Pakistan was a C.I.A. officer and that an American businessman was working for the agency when he disappeared in Iran.

- From the New York Times article: Condoleezza Rice Testifies on Urging The Times to Not Run Article

The timidness with which mainstream media in the U.S. approaches news has been well documented. In fact, the inability of traditional media to do a reasonable job of holding powerful interests accountable has been one of the primary drivers behind the ascendency of alternative news. Despite this reality, one thing we know less about is specifically how the power structure goes about suppressing news it doesn’t want reaching the plebs. Until now.

Ironically, the New York Times reported on its own prior inability to report the news:

WASHINGTON — White House officials favor two primary tactics when they want to kill a news article, Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, testified Thursday: They can essentially confirm the report by arguing that it is too important to national security to be published, or they can say that the reporter has it wrong.

Sitting across from a reporter and editor from The New York Times in early 2003, Ms. Rice said, she tried both.

Complete story at - This Is How The US Government Convinces A Newspaper To Kill A Story | Zero Hedge

The Spectacular Media Failure On Charlie Hebdo

By Shamus Cooke

14 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

A core tenet of journalism is answering the question “why.” It’s the media’s duty to explain “why” an event happened so that readers will actually understand what they’re reading. Leave out the “why” and then assumptions and stereotypes fill in the blank, always readily supplied by politicians whose ridiculous answers are left unquestioned by the corporate media.

Because the real “why” was unexplained in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, an obviously false culprit was created, leading to a moronic national discussion in the U.S. media about whether Islam was “inherently” violent.

For the media to even pose this question either betrays a blinding ignorance about the Middle East and Islam, or a conscious willingness to manipulate public sentiment by only interviewing so-called experts who believe such nonsense.

Media outlets should know that until the 1980’s Islamic fundamentalism was virtually inaudible in the Middle East — outside of the U.S.-supported dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, whose ruling monarchy survives thanks to U.S. support. The official religion of Saudi Arabia is a uniquely fundamentalist version of Islam, which along with the royal family are the two anchors of Saudi government power.

Before the 1980’s, the dominant ideology in the Middle East was pan-Arab socialism, a secular ideology that viewed Islamic fundamentalism as socially and economically regressive. Islamic fundamentalists engaged in terrorist attacks against the “pan-Arab socialist” governments of Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and other governments that aligned themselves with this ideology at various times.

Islamic fundamentalism was virtually extinguished from 1950-1980, with Saudi Arabia and later Qatar being the last bastion and protective base of fundamentalists who were exiled from the secular countries. This dynamic was accentuated during the cold war, where the U.S. aligned itself with Islamic fundamentalism — Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states — while the Soviet Union became allies with the secular nations that identified as “socialist.”

Complete story at - The Spectacular Media Failure On Charlie Hebdo By Shamus Cooke

How Diverse Is U.S. Media Opinion? Washington's Blog

I guess this could actually be humorous, if one choose to ignore that this is the kind of stuff media "consumers" get fed each and every day. 



Complete story at - How Diverse Is U.S. Media Opinion? Washington's Blog

The Sunday Shows Are Completely Infatuated With War - The Intercept

The likes of Chuck Todd and Candy Crowley must have a hard time finding pacifists to interview.

In a two-week, three-episode span in September, America’s prominent Sunday news talk shows featured 89 guests talking about U.S. military options in Syria and Iraq. Only one of those guests, The Nation’s editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, would count as “anti-war.” The situation barely improves if you add in cable talk shows: Out of a total 205 guests discussing military options in the same period, just six opposed intervention, versus 125 who spoke in favor of it.

The numbers, compiled by progressive media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), show how out of touch these shows are with the country as a whole, even as they remain Beltway obsessions. They also illustrate in stark terms how little has changed in the decade since monotonous, stenographic journalism paved the way for the Iraq War. Apparently, for these DC programs, being perceived as “serious” still trumps the opportunity to introduce fresh voices and contrarian perspectives.

FAIR’s research, which was the period from September 7 to September 21, included the Sunday shows Meet The Press, from NBC; CBS’ Face The Nation; ABC’s This Week; Fox News Sunday; and CNN’s State of the Union. Weekday cable shows surveyed include MSNBC’s Hardball, CNN’s The Situation Room, and MSNBC’s Special Report.

Complete story at - The Sunday Shows Are Completely Infatuated With War - The Intercept

Anne Applebaum Is Not A War Profiteer, But Her Husband Reveals That She Was Paid More Than $800,000 In 2013 – And That Was Before The Shooting Started In Ukraine | Dances With Bears

NoBC4U Note: For those who might not know, Anne Applebaum is one of the more notorious mainstream media pro-Ukraine, pro-NATO propagandists.

By John Helmer, Moscow

Anne Applebaum has been paid unaccountably large sums of money, according to official yearly income declarations by her husband, the ex-foreign minister of Poland, Radosław Sikorski. According to the annual reports required of Polish Government officials and members of the Polish parliament, the Sejm, Applebaum received a US income of $20,000 in 2011. Two years later, in 2013, this had jumped to $565,000.
Applebaum, who writes and lectures as an expert on Russia and Ukraine, did not earn the money from her US publishers, while Sikorski’s reports claim the money was unrelated to his activities as a foreign minister. The income was earned instead, he says, from “honoraria for books, articles and lectures”. According to Applebaum’s spokesman, she claims the right of privacy not to explain where the money came from, or why.

Sikorski, described in Foreign Policy magazine of New York, as “fighting to get a wishy-washy continent to stand up to Russia”, and “at the center of the Ukrainian revolution since before it began.”, was replaced at the foreign ministry in Warsaw in September. This followed press leaks of his scatological table-talk about American and British leaders; their refusal to appoint him to posts he sought at NATO and the European Union (EU); and the transfer of Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk to the presidency of the European Council in Brussels. For Sikorski’s record, read this.

Sikorski was voted Marshal (speaker) of the Sejm (right) on September 24. But this week he faces removal from the new post following his claim to have heard President Vladimir Putin discussing with Tusk the division of Ukraine with Poland.

He has subsequently retracted and apologized, claiming “my memory failed me… Sometimes a man can overstep the mark, and this is what happened in this case. I’m especially sorry for putting Mr Tusk and my predecessor in an awkward position.” He did not apologize to Putin.

The Sejm will hold a no-confidence vote on Sikorski shortly. There is speculation in the Polish government and media that Sikorski is suffering from drug-related illness.
Applebaum, a 50-year old from Washington, DC, married Sikorski in 1992. They have lived together in London, Washington, and Warsaw. On her website she describes a number of full-time journalism jobs she no longer holds. She reports publishing two books, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956, in October 2012; and Gulag: A History in 2003; both were issued by Doubleday in New York. Applebaum describes her current employment as a columnist for the Washington Post and its web offshoot, Slate.com; and as a programme director at the Legatum Institute in London. For more on Legatum, click.

Complete story at - Anne Applebaum Is Not A War Profiteer, But Her Husband Reveals That She Was Paid More Than $800,000 In 2013 – And That Was Before The Shooting Started In Ukraine | Dances With Bears

At Least 22 Defense Industry Stakeholders Used as ‘Pundits’ by US Media to Sell Syria War

Remember this next time the corporate media are trying to sell the next war…



Before the White House’s Syrian War flop, networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Bloomberg TV wheeled out at least 22 different men who they claimed were “pundits” and “commentators”, but in actuality were merely bomb and missile salesmen – who held director, board and shareholding positions with military giants like Raytheon, DC Capital Partners and BAE Systems.

Yes, you heard that right.

Watchdog organisation, the Public Accountability Initiative, a non-profit research group, details this and many more disclosures in its recent and damning report on US media coverage to hype a war in Syria.

Should CNN, MSNBC, FOX lose their broadcasting licenses in the US for this gross breach of ethics, particularly when it’s used to sell something as violent and abhorrent as war? We say YES. Will that happen in the US? Well, no, because the media in the US is far from bias and is tightly linked in ownership and sponsorship to the war industry. Start with General Electric and work your way around the table from there.

Add to this, another long line of “experts” deployed by Rupert Murdoch’s perennially pro-war media shop FOX, and now the Wall Street Journal. Most notably here is John Kerry and John McCain’s belle de jour – pro-war spokesmodel, Elizabeth O’Bagy, who aside from being a key operative in helping to pad Washington and Israel’s militarised policy regarding Syria by constructing the “moderate rebel” myth, was dumped by Kimberly Kagan and William Kristol’s neoconservative and pro-Israeli think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) after it was discovered O’Bagy had claimed a nonexistent PhD from Georgetown University. In addition to this media darling and ‘Syria expert’ O’Bagy is policy director for a suspected CIA operation front and money-raising machine called the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF).

Below is a rather educational map, showing the relationships and the pay lines of the ISW crowd, which, in addition to the disgraced O’Bagy, it features war ‘expert’ and director at Raytheon, Stephen Hadley:

Complete story at - At Least 22 Defense Industry Stakeholders Used as ‘Pundits’ by US Media to Sell Syria War

MSM War on Gaza

Journalists daring to criticize Israel responsibility face likely dismissal and banishment from MSM employment.

Once again, Israel waged cold, calculated premeditated aggression against near defenseless Palestinians.

An Israeli Goliath mercilessly attacked a Palestinian David. It did so for unjustifiable reasons. Mass slaughter, destruction and human misery followed.

Non-combatant men, women and children suffered most. They were deliberately targeted. They comprised over 80% of deaths and injuries.

Israeli casualties hardly compare to around 2,000 mostly civilian Palestinian deaths, up to 10,000 injured, large parts of Gaza in ruins, hundreds of thousands forcibly displaced, and families losing all their possessions.

Operation Protective Edge is the most devastating Israeli aggression on Palestinians since its 1947-48 war.

A shaky ceasefire could end any time. Heavy Israeli shelling and bombing could resume. Palestinian casualties could continue mounting.

The fate of about 1.7 million Gazans hangs in the balance. They're trapped in the world's largest open-air prison. They're unable to find refuge anywhere.

Every square inch of Gaza is fair game. Israel inflicts collective punishment mercilessly. Civilian men, women and children are considered legitimate targets.

So are schools, hospitals, mosques, residential neighborhoods and vital infrastructure unrelated to military necessity. Terror bombing and shelling reflect longstanding Israeli policy.

Precision weapons can mass slaughter with technological ease. Banned terror weapons are used against defenseless civilians in densely populated residential areas.

They include 4cm-long metal darts called flechettes. They're anti-personnel weapons able to penetrate bone deep enough to inflict horrific injuries.

One artillery shell can deliver up to 8,000 of them. On impact, rupturing releases them at high speed in a funnel-shaped pattern over an area of about 300 meters.

White phosphorous is devastating to human flesh. It's a flammable chemical. Israel uses it as an incendiary weapon and smoke screen.

When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites. It burns to the bone. It keeps burning until consumed or deprived of oxygen.

Complete story at - MSM War on Gaza

Propaganda ministers, all of them: Our pathetic, spoon-fed media pushes half-truths, again - Salon.com

I would like to meet Anastasia Lukina. No, not because of the elegant name. I have two better reasons.

Lukina is described as a 30-year-old sales manager in Moscow. In Tuesday’s editions, a New York Times correspondent, Neil MacFarquhar, quoted her as saying this regarding responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Flight MH-17 over Ukrainian territory last week:

“So the West says it wants a full investigation, but they’ve already accused us of killing those people? We all know what the conclusion to that investigation will be. So why even bother pretending? Russia is the world’s scapegoat.”

Sure, I am always good for a drink with a plain speaker, no matter the stripe.

The other reason to meet Anastasia Lukina is more straightforward. I would like her to know that we Americans are not all mendacious xenophobes with lynch-mob prejudices and a hankering for frontier justice.

For once, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to say something wise as he got the official line out on the Sunday talk shows. MH-17 lying in a Ukrainian wheat field produces “a moment of truth,” he said. He went on to punt it, per usual, by adding “for Russia.” This is a moment of truth for all of us — for Russia, yes, but maybe even more for Americans and the ever less promising new government in Kiev.

MH-17 went down Thursday afternoon, local time. It took less than a day for Washington, by way of the military and intelligence officials who customarily spoon-feed the media, to begin the innuendo intended to “corral public opinion” (Zbigniew Brzezinski’s unforgettable phrase) toward a nice, plump case for Russian guilt. A day later we had the conviction by way of “a series of indicators of Russian involvement,” in Times terminology.

Complete story at - Propaganda ministers, all of them: Our pathetic, spoon-fed media pushes half-truths, again - Salon.com

The Truth vs Mainstream Media Presstitutes.

First up. Mark Sleboda vs. the BBC.



Next up. Peter Lavelle vs CNN.

New York Times Dishes More Ukraine Propaganda | The Smirking Chimp

As you read or watch the mainstream U.S. media’s accounts of the Ukrainian government’s military offensive against ethnic Russians in East Ukraine, it’s worth remembering that these MSM outlets have been feeding Americans a highly biased narrative of the crisis non-stop from the beginning.

For instance, New York Times correspondent David M. Herszenhorn included in a largely celebratory account of the Ukrainian blitzkrieg that overwhelmed ethnic Russian positions in the town of Slovyansk on Saturday this summary of the conflict’s background:

“The separatist rebellion is the latest, bloodiest chapter in a crisis that began in November after Viktor F. Yanukovych, then Ukraine’s president, rejected a trade accord he had promised to sign with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. Protesters took to the streets of Kiev, eventually driving Mr. Yanukovych from office. Within a week, Russia invaded Crimea, then annexed the peninsula.”

Herszenhorn, like nearly all his MSM colleagues, simply can’t find it within himself to display the journalistic integrity needed to present an evenhanded and unbiased explication of how this crisis unfolded. Instead, it’s all about blaming Ukraine’s elected President Yanukovych and Russian President Vladimir Putin for everything.

Always absent is the fact that the EU’s trade accord came with a draconian International Monetary Fund austerity plan attached, a prescription to inflict even more pain on the people of Ukraine who have suffered under a post-Soviet economic system dominated by a handful of corrupt oligarchs. The IMF plan would have simply hit the average Ukrainian even harder — with elimination of heating subsidies and devaluation of their currency – while the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Western financial backers would have escaped the pain, as usual. In rejecting the IMF scheme, Yanukovych opted for a more generous $15 billion loan deal from Moscow.

Complete story at - New York Times Dishes More Ukraine Propaganda | The Smirking Chimp

Greed Is Good? Where Will America's Sick Obsession With Wealth And Money End? | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

Everywhere you look, Americans appear to be extremely obsessed with wealth and money. These days, networks such as CNN endlessly run "news stories" with titles such as "Best cars for the super rich". We have television shows where people proudly show off how wealthy they are, and it seems like Hollywood is putting out an endless parade of movies that glorify the lifestyles of the elite. We have hordes of motivational speakers and "life coaches" that will teach you how to be "more successful" in life, and every small movement in the stock market is carefully monitored by the mainstream news media. Even in the world of faith, we have an entire class of ministers known as "prosperity preachers", and many of those ministers wear that label quite proudly. Yes, those that grew up in the 1980s may have been the "greed is good" generation, but the truth is that they didn't have anything on us. As a society we love money, and we are not ashamed to admit it. In fact, there are times we absolutely revel in it. For example, Time Magazine published an article this year entitled "Science Proves It: Greed Is Good" and hardly anyone even raised an eyebrow. But where will America's sick obsession with wealth and money end? Could it end up destroying us?

I got the idea for this article when I was browsing through CNN's website. The following are eight "news stories" about wealth that were featured on CNN just on Thursday alone...

#1 "The richest Americans in history"

#2 "How much do you need to be happy?"

#3 "Where are the super rich?"

#4 "From broke to billionaire"

#5 "Homes: What $25 million buys around the world"

#6 "Best cars for the super rich"

#7 "America's homes are bigger than ever"

#8 "Mega yacht with a movie theater"

This is what passes for news these days?

It has been said that we tend to talk about the things that we are obsessed with.

And CNN is clearly obsessed with wealth.

Not that there is anything wrong with having money.

Complete story at - Greed Is Good? Where Will America's Sick Obsession With Wealth And Money End? | Zero Hedge