HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Call me jaded. I see pro...

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 10:40 PM

Call me jaded. I see propaganda all over the place. Our media is pathetic.

Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't believe much in our media these days. Remember Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman?

War with ISIS is on the horizon, and the media outlets are already interfering in our political campaigns, pushing candidates to sound more militant. I don't trust much of the reporting, I don't even believe the polls right now.

Just when I think I might be over-reacting, I remember how our media outlets made up stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. There were other examples but these were the most outrageous. It shows the news spokesmen will say and do anything required to get results desired by their owners.

They needed to glorify and defend a bogged down Iraq war.

Jessica Lynch had her say in a 2007 congressional hearing.

'Little girl Rambo' decries US propaganda

The former US private Jessica Lynch today condemned what she said were Pentagon efforts to turn her into a "little girl Rambo", and accused military chiefs of using "elaborate tales" to try to make her into a hero of the Iraq war.

Speaking at a congressional hearing on the use of misleading information, an emotional Ms Lynch described how she suffered horrific injuries when her vehicle was hit by a rocket near the Iraqi town of Nasiriya in March 2003, killing several of her companions.


She was angry they tried to make her into a hero, she said the real heroes were those who rescued her.

Initial reports also suggested that Ms Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She said the reports were lies: she had been treated well and the Iraqis had tried to return her to US forces.

"The nurses tried to soothe me and return me," she told the hearing, adding that she objected to the way in which the US military had portrayed her.

"American people don't need to be told elaborate tales" about US forces, she said


So true. We don't need to be told lies about anything.

More about Jessica from journalist Greg Mitchell:

When Media Promoted Jessica Lynch 'Propaganda'

It wasn't until early May 2003 that the story really fell apart, thanks largely to a Toronto Star reporter named Mitch Potter, whose sources told him that actually Lynch had been well cared for at the hospital, that her captors had left up to two days before the raid and that actually fire from U.S. forces had prevented hospital staffers from loading her in an ambulance. The BBC soon confirmed much of this scenario.

The Post corrective appeared a few weeks later. On June 20, 2003, Nicholas Kristof in his New York Times column wrote:

"Pfc. Jessica Lynch did not mow down Iraqis until her ammo ran out, was not shot and apparently was not plucked from behind enemy lines by U.S. commandos braving a firefight. It looks as if the first accounts of the rescue were embellished, like the imminent threat from W.M.D., and like wartime pronouncements about an uprising in Basra and imminent defections of generals. There's a pattern: we were misled...

"Ms. Lynch is still a hero in my book, and it was unnecessary for officials to try to turn her into a Hollywood caricature. As a citizen, I deeply resent my government trying to spin me like a Ping-Pong ball....


And Pat Tillman couldn't speak for himself, but his irate family did so very effectively.

From Mother Jones 2010:

Pat Tillman's War

Pat Tillman's family says "fuck" a lot. And who can blame them? Pat's youngest brother, at the memorial service for the fallen NFL-star-turned-soldier, follows Maria Shriver's "Pat is with God now" rhetoric with, "Pat would want me to say this: He's not with God, he's fucking dead." A year later, Pat Tillman Sr. writes a blistering letter to the military brass who continued to stonewall the investigation into his son's death signed, "Fuck you…and yours." Such is the seething flavor of director Amir Bar-Lev's The Tillman Story (open today at select theaters), which paints a striking portrait of Pat Tillman's devoted and outraged family's search for the truth behind his death in eastern Afghanistan in April 2004.

....The documentary gives us what we the public want when it comes to heroes—a deeper look at someone who was so instantly an icon of war. Though he was deified in death under false pretenses and for political gain—and he specifically told the military he didn't want a military burial or any military involvement in his death—he, and his family, turned out to be exactly what America needed, because they take absolutely no bullshit, from Shriver, Donald Rumsfeld, anyone. And Tillman's last words? The soldier with him at the time poignantly recalls how Tillman saved his life even while his screams couldn't spare his own. To his buddies but 40 yards away who were unloading artillery into his chest and head he screamed, "I'm fucking Pat Tillman, why are you shooting at me? I'm fucking Pat Tillman!"


We don't have to swallow the propaganda, but all too often we do. I found this statement in a report from Stanford.

Propaganda in War Reporting on the U.S. War in Iraq

...A government cannot have power if it does not have the support of the public. In order to gain support of the public propaganda is used to promote the government and the ideals behind it. The issues concerning propaganda are complex and numerous but it is known that propaganda can be one of the main weapons used in psychological warfare and can significantly affect the outcome of a war. Propaganda can influence people to believe a certain ideology whether that ideology is right or wrong...


And I will never forget how we shock and awe bombed Iraq on TV, and yet the only real truth-telling we saw on the impact....was not from our news stations who whitewashed it all.

It was from the courageous and intelligent Iraqi bloggers

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?





69 replies, 6281 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Call me jaded. I see propaganda all over the place. Our media is pathetic. (Original post)
madfloridian Dec 2015 OP
Scuba Dec 2015 #1
questionseverything Dec 2015 #50
Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #69
Corruption Inc Dec 2015 #2
madfloridian Dec 2015 #7
malaise Dec 2015 #31
erronis Dec 2015 #44
GoneFishin Dec 2015 #3
madfloridian Dec 2015 #64
nationalize the fed Dec 2015 #4
madokie Dec 2015 #5
madfloridian Dec 2015 #6
chervilant Dec 2015 #12
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #52
chervilant Dec 2015 #67
raouldukelives Dec 2015 #39
N_E_1 for Tennis Dec 2015 #49
DhhD Dec 2015 #65
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #51
in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #8
chervilant Dec 2015 #13
madfloridian Dec 2015 #15
chervilant Dec 2015 #17
haikugal Dec 2015 #20
madfloridian Dec 2015 #22
madfloridian Dec 2015 #21
madfloridian Dec 2015 #14
malaise Dec 2015 #32
chervilant Dec 2015 #53
Hydra Dec 2015 #9
madfloridian Dec 2015 #61
Thespian2 Dec 2015 #10
truedelphi Dec 2015 #11
madfloridian Dec 2015 #16
AuntPatsy Dec 2015 #18
SheilaT Dec 2015 #19
Xolodno Dec 2015 #23
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #54
Xolodno Dec 2015 #55
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #60
Xolodno Dec 2015 #62
olddots Dec 2015 #24
Jesus Malverde Dec 2015 #25
spanone Dec 2015 #26
Rex Dec 2015 #27
mountain grammy Dec 2015 #28
madfloridian Dec 2015 #33
OnyxCollie Dec 2015 #29
madfloridian Dec 2015 #30
OnyxCollie Dec 2015 #35
bemildred Dec 2015 #34
madfloridian Dec 2015 #45
madfloridian Dec 2015 #36
Enthusiast Dec 2015 #37
MerryBlooms Dec 2015 #38
tiredtoo Dec 2015 #40
KG Dec 2015 #41
Samantha Dec 2015 #42
valerief Dec 2015 #43
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #46
Ichingcarpenter Dec 2015 #47
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #57
mrdmk Dec 2015 #48
Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #56
kairos12 Dec 2015 #58
hifiguy Dec 2015 #59
PufPuf23 Dec 2015 #63
malokvale77 Dec 2015 #66
marym625 Dec 2015 #68

Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 10:48 PM

1. Our so-called "free press" is bought and paid for.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:02 PM

50. yes the 1% own the msm

the 1% own the polling outfits

unfortunately they also own the companies that count our votes and the web sites that report our votes

at least we are now identifying the problem



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 11, 2015, 03:50 AM

69. Worthless as tonsils on a titmouse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)


Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:19 PM

7. That is just tragic.

There are no words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:08 AM

31. Yep

That says everything - I don't believe most of what I see and hear on M$Greedia. Anyone who watched coverage of the attack on Planned Parenthood from early got a classic lesson on distortion, obfuscation, spin and obvious lies - all laden with a specific agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:15 PM

44. and if the media empires have their way, even the non-US media will become "exceptional"

Thank gawd that the French, Germans, Russians, and many others don't automatically get in lock-step with the US empires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 10:52 PM

3. Nobody affluent makes mounds of money from peace. I always assume that reporting on disasters,

tragedies, and violent events will be spun to the right to maximize profit for someone influential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 06:17 PM

64. Interesting observation.

And true. Never thought of it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 10:57 PM

4. 90% of US Media is owned by 6 corporations

Can't embed Liveleak but this says it all

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d2_1449457074

The Illusion of Choice: 90% of American Media Controlled by 6 Corporations

It is worth repeating again and again that the bulk of America’s mainline media is owned and controlled by a mere 6 corporations. This, of course, means that unless you’re already consciously avoiding these mainline media sources, then most of the news and entertainment that makes it onto your screen and into your mind comes from a small pool of corporate sources, all of which play important roles in delivering propaganda, social programming and perpetual crisis narratives to the public.

The conglomerates are: General Electric, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS...
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations/

There's this too:

The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed....(Michael Hastings is now dead)
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

Much of this is thanks to Bill Clinton. Thanks Bill!

But people let it happen and don't seem to concerned with doing anything about it. So you could say that the American People get what they deserve.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:02 PM

5. War is money to them

and money is the root of all evil. I do think that little diddy is spot on too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:11 PM

6. Owned by those who profit from ongoing war.

It's pathetic. Hate to keep using that word, but it describes it well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:57 PM

12. Oh, I don't know...

I am among hundreds of thousands of "American People" who routinely decry the deceit of the M$M, and their use of propaganda to sway the vast Hoi Polloi towards willful ignorance, mass consumerism and blind partisan patriotism. I think you tread close to the edge of "victim" blaming, as William Ryan described so eloquently in his seminal work "Blaming the Victim."

Like many others, I find that our comedians most often speak truth to power. Just today, I saw a clip from Lee Camp (here) wherein he discusses who "won" the first Democratic Debate, and illustrates how the M$M pulled out all stops to propagandize the outcome of the debate--giving the "win" to Clinton, despite an initial, unanimous acknowledgement that Bernie Sanders had won the debate. (I've not had time to vet this clip, but it's inarguable that the M$M is working hard to render Senator Sanders irrelevant or invisible.)

The ONLY reason to go to war in this day and age is to enrich to coffers of a minuscule number of narcissistic hedonists, most of whom fit the profile of psychopathy. I don't want to see any more of our younglings nor any more innocent civilians sacrificed on the altar of their destructive greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:32 PM

52. "... a minuscule number of narcissistic hedonists, most of whom fit the profile of psychopathy..."

 

Perfect description, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 10:06 PM

67. Thank YOU!

These hedonists have got to be stopped, or they'll take us all down with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 10:30 AM

39. And 100% of those corporations are owned by people.

People who don't just let it happen, they bankroll it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 03:23 PM

49. And I understand Bill is running for a third term...

Oh wait, maybe I'm wrong.
Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to N_E_1 for Tennis (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 08:59 PM

65. Bill is running with tRump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:27 PM

51. Worth emphasising:

 

(U)nless you’re already consciously avoiding these mainline media sources, then most of the news and entertainment that makes it onto your screen and into your mind comes from a small pool of corporate sources, all of which play important roles in delivering propaganda, social programming and perpetual crisis narratives to the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:31 PM

8. "Propaganda can influence people to believe a certain ideology whether that ideology is right or

wrong." Truer words never spoken.

The corporate owned MSM still hasn't learned their lesson from LYING to the public and creating a DISASTER in the ME. They were complicit in hawking for invading Iraq. Their hands are just as bloody as Cheney's and Bush's...maybe even moreso because they KNEW they were lying and hid that information from the public. That's criminal. Judith Miller? Hello - liar. Criminal.

The MSM is still committing the same crimes. Hawking more war with ISIS! It's sickening. It's even more sickening that there's people on this forum who are accepting the lies just so their warmongering candidate can win as the "most qualified" to be president during wartime! It's sickening and sad. They rarely think about all the innocent people killed in those wars. And this is DEMOCRATIC Underground? Really? (read the quote I snipped)

Sorry! You sent me on a tangent. The subject does that to me.

Great, great post, madfloridian!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:07 AM

13. madfloridian is a true asset to this forum.

If I see her name, I make it a point to read what she's posted.

Also, there are too many Democrats whose hands are "just as bloody," and these DINOs are as reluctant to own up to their malfeasance as are Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perl, Rice, et. al. I wonder if all these pathetic cretins truly believe their "shock doctrine" machinations (the lot of them being sycophants to Uncle Miltie), or if their love of filthy lucre is the only thing that helps them sleep at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:13 AM

15. ....

Thanks for that. It's discouraging to try to post anymore...it's like walking uphill and against the wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:23 AM

17. While people are pelting you

with lies, sarcasm, derision, innuendos, and thinly-veiled misogyny...don't think we, your supporters, haven't noticed--it's one of the reasons I admire your courage and your tenacity.

Thank you for continuing to post on DU. As I said, I look forward to reading what you post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:33 AM

20. I second everything you said!

Bravo MadFloridian! I'm glad you're here and speaking out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:50 AM

22. Thanks, and hugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:49 AM

21. ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:11 AM

14. Makes me mad, too. Takes me back to the bad old days leading up to Iraq.

I remember our area had signs from the churches to the effect of they supported the president and they supported the war.

Since there are churches on every corner here, that's a hell of a lot of yard signs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:11 AM

32. Yep- anyone who doesn't want more war

is villified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:40 PM

53. I want you to know that

I marched on Washington with hundreds of thousands of fellow protesters, braving a wind chill factor of sixteen below, against the illegal invasion of Iraq, and too many of my now former friends and acquaintances called me "traitor" or "anti-American." I was invited to "move to Iraq," if I couldn't get on board with our POTUS (it still rattles me that Bush -- and Cheney -- sullied that office).









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:50 PM

9. You're not jaded, they just think we're stupid

I had Fox Noise in the background behind me while doing work for a client. ISIS, Fear, Terra, OIL!

I can see why the less savvy among us are swayed by it. They simply talk about it all the time as if it's all a fact, and it becomes your world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:17 PM

61. The TVs in offices and stores and doctors' offices in 2003 were all set to Fox.

It was horrible to have to be in a waiting room or store and be forced to watch their channel.

Now in our area you don't see Fox anymore. Most of them are set to BayNews9, a Brighthouse 24 news and weather channel. Mostly fair and balanced, really.

Yes, as far as thinking we are stupid, they really must believe that. The talking points that now go from one channel to another are so obvious, so silly...that intelligent people must disregard them at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:51 PM

10. Great Post!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 11:55 PM

11. Americans now being told not to travel, that it is not safe for us.

And we are being told it is not a good idea to let others come here, as they could be terrorists.

So we have somehow arrived inside this ersatz state of martial law, but why?

Is the economic house of cards abut to come tumbling down?

http://www.profitconfidential.com/u-s-dollar/u-s-dollar-collapse/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:14 AM

16. Many are harboring similar thoughts.

A republican I was talking to today said have you noticed how every time you turn on the news they are trying to scare us? People are noticing. Maybe they won't fall for the stuff so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:26 AM

18. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:29 AM

19. Not watching any mainstream media is the best possible thing you can do for yourself.

 

I don't have a TV. When I moved to my current location after a divorce, I had several reasons for not getting a TV, one of which was the cost. I treated that decision as temporary, as an experiment, and at the time (this was more than seven years ago) honestly thought I'd be getting a TV and cable or satellite soon enough.

Instead, at this point, I can't imagine ever having regular TV again.

Here's a list of the reasons, in no special order, just as they occur to me:
1. No commercials. OMG is that wonderful. Best of all, no political commercials.
2. Because of no commercials, I'm not sucked into the SPEND SPEND SPEND messages.
3. I do get to watch many television shows, sometimes using Netflix (which means I'm several years behind on some things), sometimes on streaming. I don't happen to feel very deprived. Your mileage may vary.
4. I'm not locked into the schedules of the various networks. What I watch, I watch on my own time. It's incredibly freeing.
5. No mainstream news. Since I do subscribe to the local paper, I know what's happening in my corner of the world. I wake up every morning to Amy Goodman. That radio station also does BBC news before and after Amy, as well as at noontime. I wind up far better informed about the world than regular viewers of Fox, just to name one.
6. When some sort of breaking news happens, I can go to the internet, google TV stations in that city, and invariably they will be live streaming what is happening. This will be a local station, and I often get to choose between two or three in that market, and it's far better than the national feed would be, CNN, MSNBC, or even your local ABC, CBS, or NBS station gone to live coverage. Trust me on this. Actually, for all of you who have TV and would never give it up, this is still an excellent strategy for breaking news.
7. Did I mention no commercials? You who watch regular TV have no idea. When I'm in a hotel and turn on the TV, within 30 minutes I turn it back off because of those awful commercials. If I'm at someone's house and the TV is on, I don't say anything (because I do try very hard not to be rude) but it can make me totally crazy. I usually have to retreat to another room.
8. Connected to no commercials is that I find it quite easy to live on a somewhat restricted budget. Not being bombarded with messages to buy, buy, buy, I generally purchase those things that I actually need, and some that I really do want. I'm not desperately poor, nor am I a total purist. I probably spend money on things many readers here would say, "WTF? Why is she spending money on THAT??"
9. My final thought to all of you is this: give serious thought to giving up your TV. It's not necessarily easy. This is the fourth time in my adult life I've gone without, and so for most of you, who've always had TV your entire lives, it wouldn't be easy. If you decide to try, do it on a contingency basis. Do NOT assume it will be permanent. Assume it's just an experiment and see how it goes.

Good luck and best wishes to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:57 AM

23. Sad to say...

I agree with you.

Only reason I stay here in the US....I have elderly relatives...and deserve to by buried with dignity....despite I'm the only one to do so for them. Once they are gone....have no intention to stay "state side". Yeah...I'm going "to do the "love it or leave it"."....and leave it...assuming things get worse and the nation becomes fascist (albeit...under a new sexier name)...and make a run for a nation that doesn't embrace fascism. I have a piece of paper with my name on it, and it says something about economics...and when you add I used to be an advocate for Milton Friedman style economics....but now...for all intents and purposes, a semi-Marxist...not exactly on the "Xmas list". It also makes me a target should shit hit the fan.

Long story short, better to live under a banana republic than a fascist nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xolodno (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:46 PM

54. Spain, innoculated against fascism by experience, leaning the other way

 

in fact. Plus it's Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:00 PM

55. True...but there is something about a white sand beach...

...and tropical drinks....on a deserted beach....with a Caribbean wind...in the buff.

Oh wait...that was TMI....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xolodno (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:12 PM

60. That's here:

 

Canary Islands. Especially if you surf...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:35 PM

62. I'll have to look into it...plus the surfing thing.

I like to mentally transport myself to the Rivera Maya at a resort called Desire...


..oh wait...that was TMI again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:59 AM

24. TV is a terrible addiction

 

An upper downer combination with some fear tossed in .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:01 AM

25. I'm told only foreign news sources engage in propaganda.

It's obvious it also happens at home. Years ago they coined the term "mighty Wurlitzer" to describe US propaganda efforts. If anything it's even more sophisticated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:02 AM

26. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:04 AM

27. I'm now apathetic about being jaded.

 

Kidding, I just watch Reaganland continue to spread with profit going one direction. The media makes money, their paycheck depends on it. Easier to get the truth from someone not banking on societies gullible.

The Interwebs is a good one if you know where to look. Better then the M$M.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:19 AM

28. hello Jaded. Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:19 AM

33. ......



Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:22 AM

29. I see propaganda all over the place, too.

 

Jacques Ellul (1973) calls the type of propaganda designed to incite revolution or to undermine existing regimes the "propaganda of agitation." Ellul also describes another type which he believes to be much more important than agitation propaganda for people living in developed nations. Every modern social system uses what Ellul calls the "propaganda of integration" to promote acceptance and support among its citizens for that system.

Integration propaganda is important because no modern society can function for long without at least the implicit support of most of its citizens. Integration propaganda is promulgated not in pamphlets put out by small groups of subversives or in broadcasts made by foreign powers, but in the main channels of communication - newspapers, television, movies, textbooks, political speeches etc.-produced by some of the most influential, powerful, and respected people in a society. It is therefore difficult to recognize despite (or perhaps because of) its omnipresence, particularly because it is based upon ideals and biases that are accepted by most members of the society.

It is important here to point out an assumption that may be disputed by some psychologists that underlies all propaganda analysis: That beliefs, attitudes, and cognitions play a crucial role in the determination of political opinions and behavior. Propaganda researchers should participate in determining the exact role played by ideas in politics, but few scholars would become actively involved in propaganda analysis if they did not believe that what people read, hear, see, and think is an important determinant of their political actions.

Do personality variables or styles of cognitive processing affect susceptibility to propaganda? Ellul (1973) claims that contrary to popular belief, as a result of their increased exposure to propaganda, highly educated, well-informed citizens of modern societies are more, not less, open to propaganda than are people who receive less information.

Silverstein, B. (1987). Toward a science of propaganda. Political Psychology (8)1. 49-59.


Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at the University of Wisconsin - Madison)

If you go back to the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences published in 1933 -- days when people were a little more open and honest in what they said -- there's an article on propaganda, and it's well worth reading. There's an entry under propaganda. The entry is written by a leading- one- maybe the leading American political scientist, Harold Lasswell, who was very influential, particularly in this area, communications, and so on. And in this entry in the International Encyclopedia on propaganda he says, we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests. They're not, he said. Even with the rise of mass education- doesn't mean that people can judge their own interests. They can't. The best judges of their interests are elites -- the specialized class, the cool observers, the people who have rationality -- and therefore they must be granted the means to impose their will. Notice, for the common good. Because, again, because- well, he says, because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses, he said it's necessary to have a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda. Propaganda, he says, we shouldn't have a negative connotation about, it's neutral. Propaganda, he says, is as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad; since were good people, obviously, -- that's sort of true by definition -- we'll use it for good purposes, and there should be no negative connotations about that. In fact, it's moral to use it, because that's the only way that you can save the ignorant and stupid masses of the population from their own errors. You don't let a three year old run across the street, and you don't let ordinary people make their own decisions. You have to control them.

And why do you need propaganda? Well, he explains that. He says, in military-run or feudal societies -- what we would these days call totalitarian societies -- you don't really need propaganda that much. And the reason is you've got a- you've got a club in your hand. You can control the way people behave, and therefore it doesn't matter much what they think, because if they get out of line you can control them -- for their own good, of course. But once you lose the club, you know, once the State loses its capacity to coerce by force, then you have some problems. The voice of the people is heard -- you've got all these formal mechanisms around that permit people to express themselves, and even participate, and vote, and that sort of thing -- and you can't control them by force, because you've lost that capacity. But the voice of the people is heard, and therefore you've got to make sure it says the right thing. And in order to make sure it says the right thing, you've got to have effective and sophisticated propaganda, again, for their own good.


VIDEO NEWS RELEASES
Unattributed Prepackaged News Stories Violate Publicity or Propaganda Prohibition
GAO-05-643T

Prepackaged news stories are complete, audio-video presentations that may be included in video news releases, or VNRs. They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations. To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray “reporters” and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast. These practices allow prepackaged news stories to be broadcast, without alteration, as television news.

The publicity or propaganda prohibition states, “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.” GAO has long interpreted this provision to prohibit agencies from, among other things, producing materials that are covert as to origin. Our opinions have emphasized that the critical element of covert propaganda is concealment of the government’s role in producing the materials. Agencies have violated this law when they used appropriated funds to produce articles and op-ed pieces that were the ostensible position of persons not associated with the government.

In two legal opinions this past year, federal agencies commissioned and distributed prepackaged news stories and introductory scripts about their activities that were designed to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private news broadcasters. In neither case did the agency include any statement or other indication in its news stories that disclosed to the television viewing audience, the target audience of the purported news
stories, that the agency wrote and produced those news stories. In other words, television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government. GAO concluded that those prepackaged news stories violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition.

While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by
television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials. It is not enough that the contents of an agency’s communication may be
unobjectionable. Neither is it enough for an agency to identify itself to the broadcasting organization as the source of the prepackaged news story.


Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them. That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.

But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow. The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."

The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times. Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from. Critics have derided such video news releases as taxpayer-financed attempts by the administration to promote its policies in the guise of independent news reports. Within the last year, the GAO has rapped the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy for distributing such stories about the Medicare drug benefit and the administration's anti-drug campaign, respectively.

In an interview yesterday, Walker said the administration's approach is both contrary to appropriations law and unethical. "This is more than a legal issue. It's also an ethical issue and involves important good government principles, namely the need for openness in connection with government activities and expenditures," Walker said. "We should not just be seeking to do what's arguably legal. We should be doing what's right." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that federal agencies have used video news releases for years. "As long as they are providing factual information, it's okay," he said.


MEMORANDUM FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, II
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FROM:

John C. Yoo
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Robert J. Delahunty
Special Counsel

RE: Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States

It is vital to grasp that attacks on this scale and with these consequences are "more akin to war than terrorism."1

1. Lewis Libby, Legal Authority for a Domestic Military Role in Homeland Defense, in Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, &. George D. Wilson (eds.), The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons 305, 305 (1999).

~snip~

First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.'''When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' ... No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931) (citation omitted); cf. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 n.3 (1980) (recognizing that "{t}he Government has a compelling interest in protecting both the secrecy of information important to our national security and the appearance of confidentiality so essential to the effective operation of our foreign intelligence service”) Accordingly, our analysis must be informed by the principle that ''while the constitutional structure and controls of our Government are our guides equally in war and in peace, they must be read with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument fully in mind." Lichter, 334 U.S. at 782; see also United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 277 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) ({W}e must interpret constitutional protections in light of the undoubted power of the United States to take actions to assert its legitimate power and authority abroad."; McCall v. McDowell, 15 F. Cas. 1235, 1243 (C.C.D. Cal. 1867) (No. 8,673) (The Constitution is "a practical scheme of government, having all necessary power to maintain its existence and authority during peace and war, rebellion or invasion”).


Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 

~snip~

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too.

They also understood the financial relationship between the networks and their analysts. Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.

As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.

The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said. It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”


Describing the Program 
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/19/us/20080419_GENERALS_DOCS.html 
In memorandums and e-mail messages obtained by The Times, Defense Department officials describe the goals and mission of a program to shape public opinion about the Iraq war through retired military officers who are media analysts.


Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all-12-26/news/30559559_1_bachmann-romney-santorum& 

In January 2009, the inspector general’s office issued a report that said it had found no wrongdoing in the program. But soon after, the inspector general’s office retracted the entire report, saying it was so riddled with inaccuracies and flaws that none of its conclusions could be relied upon. In late 2009, the inspector general’s office began a new inquiry. 

The results of the new inquiry, first reported by The Washington Times, confirm that the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld made a concerted effort starting in 2002 to reach out to network military analysts to build and sustain public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

~snip~ 

But several former top aides to Mr. Rumsfeld insisted that the purpose of the program was merely to inform and educate, and many of the 63 military analysts interviewed during the inquiry agreed. 

Given the conflicting accounts, the inspector general’s office scrutinized some 25,000 pages of documents related to the program. But except for one “unsigned, undated, draft memorandum,” investigators could not find any documents that described the strategy or objective of the program. Investigators said that to understand the program’s intent, they had to rely on interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld’s former public affairs aides, including his spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. Based on these interviews, the report said, investigators concluded that the “outreach activities were intended to serve as an open information exchange with credible third-party subject-matter experts” who could “explain military issues, actions and strategies to the American public.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 03:45 AM

30. "The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN"

That from The Pentagon's Hidden Hand link.

Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.

As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.


So unbelievable, but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:34 AM

35. Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War

 

Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

-60% had at least one of the three misperceptions and only 30% had no misperceptions (PIPA, 2003, p. 7)

-among those with no misperceptions, 23% support the war. Among those with just one of the misperceptions, 53% supported the war-rising to 78% with two misperceptions and 86% for those with all three (PIPA, 2003, p. 11) among respondents who were Fox News viewers, 80% were likely to have one or more misperceptions while 23% of PBS-NPR audiences were likely to have misperceptions (PIPA, 2003, p. 13)

-When asked whether the US has found “clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization,” among the combined sample for the three-month period 49% said that such evidence had been found. This misperception was substantially higher among those who get their news primarily from Fox—67%. Once again the NPR-PBS audience was the lowest at 16%
.
-when respondents were asked whether the US has “found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” since the war had ended, 22% of all respondents over June-September mistakenly thought this had happened. Once again, Fox viewers were the highest with 33% having this belief, while only 11% of those who watch PBS or listen to NPR had it. (PIPA, 2003, p. 14)

-“people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq.” Over the three-month period, 25% of all respondents said, incorrectly, that “the majority of people favor the US having gone to war.” Of Fox watchers, 35% said this. Only 5% of those who watch PBS or listen to NPR misperceived world opinion in this way. (PIPA, 2003, p. 14)

-Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three key misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however the average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from PBSNPR the average rate is 32%. (PIPA, 2003, p. 15)

-for most media outlets, increased attention did not reduce the likelihood of misperceptions. Most striking, in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions. (PIPA, 2003, p. 16)

-whether respondents believed clear evidence had been found that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working closely together. Fox News was the exception. Those who followed the news closely were far more likely to have this misperception. Among those who did not follow the news at all 42% had the misperception, rising progressively at higher levels of attention to 80% among those who followed the news very closely. On the other hand, those respondents who get their news primarily from print sources were less likely to have this misperception if they were following the Iraq situation more closely. Of those not following the news closely, 49% had the misperception--declining to 32% among those who follow the news very closely. (PIPA, 2003, p. 16)


Until February, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal was the second biggest shareholder in News Corporation.

Billionaire Alwaleed Sells $190 Million News Corp Stake
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-04/saudi-s-kingdom-holding-cuts-stake-in-news-corp-to-1-from-6-6-

Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal’s investment firm sold a stake valued at almost $190 million in News Corp., reducing its holding in Rupert Murdoch’s media company to about 1 percent.

Alwaleed’s Kingdom Holding cut its ownership of Class B shares to 2 million from 13.2 million, or 6.6 percent, it said in a statement to the Saudi bourse Wednesday. The sale generated 705 million riyals ($188 million), which will be used for other investments, it said. Through Kingdom, Prince Alwaleed holds stakes in companies including Citigroup Inc. and Twitter Inc.

Alwaleed, who had the second-largest holding of voting stock in News Corp. after the Murdoch family, has been a staunch ally of the media baron. He publicly supported the family’s running of News Corp. amid phone-hacking revelations in 2011 that saw the New York-based company abandon its bid to take over the rest of European pay-TV operator Sky Plc.

“The reduction of KHC’s holding in News Corp. has been decided in the context of a general portfolio review,” Alwaleed said in a statement on Kingdom’s website. “We remain firm believers in News Corp.’s competent management, led by CEO Robert Thomson, and are fully supportive of Rupert Murdoch and his family.”


The Saudi royal family considered Al Qaeda a threat because of the group's dislike of the royal family's opulent lifestyle. What better way to get rid of them than to use the US military? Plus, it allowed for the opportunity to take out Saddam; he had been screwing with the oil supply, letting too much in and dropping the price.

Fox News served as the propaganda outlet for the Saudi royal family.

The Chairman of Kingdom Holdings is Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal

HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal
http://www.kingdom.com.sa/hrh-prince-alwaleed-bin-talal

“The question is not where KHC is as a company right now, or even what it has achieved to date. The big question is what the future holds, and if we can continue to deliver the same spectacular level of growth and success? The simple answer is ‘yes’, and furthermore we’re well placed to even exceed what has been achieved before.” Alwaleed Bin Talal – Chairman

The central figure behind KHC, one of the world’s unrivalled international holding companies, is His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdul-Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia. Named twice by Forbes Magazine as one of the world’s most intelligent and creative investors, Prince Alwaleed sets the agenda for KHC’s world operations, providing a guiding vision which has seen remarkable success and worldwide recognition.

The grandson of two of the Arab world’s most celebrated figures – King Abdul-Aziz Alsaud, founder and first ruler of Saudi Arabia and HE. Riad El Solh, iconic statesman in Lebanon’s drive for independence – Prince Alwaleed has always been inspired by the uncommon achievements of his family line.

In addition to the Prince’s business interests, HRH funds a series of highly respected charitable foundations aimed at affecting social change and providing relief and opportunities to those in need. In recognition for this important contribution, Prince Alwaleed has been the recipient of many honors and accolades from esteemed organizations, societies, monarchs and heads of state worldwide.


Kingdom Holdings owns a significant share of Citigroup.

http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments/finance-services-and-investments/citigroup

Citigroup
Citigroup is a core investment for KHC and, since 1991, among its most consistently successful.

Citigroup represents a unique situation in which a privately negotiated investment was made in 1991 in new preferred shares at a time when Citigroup’s predecessor Citicorp was experiencing financial difficulties. Following KHC’s successes in the Saudi Arabian banking sector, the company identified Citicorp as an undervalued company with strong brand assets and significant potential for growth. By negotiating an investment at a time of great financial uncertainty for Citicorp, KHC was able to acquire a significant amount of Citicorp shares at a valuable discount to the market price – a bold decision that subsequently proved phenomenally profitable.

KHC’s investment played a key role in renewing market confidence in Citicorp, and having demonstrated high levels of support for the rejuvenated company, KHC remained a core shareholder as it undertook a period of huge corporate transformation that saw the group make key acquisitions, such as Travelers, Smith Barney, Salomon and Schroders.


So, in addition to helping out the Saudis with her Iraq war vote, Hillary Clinton gets paid $250,000 by Citibank for a speech.

Hillary should have never spoke at Citibank. Criminal banksters should be shunned, not legitimized.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=880693

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:20 AM

34. Yep, it's relentless.

If it's not placements and infotainment and infomercials and telemarkers all day long, or encrustations all over your web pages insistently demanding that you pay attention to them, then it's the two minutes of hate or the two minutes of fear or all sorts of contrived babble to convince us that our political leaders are not even more confused than we are.

But they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 01:30 PM

45. Relentless describes it very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:35 AM

36. Remember when Scott McClelland's conscience got to him. He spoke out about Bush's war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/28/georgebush.usa

A former aide to President Bush claims the White House deliberately mounted a dishonest propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq invasion to the US public, in the most damning insider account of the presidency so far.

Scott McClellan, who worked for Bush for seven years, including three as White House spokesman, brands the war a "serious strategic blunder" and "not necessary".

The scathing comments stunned Washington today because the Bush team, until now, has had a reputation for intense loyalty to their boss.

Republican strategists and former White House colleagues turned on McClellan, accusing him of writing the book for the money and asking why, if he had felt as he had, he had not resigned at the time. The White House expressed sadness and puzzlement

....McClellan says in the 341-page book that the way Bush managed the Iraq issue from the summer of 2002 "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option". The US invaded in 2003.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 07:54 AM

37. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

I am sick to death over the massive MIC propaganda effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 09:20 AM

38. rec & kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 10:45 AM

40. Yes nothing but conjecture on CNN this morning

Turned on CNN this morning and saw "experts" telling the viewers what would happen if.....
Just more bs inciting anger, fear and hate. This is disgusting how do we put an end to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:11 PM

41. word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:33 PM

42. Very thoughtful thread, madfloridian

Thanks for sharing it.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:50 PM

43. That's because it's not our media. It's THEIR media. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:03 PM

46. The M$M's lying must be APPROVED lying, not just ANY lie.

 

Just ask Dan Rather or Brian Williams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:42 PM

47. Many of us on my side of the fence have documented this charade

over the years.. with documented proof and FOIA documents
I see a lot of misdirection and disinformation promoted on this site as compared to when Bush was in power and we saw the trolls for what they were.

Many of us post news that's on the backpage and not picked up on the front page but is still as important or more important that that front page shit

Unhappycamper has documented 13 years of military malfeasance which he could write a book about as has Octafish and his discoveries..

Media? I still see too many people on DU reporting what they see on TV and promoting the stories the media is promoting.

Great Post but ........... as you know some of us could add pages and pages
to the bullshit stories the media promotes.

What should we scared of today or outraged about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:07 PM

57. Word. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:49 PM

48. K & R for the OP and the responses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:05 PM

56. I have a hard enough trouble swallowing my food let alone huge-ass whoppers like these. Thanks

for posting, madfloridian. We should never forget these huge-ass lies told by the dod and their minion media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:08 PM

58. The National Security state demands a permanent state of war. Since 1947 this has been true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:09 PM

59. The purpose of the corporate propaganda

 

and that is all any media, but most especially the "news" is, is to control and manipulate the low-information/dumb as a box of rocks mass of sheeple and get them to march into the slaughterhouse (which their masters have told them doesn't even exist) and be processed accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:41 PM

63. Good thread kr nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 09:01 PM

66. Propaganda is everywhere.

Having lived through the cold war with it's "duck and cover" bullshit, I'm saddened to see it being used still and more sophisticated than ever.

I'm always happy to see you and a handful of others here on DU trying to educate.

Thank you for not giving up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2015, 03:43 AM

68. K&R!



It's inexcusable what has been allowed to happen in this country. And a great deal is due to the media. The bought and paid for U.S. version of Pravda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread