Difference between revisions of "Corporate media/Deep state control"
(fix brackets) |
(import image and caption from parent article) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{person | {{person | ||
|WP= | |WP= | ||
+ | |image=ThePeopleWillBelieve.jpg | ||
+ | |image_width=300px | ||
+ | |image_caption=[[George Orwell]] had a long association with the [[BBC]] and was familiar with its editorial loyalties, oversight and methods | ||
|description=On important topics, control of the corporate media by the deep state is the rule, not the exception. | |description=On important topics, control of the corporate media by the deep state is the rule, not the exception. | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 02:19, 20 October 2015
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
![]() George Orwell had a long association with the BBC and was familiar with its editorial loyalties, oversight and methods | |
Interest of | Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Project Censored, Swiss Policy Research |
On important topics, control of the corporate media by the deep state is the rule, not the exception. |
On topics of importance to deep state forces, the use of the corporate controlled media (CCM) to massage public opinion is the rule, not the exception. Overt censorship by contrast is the exception rather than the rule. Why? It is rarely needed, since as an extension of the establishment, the corporate media is infiltrated with spooks[1] who can, within their normal job remit, happen to promote or edit certain narratives while quietly removing others. The hierarchical system of editor control is the most obvious way in which structure aids such control, but also the language, culture and the broader traditions all work together to ensure that certain topics are rarely if ever viewed from certain perspectives, while others are avoided altogether.
Contents
Self-censorship
A relatively large proportion of content is devoted to "safe" topics such as sports, celebrities, gossip etc. on which minimal censorship is needed. Issues of social significance receive a more cautious treatment that reflects the regulating group mind of journalists, pundits and spokesmen (very commonly with institutional affiliations) - parties who can be counted on to limit their opinions to respect the unspoken censorship that is the hallmark of corporate media output. The first strategy for handling figures who tackle unwanted topics or who express undesirable opinions is simply to ignore them (for example, the corporate media's news blackout of Rev. Kevin Annett). For those who nevertheless achieve such prominence that ignoring them would in itself attract attention, there is the catch all designation of "conspiracy theorist", routinely applied to describe anyone whose independent thought would present a challenge to the official narrative.
Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Gary Webb, clearly demonstrated what happens to anyone inside the corporate media machine who demonstrates that they are more loyal to the truth than the establishment. He never believed that censorship was a significant factor until he hit upon a topic of major importance to the deep state - his proof of the CIA's intimate connections to the global drug trade. Since most journalists never touch on such sensitive topics, they remain in blissful ignorance of the strict limits to their discourse. Many internalize the self-censorship, perhaps after a few words from an editor, and learn the particular importance of the official narrative on topics such as "Terrorism", "Zionism", the merits of Globalisation, Economic growth, "Free trade" etc. The archive section of Media Lens gives numerous trenchant examples of this content policing process in action.[2]
Forbidden topics
While party politics is encouraged, deep politics is forbidden. Where deep events are reported, important connections to other events are obscured and spurious connections inferences often drawn. Inherently threatening topics such as false flag attacks are more or less forbidden topics. Where an official narrative becomes untenable, official opposition narratives are often ready as a fallback. So debate is allowed about whether US/UK/NATO made a mistake, but the real motives of their military actions are not called into question.
Language
The corporate media community reveals its loyalties by the language it uses. Muammar Gaddafi was almost always referred to as "Colonel Gaddafi" by the Western media. His government was referred to as a "regime". The Pentagon doesn't use drones to murder or assassinate people, it carries out "targeted killings". The CIA doesn't kidnap and torture people, it "renders" them to places where they are subject to "enhanced interrogation".
The careful choice of language and buzzwords goes beyond merely trying to put a slant on an existing reality, and sometimes extends to the creation of a fictitious awareness. Corporate media has little room for carefully reasoned argument, preferring instead the mantra of "repetition, repetition, repetition". Examples include "the (Islamic) terrorist threat" and even "Al Qaeda".
Promoted narratives
Certain ideas lack evidential backing, but are commonly promoted, for example, to the narrative of the so-called "War on terror" and the dangers of Islam extremism. Corporate media massively over-emphasise the dangerous of terrorism as opposed to other dangers[3] and portray its perpetrators as overwhelmingly Muslim, when the reality according to Europol is that <1% of terrorist incidents in Europe are by Islamic terrorists.[4] Rebecca Gordon details how since 9/11 the "war on terror" has been used to keep the US population in a state of fear, and how public acceptance of their government's policy of torture has risen as a result.[5] Particular, promoted topics are transparently useful to the deep state - such as the idea of "Lone nuts" who provide cover for otherwise difficult to explain assassinations.
Related Quotations
Page | Quote | Author | Date |
---|---|---|---|
"Fake news website" | “The mainstream corporate media is desperate. They want to suppress independent and alternative online media, which it categorizes as “fake news”. Readers on social media are warned not to go onto certain sites. The intent of this initiative is to smear honest reporting and Truth in Media. Our analysis confirms that the corporate media are routinely involved in distorting the facts and turning realities upside down. They are the unspoken architects of “Fake News”.” | Michel Chossudovsky | 24 November 2016 |
Gerard Batten | “Thank you, Mr. President. The [European] Commission have recently replied to my written question confirming that Commissioners [Joaquin] Almunia and [Neelie] Kroes attended the Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz in June. The Commission cannot tell me details of what was discussed, but that surely the Bilderberg meetings do not take decisions.
If Bilderberg meetings are just talking shops, why do the most powerful figures from around the world, including George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bother to attend? What other summit of world leaders in politics, finance and business would go completely unreported in the mainstream media such as the BBC? It’s impossible not to reach the conclusion that the non-reporting of these events is anything other than a conspiracy between the [Bilderberg] organisers and the media. It merely confirms the belief of many that the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group is to bring about undemocratic world government. It’s a disgrace that the European Commission is colluding in that.” | Gerard Batten | 12 September 2011 |
George Carlin | “Now, to balance the scale, I'd like to talk about some things that bring us together, things that point out our similarities instead of our differences. 'Cause that's all you ever hear about in this country. It's our differences. That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about—the things that separate us, things that make us different from one another. That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money! Fairly simple thing. Happens to work. You know? Anything different—that's what they're gonna talk about—race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank! You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs.” | George Carlin | |
Corporate media/Censorship | “would through a lurid light of distrust and disbelief onto our entire electoral system, political system and basically our democracy” | Jonathan Simon | 24 November 2016 |
Corporate media/Logic | “Now, to balance the scale, I'd like to talk about some things that bring us together, things that point out our similarities instead of our differences. 'Cause that's all you ever hear about in this country. It's our differences. That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about—the things that separate us, things that make us different from one another. That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money! Fairly simple thing. Happens to work. You know? Anything different—that's what they're gonna talk about—race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank! You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs.” | George Carlin | |
Corporate media/Mendacity | “More and more we are seeing narratives about cyber-threats being used to advance reports of “attacks” and “acts of war” being perpetrated which, as far as the public is concerned, consist of nothing other than the authoritative assertions of confident-sounding media pundits. There was a recent NBC exclusive which was co-authored by Ken Dilanian, who is an actual, literal CIA asset, about the threat of hackers working for the Iranian government. The alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is now routinely compared to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, despite no hard, verifiable evidence that that interference even took place ever being presented to the public.” | Caitlin Johnstone | 11 August 2018 |
Katharine Graham | “We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I think democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” | Katharine Graham | 1988 |
Institute for Statecraft/Secrecy | “Was there a ‘D Notice’ issued by the British government forbidding mainstream media outlets from reporting on the embarrassing leak of this clandestine propaganda operation?” | ||
Integrity Initiative | “offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day.” | Craig Murray | December 2018 |
Journalist | “If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests. So how could I possibly agree with people like Noam Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian, who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress.” | Gary Webb | |
Journalist | “There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” | John Swinton | |
Journalist | “This story of CIA drug dealing became a sensation because of the website, not because of the story, but because people could get to it. And they could never have gotten to it before because the San Jose Mercury News is a small regional newspaper in Northern California that you couldn't read if you lived in New York or you couldn't read if you lived in L.A.. But this story you could read anywhere in the world.” | Gary Webb | 2003 |
Operation Gladio/B | “I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel [Edmonds]? The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the [corporate] media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told "don’t touch this..."” | Daniel Ellsberg | |
Operation Gladio/B | “A journalist with the Sunday Times‘ investigative unit told this author he had interviewed former Special Agent in Charge, Dennis Saccher, who had moved to the FBI’s Colorado office. Saccher reportedly confirmed the veracity of Edmonds’ allegations of espionage, telling him that Edmonds’ story “should have been front page news” because it was “a scandal bigger than Watergate.”” | Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed | |
Operation Gladio/B | “[The] investigation based on Edmonds’ information was supposed to have four parts, but was inexplicably dropped. “The story was pulled half-way, suddenly, without any warning”, the journalist said. “I wasn’t party to the editorial decision to drop the story, but there was a belief in the office amongst several journalists who were part of the Insight investigative unit that the decision was made under pressure from the U.S. State Department, because the story might cause a diplomatic incident... The way the story was dropped was unusual, but the belief amongst my colleagues this happened under political pressure is plausible.” He cryptically described an “editorial mechanism, linked to the paper but not formally part of it, which could however exert control on stories when necessary, linked to certain interests.” When asked which interests, the journalist said, “I can’t say. I can’t talk about that.” | An unnamed "lead reporter" on Edmonds' series at the Sunday Times. | |
Sunday Times | “The Sunday Times was a serious, respectable newspaper until Andrew Neil became its editor in the mid-1980s and turned it into a mouth-piece for MI5 and the MOD to run their rubbish through.” | Robin Ramsay | 8 November 2000 |
John Swinton | “There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” | John Swinton | 1880 |
Washington Conference on International Terrorism | “Given terrorism's unique dependence on publicity and amplification, the media have a crucial role in either facilitating or obstructing the spread of terrorism against the West... manipulation of public opinion is in fact, central to the terrorist strategy. For this purpose, access to the media, indeed their domination, is indispensable.” |
Related Documents
Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Document:Hacks and Spooks | article | 3 March 2006 | Richard Keeble | |
Document:Objectives, Tasks and Cluster activities and Relationships | Wikispooks Page | Euan Grant | Euan Grant lists an extensive list of willing collaborators. Intelligence people, non-fiction authors and lots and lots of media. | |
Document:The CIA Makes the News | article | August 1976 | Steve Weissman | |
Document:The Propaganda Multiplier | media analysis | 2016 | Swiss Policy Research |
Rating
![4star.png](/w/images/thumb/2/25/4star.png/100px-4star.png)
Good explanation of how the corporate media is controlled by agents of the deep state.