Manipulation: From where informations come from?
Who of you ask himself from where informations in the other blogs or in this one come from?
If bloggers only copy news on New York Times, The Times, Financial Times, BBC, CNN, etc., the result is we’ll see a lot of news of the same type. The questions is: and if BBC doesn’t tell about an event, because isn’t good for UK or some friends’ interests?
The same thing we can say for CNN or the others. If you read our post about Bush’s economic interests on Afghanistan, you’ll see that CNN covered with its silence the story about relationship between Bush, Unocal Corporation and Afghanistan talibans. For this reason, read this:
- Abe de Vries “U.S. Army ‘Psyops’ Specialists Worked for CNN,” Trouw, February 21, 2000
- Abe de Vries “The American Army Loves CNN,” Trouw, February 25, 2000
“ Reports in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (2/21/00, 2/25/00) and France’s Intelligence Newsletter (2/17/00) have revealed that several officers from the US Army’s 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Ft. Bragg worked in the news division at CNN‘s Atlanta headquarters last year, starting in the final days of the Kosovo War…”
“… What makes the CNN story especially troubling is the fact that the network allowed the Army’s covert propagandists to work in its headquarters, where they learned the ins and outs of CNN‘s operations. Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not influence news reporting, did the network allow the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against CNN itself?…”
“…Please write to CNN and ask why the network allowed government propaganda specialists to work in their news division…”
We are the only ones to see this? In these days FAIR wrote:
“The New York Times and Washington Post (11/28/07) both failed to adequately challenge the dishonesty of former President Bill Clinton’s declaration that he had been opposed to the Iraq War “from the beginning.” Clinton, in fact, was a supporter of the war, both before the invasion and in the first year or so of the fighting.”
You can read all the article from which we extract some paragraphs:
“…During the war on Serbia, as with other recent conflicts involving the US, wars, CNN’s screen was filled with an interminable procession of US military officers. On April 27 of last year, Amy Goodman of the Pacifica radio network, put a good question to Frank Sesno, who is CNN’s senior vice president for political coverage.
GOODMAN:”If you support the practice of putting ex-military men -generals – on the payroll to share their opinion during a time of war, would you also support putting peace activists on the payroll to give a different opinion during a time of war? To be sitting there with the military generals talking about why they feel that war is not appropriate?”
FRANK SESNO: “We bring the generals in because of their expertise in a particular area. We call them analysts. We don’t bring them in as advocates. In fact, we actually talk to them about that – they’re not there as advocates.”
Exactly a week before Sesno said this, CNN had featured as one of its military analysts, Lt Gen Dan Benton, US Army Retired.
BENTON: “I don’t know what our countrymen that are questioning why we’re involved in this conflict are thinking about. As I listened to this press conference this morning with reports of rapes burning, villages being burned and this particularly incredible report of blood banks, of blood being harvested from young boys for the use of Yugoslav forces, I just got madder and madder. The United States has a responsibility as the only superpower in the world, and when we learn about these things, somebody has got to stand up and say, that’s enough, stop it, we aren’t going to put up with this. And so the United States is fulfilling its leadership responsibility with our NATO allies and are trying to stop these incredible atrocities.”
Please note what CNN’s supposedly non-advocatory analyst Benton was ranting about: a particularly bizarre and preposterous NATO propaganda item about 700 Albanian boys being used as human blood banks for Serb fighters.”
If a blogger posts news he read from this media, how we can be sure of their authenticity? From Wikipedia: “Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions“.
Is it not enough?