FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

It's ALL about covert control of the media
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:19 pm    Post subject: British Propaganda TV Reply with quote

Quote:
The programme initially used cutting edge technology for delivery into Iraq - using a US aircraft called ‘Commando Solo’ - a highly modified C-130 aircraft that has flying television transmission capability.


No. Not the BBC this time.

Have you heard of British Satellite News?

How about Towards Freedom TV?

No?

Neither had I.

You, as a British taxpayer are, however, funding both of these ventures:

Quote:
British Satellite News (BSN) is a free television news and features service which provides you with coverage of worldwide topical events and stories from a British perspective. Our dedicated team of experienced television journalists and camera crews produce topical stories that inform and entertain a global audience.


Quote:
Monday to Friday the BSN coverage includes major UK news events and top stories in business, culture, health, the environment, science, technology and sport.

Broadcasters can use BSN material directly into daily news programmes and services;

* Broadcast BSN stories directly into your daily programme schedule
* Edit them to add breadth and depth to your international news coverage
* Add a UK perspective to local programmes
* Archive the stories as a future library source
* British Satellite News is transmitted via APTN Monday to Friday at 1400 GMT. The service can be downlinked directly from the satellite – no decoder is necessary.

BSN also provide written shot lists and guide scripts for each story. Guide scripts in Arabic and English are available via email and from the website.


So far so good.

BSN is produced by World Television who state:

Quote:
We produce British Satellite News, the world's most successful public diplomacy broadcast news service, on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.


Public diplomacy eh?

World Television proudly use the FCO propaganda channel, BSN as a case study:

Quote:
CASE STUDY

Over 400 stations around the world receive BSN stories, including broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia.

OBJECTIVES

The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office wanted to establish a television news service to explain and promote a greater understanding of British Government policies. It would also need to project a British view of topical events, and to help promote the advances by a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic modern Britain.

SOLUTION

British Satellite News (BSN) is a free satellite news service, fed out daily by Reuters on its global satellites. It is an unencrypted signal - at a set time - and also transmitted by Afrovision and Arabsat. BSN has a tape service for its material too. BSN scripts are sent out by e-mail and fax and are updated on the BSN website daily. BSN also supplies broadcasters with a weekly diary of planned coverage.

THE OUTCOME

In October 2002, the Foreign Office asked BSN to concentrate its coverage on the Arab and Islamic world, particularly the Middle East. By November 2003, British Satellite News material was being used regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries.


Towards Freedom is also produced by World Television and is paid for by our government too.

Now I wonder which department that would be . . .

Quote:
World Television also produced Towards Freedom Television on behalf of the UK Government. Towards Freedom was a daily Arabic language television service, which allowed the coalition to deliver a balanced news and information service direct to the people of Iraq.

OBJECTIVES

The UK Government needed a daily Arabic language television service for Iraq following the end of hostilities.

It’s objective was to allow the coalition to deliver a balanced news and information service direct to the people of Iraq.

SOLUTION

The service, entitled ‘Towards Freedom’, was produced and presented by Iraqi journalists and included international and local news bulletins plus feature segments covering art, health, business, computer training, music, poetry and sports. The programme’s content was agreed in close consultation with Iraqis both inside and outside the country, across coalition governments and other stakeholders.

The programme initially used cutting edge technology for delivery into Iraq - using a US aircraft called ‘Commando Solo’ - a highly modified C-130 aircraft that has flying television transmission capability.

Eventually the programmes were distributed via satellite to Iraq and broadcast on the Iraq Media Network.


I suppose it all makes sense really. I mean the Iraqi people might have needed a little help in understanding the FCO view that shock and awe was actually, quite a good thing.

A former journo at BSN, Bruce Whitehead has this to say about BSN:

Quote:
My tour of duty as a British propagandist

17 September 2007

British propaganda outlet

The UK government seeks to boost pro-British sentiment in the Middle East through news management at a government-funded TV news agency. BRUCE WHITEHEAD used to work there.

I WAS IN Riyadh reporting for British Satellite News, a government-funded news agency. We were covering an official visit by Bill Rammell, the minister for lifelong learning. Saudi Arabia is keen to educate and train its own teenagers in order to reduce the country's dependence on imported labour and skills. The visit was designed to establish potentially lucrative educational ties between the two countries.

In line with UK policy Bill Rammell asked the Saudi ministers about democratic and social reform. Sipping mint tea in the sumptuous majlis, or parliament, the minister's first attempt to tackle the Saudis on human rights was ignored. Instead, the Saudi ministers emphasised their country's need for welders. The minister took the stonewalling well, seamlessly praising his hosts for limited reforms in local elections, while coaxing them again: when would women get equal opportunity? And when would the Saudi people get the vote?

At this point, the UK Ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who'd been whispering in the minister's ear throughout, intervened. The Saudi translator, he said, wasn't up to the mark, and had made several mistakes. The ambassador, a fluent Arabic speaker, announced that he would take over as the minister's personal translator, whispering in his ear. Fine for the minister, but impossible for anyone else to hear.

I protested quietly that I wouldn't know what the Saudis were saying, but I was ignored. Later I was told the Saudis had explained that women were being allowed equal employment and education, but would remain segregated for their own good. They would not be allowed into politics or given the vote.

Nor would anyone else get the vote: the Saudi people had shown that they were perfectly happy with the House of Saud in charge, so why on earth would the House of Saud want to impose democracy?

If this was what Bill Rammell heard he was unable to debate it. The meeting was over, we were off to film at the medina and the minister was off to inspect oilwells in Eastern Province.

Returning to London, I wrote my report, including what I had been able to glean from the exchanges at the Saudi parliament. The report was doctored by the editor, Mike Nolan, to remove the Saudi government's views on democracy and women's rights.

We now know, what I did not know then, that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles is the man who warned the UK government that the Saudis would end security co-operation if the police investigation into allegations of £60 million worth of hospitality for the Saudis in connection with British Aerospace's "Al Yamamah" arms deal went ahead. The inquiry of course was duly dropped.

For me as a journalist the Foreign Office's editorial influence at BSN was making it more and more difficult to do my job. I reported remarks by Dennis McNamara, the UN's highly respected adviser on displacement, denouncing the west for flooding Africa with arms. Mike Nolan called me in for a little chat. Did I realise who our client was? Why did I persist in writing critical reports?

I tried to argue that our job was not to report professionally, so that the clients - in my view overseas broadcasters, and not the FCO - would trust us. Mike Nolan told me the UN adviser's words were "too close to the bone" and they were removed from my report.

I no longer work at BSN, but its biased and flawed material is being used by hundreds of TV stations in the Middle East and Asia. All this is funded by the Foreign and Diplomatic Service, courtesy of the British taxpayer, to the tune of some £3 million per year.

Another tale that ran into trouble was when I reported perfectly friendly remarks by Tony Blair about Islam, the war on terror and other contentious issues, made on the record to a world audience. Even these were removed by BSN on FCO orders. If the Foreign Office can censor its own Prime Minister to feed distorted news to the Arab world, how can Britain be trusted there?

Mike Nolan said: “Unlike Bruce, I have no intention of breaking my confidentiality on what went on between the two of us. I completely refute his version of events. “It is wrong to suggest I doctor scripts. Bruce was certainly not alone in having his material subbed. When material was reduced I nearly always took the time to explain why. Bruce’s claim he ran into trouble when he reported friendly remarks made by PM Blair about Islam is untrue. I am not censored by the Foreign Office; I did not censor Bruce. BSN prides itself on providing accurate and balanced information on news and developments in the UK.”


More about the EC-130 Commando Solo capability here

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foreign Office vehicle for transmission of UK state propaganda.

From this link on the EC-130E capabilities

Quote:
The EC-130E is a modified C-130 "Hercules"


Quote:
Commando Solo conducts psychological operations and civil affairs broadcast missions in the standard AM, FM, HF, TV, and military communications bands.


Quote:
With the capability to control the electronic spectrum of radio, television, and military communication bands in a focused area, the Commando Solo aircraft can prepare the battlefield through psychological operations and civil affairs broadcasts. These modified C-130Es provide broadcasting capabilities primarily for psychological operations missions;


Quote:
Capabilities include:

* Reception, analysis, and transmission of various electronic signals to exploit electromagnetic spectrum for maximum battlefield advantage

* Secondary capabilities include jamming, deception, and manipulation techniques

* Broadcasts in frequency spectrums including AM/FM radio, short-wave, television, and military command, control and communications channels


Quote:
Rivet Rider modification includes:

* VHF and UHF Worldwide format color TV



Quote:
Commando Solo supported the operation JOINT GUARD mission by shutting down anti-SFOR propaganda through radio and TV broadcasts over Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of SFOR operations.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taken from a report at Harvard based Niemans Reports:

Quote:
Now in its 60th year, Nieman Reports serves a unique role in the community of journalism publications. Journalists write stories out of experiences they've had in covering events and issues, and they write about newsroom issues common in the craft. In these articles, they share insights and lessons with our worldwide audience of leading print, broadcast and online journalists. Photojournalists and cartoonists also contribute their work and ideas to Nieman Reports.



Quote:
The Dangers of Disinformation in the War on Terrorism

"We actually put out a false message to mislead people."

By Maud S. Beelman

In the summer of 1997, a group of senior Pentagon officers and military reporters gathered for a retreat aimed at improving their often rocky relationship. The Pentagon was 18 months into a successful Bosnian peacekeeping deployment, and reporters were getting good access to the troops. The mood was upbeat, and it appeared, for a while, that historic tensions might have eased. That is until talk turned to psychological operations, disinformation, and public affairs.

One of the guest speakers at the conference showed how video images could be created and/or altered electronically, and without detection, unless the creator inserted an electronic watermark to indicate it was a fabrication. But if the creator's intent was to misinform, then there would be no watermark, and the doctored image would be indistinguishable from reality.

With the Pentagon's fleet of EC-130 "Commando Solo" aircraft, capable of inserting radio and television programming into national broadcast systems, the implications of such electronic wizardry were obvious. First, journalists monitoring media in a war zone would need to question constantly whether what they were receiving was U.S. military disinformation. Assuming they asked, would the military take the journalists into confidence to spare them from spreading disinformation?

The officers at the retreat indicated that they would not.


Link PDF

All done from an EC-130 . . .

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:28 pm    Post subject: Media twisting of 9/11 facts crucial in run up to Iraq war Reply with quote

"5 Years Ago: Why Was Public So Misinformed on Facts Leading to War?"

Article in Editor and Publisher...

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id =1003729354

Selected quotes:

"Level of awareness [of 9/11] actually plunged as time passed"

"Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told me last week: "It's very rare to find a perception that's been so disputed by experts yet firmly held by the public."

E&P welcomes your feedback and comments: letters@editorandpublisher.com.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is not a really 9/11 story so much as an Iraq invasion story. It does however contain 9/11 related figures from various unreliable pollsters. Illustrating well how necessary a lying Stalinist media propaganda machine is to getting hapless Joe public behind these war crimes.


Quote:
......In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed to give this appropriate attention?

In the same sample, 41% said that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons, which not even the Bush administration claimed. Despite being far off base in crucial areas, 66% of respondents claimed to have a "good understanding" of the arguments for and against going to war with Iraq.

Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N. weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction." Neither Hans Blix nor Mohamed ElBaradei ever said they found proof of this.

The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%.

The significance of this is suggested by the finding, in the same survey, that 32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in supporting terrorists as the "main reason" for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was "one reason."

Knowing this was a crucial element of his support — even though he could not prove the 9/11 connection — the president nevertheless tried to bolster the link. Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times during his March 6 prime-time news conference, linking it with Saddam Hussein "often in the same breath," Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor observed last week. "Bush never pinned the blame for the [9/11] attacks directly on the Iraqi president," Feldmann wrote. "Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public.".............

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess I'm largely talking to myself here. However, this "counterterrorism" blog shows that even asking questions is regarded as guilt and complicity.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/03/part_v_quick_to_defend_alleged .php

I don't know who CAIR are ... the Council of Ammerican Islamic Relations - but I who have thought that any fostering of understanding is a good thing. However look how they are treated in the blog:

Quote:

CAIR's soft spot for terrorists extends well beyond the Hamas connections documented in yesterday's installment in this comprehensive series on the group. Today we focus on its portrayal of virtually any law enforcement action against radical elements as an assault on all American Muslims.

· Days after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, CAIR-New York Executive Director Ghazi Khankan used an online chat with the Washington Post to launch a weeks-long campaign casting them as part of a conspiracy to discredit Muslims. Citing spurious evidence, he claimed that "many of the names of the terrorists are people impersonating innocent Muslims and Arabs."

CAIR pushed Khankan's misidentification theory in an October 2001 statement, speculating that three of the 19 suspected ‘hijackers' were still alive in the Middle East and asking, "Who is impersonating these three Muslim Arabs? Why are Muslim Arabs been (sic) implicated in this terrorism? And, who could ‘benefit' from this horrific tragedy?"

· CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper similarly hesitated to blame Al Qaeda. "We condemn the attacks on the buildings,'" he told Salon.com, adding, "If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." Asked why he qualified the response, Salon.com reported, "Hooper said he resented the question."



"Citing Spurious Evidence" - hey the BBC published an article about the hijackers identities - this is hardly spurios.

"Push Misidentification Theory in October 2001" - hey how about the US government "pushing" proof of their own!

"Hestitate to blame Al Qaeda" - hey if you don't rush to bleat what the government is saying you are obviously guilty!!!

I'm rather shocked that in 2008, way past the "shock and awe" of the terrible 9/11 event, people are pushing these views: If you are not with us you're against us!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another interesting article

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=970718

Quote:

Terrorism has been a focus of the media since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but the coverage may have done more harm than good, a senior journalist with CBC Radio-Canada told a Sudbury audience Thursday.

Francois Brousseau was part of a roundtable discussion at the University of Sudbury. The topic was media, security and liberty: the stakes and challenges since Sept. 11, 2001. He said media coverage of the attacks and the ensuing war on terror played into the paranoia that has gripped the United States.

"If we simply repeat what's being said by the president and don't check it against facts, we don't do our job," Brousseau said. "Our job is to put it into context. In some cases, we didn't do that, we didn't do the job of challenging the assertions that came from above.

"It was terrible. You read the papers and it was just the official line and nothing else."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fenchurch
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:50 pm    Post subject: My Response to the Editor Reply with quote

Why Was Public So Misinformed on Facts Leading to War?

Why put this as a question? You already know the answer. The answer has always been blatantly obvious to everyone outside the US who watched your media during the build up to the war. The US media were entirely successfully in presenting Washington's sales pitch for the war. You chose not to mention that that sales pitch was largely disinformation. To suggest that you "didn't know otherwise" would imply US media incompetence of such staggering proportions it becomes impossible to reconcile.

You say:
"The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned."

The key word here being "had". Bush made the claim, knowing it to be a lie. You presented this claim to the masses, knowing it to be a lie. The masses believed it. Only after a sustained backlash from those of us who were, unlike you, prepared to expose the lie, was the claim dropped. Bush moved on to new propaganda that you dutifully parroted. But the damage had already been done.

The reason mainstream media tow the party line because the owners of the majority of these media companies have interests in common with the administration. Many journalists who questioned Bush's rhetoric were simply fired. Look at Lou Dobbs. Even liberal news channels knew that if they presented the unbiased facts, they would be excluded from further bulletins from Washington. That would have meant a serious blow to ratings, and therefore profits.

You say:

"Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N. weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction."

Perhaps that's because the media chose not to dwell on, or even mention, the fact that the weapons inspectors hadn't found anything, but instead escalated a smear campaign against Hans Blix while continuing to bombard us with headlines on "Iraq's WMDs" and images of mushroom clouds and biological hazard warning signs and the Bush camps bogus assertions that the weapons were there.

The media is entirely to blame for the American public's misconceptions. And you know it. After presenting this limp retrospective along the lines of "How could this happen and where did we fail?" you even have the audacity to suggest that Newspapers could come under fire.

If that happens, you'll just have to start making up your own lies. I doubt the government will bother to help you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Re: My Response to the Editor Reply with quote

fenchurch wrote:
Why Was Public So Misinformed on Facts Leading to War?

Why put this as a question?....


You should put this reply to the author of the story at the email address I referenced (if you haven't already done so).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fenchurch
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep. I emailed it to them. If I get a reply, I'll post it here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:35 am    Post subject: U.S. military groomed TV analysts according to NYT Reply with quote

NEW YORK - Many U.S. military analysts used as commentators on Iraq by television networks have been groomed by the Pentagon, leaving some feeling they were manipulated to report favorably on the Bush administration, The New York Times said in Sunday editions.

................................ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24220130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This looks like a major exposé by the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp

Quote:
The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good dig marky. The full NY Times article.



Message Machine

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

A PENTAGON CAMPAIGN Retired officers have been used to shape terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks.

By DAVID BARSTOW
Published: April 20, 2008

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

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.”

Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.

“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.

Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”

Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”

The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.

John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.

In interviews Mr. Garrett said there was an inevitable overlap between his dual roles. He said he had gotten “information you just otherwise would not get,” from the briefings and three Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq. He also acknowledged using this access and information to identify opportunities for clients. “You can’t help but look for that,” he said, adding, “If you know a capability that would fill a niche or need, you try to fill it. “That’s good for everybody.”

At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.

Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.

With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show.

Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.

The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely.

“The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false,” Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo that same afternoon.

The next morning, Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today.” “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”

Within days, transcripts of the analysts’ appearances were circulated to senior White House and Pentagon officials, cited as evidence of progress in the battle for hearts and minds at home.

Charting the Campaign

By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance.

Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.

And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit “key influentials” — movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities.

In the months after Sept. 11, as every network rushed to retain its own all-star squad of retired military officers, Ms. Clarke and her staff sensed a new opportunity. To Ms. Clarke’s team, the military analysts were the ultimate “key influential” — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.

The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.

Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. “It is my life.”

Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.

The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.

Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.

Assembling the Team

From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. Ms. Clarke’s team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.

“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said Mr. Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004. (Through a spokesman, Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment for this article.)

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. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.

The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.

Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.

Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.

There were also ideological ties.

Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.

Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.

This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.

“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”

The Selling of the War

From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team.

In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.

“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”

The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.

In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”

At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.

“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”

On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.

By summer, though, the first signs of the insurgency had emerged. Reports from journalists based in Baghdad were increasingly suffused with the imagery of mayhem.

The Pentagon did not have to search far for a counterweight.

It was time, an internal Pentagon strategy memorandum urged, to “re-energize surrogates and message-force multipliers,” starting with the military analysts.

The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.

The group included four analysts from Fox News, one each from CNN and ABC, and several research-group luminaries whose opinion articles appear regularly in the nation’s op-ed pages.

The trip invitation promised a look at “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”

The situation, as described in scores of books, was deteriorating. L. Paul Bremer III, then the American viceroy in Iraq, wrote in his memoir, “My Year in Iraq,” that he had privately warned the White House that the United States had “about half the number of soldiers we needed here.”

“We’re up against a growing and sophisticated threat,” Mr. Bremer recalled telling the president during a private White House dinner.

That dinner took place on Sept. 24, while the analysts were touring Iraq.

Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon.

Mostly the analysts attended briefings. These sessions, records show, spooled out an alternative narrative, depicting an Iraq bursting with political and economic energy, its security forces blossoming. On the crucial question of troop levels, the briefings echoed the White House line: No reinforcements were needed. The “growing and sophisticated threat” described by Mr. Bremer was instead depicted as degraded, isolated and on the run.

“We’re winning,” a briefing document proclaimed.

One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly “artificial” that he joked to another group member that they were on “the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,” a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.

But if the trip pounded the message of progress, it also represented a business opportunity: direct access to the most senior civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Kuwait, including many with a say in how the president’s $87 billion would be spent. It also was a chance to gather inside information about the most pressing needs confronting the American mission: the acute shortages of “up-armored” Humvees; the billions to be spent building military bases; the urgent need for interpreters; and the ambitious plans to train Iraq’s security forces.

Information and access of this nature had undeniable value for trip participants like William V. Cowan and Carlton A. Sherwood.

Mr. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. Mr. Sherwood was its executive vice president. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. In addition, wvc3 Group had a written agreement to use its influence and connections to help tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province win reconstruction contracts from the coalition.

“Those sheiks wanted access to the C.P.A.,” Mr. Cowan recalled in an interview, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Mr. Cowan said he pleaded their cause during the trip. “I tried to push hard with some of Bremer’s people to engage these people of Al Anbar,” he said.

Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,” one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.

“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,” General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.

The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.

“You can’t believe the progress,” General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers” within months.

“We could not be more excited, more pleased,” Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.

“I am so much against adding more troops,” General Shepperd said on CNN.

Access and Influence

Inside the Pentagon and at the White House, the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that “mainstream” journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq.

“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Its success only intensified the Pentagon’s campaign. The pace of briefings accelerated. More trips were organized. Eventually the effort involved officials from Washington to Baghdad to Kabul to Guantánamo and back to Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of United States Central Command.

The scale reflected strong support from the top. When officials in Iraq were slow to organize another trip for analysts, a Pentagon official fired off an e-mail message warning that the trips “have the highest levels of visibility” at the White House and urging them to get moving before Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, “picks up the phone and starts calling the 4-stars.”

Mr. Di Rita, no longer at the Defense Department, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, he said, generally had “a more supportive view” of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces. “On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesmen,” he said.

For analysts with military industry ties, the attention brought access to a widening circle of influential officials beyond the contacts they had accumulated over the course of their careers.

Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market. Suddenly, he had entree to a host of senior military leaders, many of whom he had never met. It was, he said, like being embedded with the Pentagon leadership. “You start to recognize what’s most important to them,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing like seeing stuff firsthand.”

Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”

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.

“They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”

Mr. Di Rita, though, said it never occurred to him that analysts might use their access to curry favor. Nor, he said, did the Pentagon try to exploit this dynamic. “That’s not something that ever crossed my mind,” he said. In any event, he argued, the analysts and the networks were the ones responsible for any ethical complications. “We assume they know where the lines are,” he said.

The analysts met personally with Mr. Rumsfeld at least 18 times, records show, but that was just the beginning. They had dozens more sessions with the most senior members of his brain trust and access to officials responsible for managing the billions being spent in Iraq. Other groups of “key influentials” had meetings, but not nearly as often as the analysts.

An internal memorandum in 2005 helped explain why. The memorandum, written by a Pentagon official who had accompanied analysts to Iraq, said that based on her observations during the trip, the analysts “are having a greater impact” on network coverage of the military. “They have now become the go-to guys not only on breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues,” she wrote.

Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.

“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.

Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.

“Human nature,” he explained, though he noted other instances when he was critical.

Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.

Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.

“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.

Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.

“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”

Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006.

“Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”

Pentagon Keeps Tabs

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.

Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.

“Commentary from all three Iraq trips was extremely positive over all,” the report concluded.

In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.

Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”

Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.

On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the “twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give “a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox “may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.

Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, “simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.

“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”

“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.

“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway urged.

The Generals’ Revolt

The full dimensions of this mutual embrace were perhaps never clearer than in April 2006, after several of Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals — none of them network military analysts — went public with devastating critiques of his wartime performance. Some called for his resignation.

On Friday, April 14, with what came to be called the “Generals’ Revolt” dominating headlines, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed aides to summon military analysts to a meeting with him early the next week, records show. When an aide urged a short delay to “give our big guys on the West Coast a little more time to buy a ticket and get here,” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office insisted that “the boss” wanted the meeting fast “for impact on the current story.”

That same day, Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld.

“Starting to write it now,” General Vallely wrote to the Pentagon that afternoon. “Any input for the article,” he added a little later, “will be much appreciated.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office quickly forwarded talking points and statistics to rebut the notion of a spreading revolt.

“Vallely is going to use the numbers,” a Pentagon official reported that afternoon.

The standard secrecy notwithstanding, plans for this session leaked, producing a front-page story in The Times that Sunday. In damage-control mode, Pentagon officials scrambled to present the meeting as routine and directed that communications with analysts be kept “very formal,” records show. “This is very, very sensitive now,” a Pentagon official warned subordinates.

On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.

“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers’ names.) “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’ ”

“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”

There was little discussion about the actual criticism pouring forth from Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals. Analysts argued that opposition to the war was rooted in perceptions fed by the news media, not reality. The administration’s overall war strategy, they counseled, was “brilliant” and “very successful.”

“Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”

An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”

“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.

But winning or not, they bluntly warned, the administration was in grave political danger so long as most Americans viewed Iraq as a lost cause. “America hates a loser,” one analyst said.

Much of the session was devoted to ways that Mr. Rumsfeld could reverse the “political tide.” One analyst urged Mr. Rumsfeld to “just crush these people,” and assured him that “most of the gentlemen at the table” would enthusiastically support him if he did.

“You are the leader,” the analyst told Mr. Rumsfeld. “You are our guy.”

At another point, an analyst made a suggestion: “In one of your speeches you ought to say, ‘Everybody stop for a minute and imagine an Iraq ruled by Zarqawi.’ And then you just go down the list and say, ‘All right, we’ve got oil, money, sovereignty, access to the geographic center of gravity of the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.’ If you can just paint a mental picture for Joe America to say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t imagine a world like that.’ ”

Even as they assured Mr. Rumsfeld that they stood ready to help in this public relations offensive, the analysts sought guidance on what they should cite as the next “milestone” that would, as one analyst put it, “keep the American people focused on the idea that we’re moving forward to a positive end.” They placed particular emphasis on the growing confrontation with Iran.

“When you said ‘long war,’ you changed the psyche of the American people to expect this to be a generational event,” an analyst said. “And again, I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job...”

“Get in line,” Mr. Rumsfeld interjected.

The meeting ended and Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing pleased and relaxed, took the entire group into a small study and showed off treasured keepsakes from his life, several analysts recalled.

Soon after, analysts hit the airwaves. The Omnitec monitoring reports, circulated to more than 80 officials, confirmed that analysts repeated many of the Pentagon’s talking points: that Mr. Rumsfeld consulted “frequently and sufficiently” with his generals; that he was not “overly concerned” with the criticisms; that the meeting focused “on more important topics at hand,” including the next milestone in Iraq, the formation of a new government.

Days later, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined:

“Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.”

“Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.”

But if Mr. Rumsfeld found the session instructive, at least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed.

“I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,” he said.

View From the Networks

Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.

Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”

“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”

For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts. The conference call with General Petraeus, for example, produced little in the way of immediate coverage.

Still, almost weekly the Pentagon continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many analysts said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. The networks, they said, have little grasp of how often they meet with senior officials, or what is discussed.

“I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.

Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.

“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”

Mr. Allard and other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations.

CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts.

NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts. The network issued a short statement: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”

Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article.

CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.

Yet even where controls exist, they have sometimes proven porous.

CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.

General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.

“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.

In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.

CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.

General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.

But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.

“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said.

How the Pentagon Spread Its Message

David Barstow, an investigative reporter for The Times, examines primary source documents detailing the Pentagon’s response to criticism of then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld by a group of prominent retired generals.

Parts of the Message Machine

Excerpts from documents showing various aspects of the Pentagon's program that uses retired military officers to try to shape public opinion.

Key passages are highlighted by The Times.

Describing the Program

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.

You can read and post comments here

New York Times

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:01 am    Post subject: It's ALL about covert control of the media Reply with quote

It's all about the media - 21st Century NATO propaganda - After the mysterious apparent demise of this thread which I remember being v. good in 2006 here it is partly revived.

Top 10 Famous Quotes About Propaganda
http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id= 00008
#10 - Jean Anouilh
Quote:
"Propaganda is a soft weapon; hold it in your hands too long, and it will move about like a snake, and strike the other way."
—Jean Anouilh, L'Alouette, 1952


#09 - George Orwell
Quote:
"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."
—George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938


#08 - Robert A. Heinlein
Quote:
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
—Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940


#07 - Hannah Arendt
Quote:
"Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda."
—Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


#06 - Noam Chomsky
Quote:
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
—Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 1997


#05 - Gore Vidal
Quote:
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
—Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 2004


#04 - Saul Bellow
Quote:
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
—Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back, 1976


#03 - Charles Mackay
Quote:
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841


#02 - Joseph Conrad
Quote:
"He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense."
—Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim, 1900


#01 - Charles Darwin
Quote:
"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason."
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/


Last edited by TonyGosling on Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id= 00008


http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id= 00085
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wordskills
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry about the spelling mistakes, I typed it up "stenographer style" HAHA.




Were in alot of trouble!
Because you people...
and 62 million other Americans are listening to me right now,
because less than three percent of you read books,
because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers.
because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.
Right now there is a whole, and entire generation that never knew anything.
That never came out of this tube.
This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation
This tube can make or break popes, president's prime ministers
this tube, is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world
and woe is us if it never falls into the hands of the wrong people.
And when the twelth largest comapny in the world, controls the most awesome goddamn force,
in the whole godless world, who knows what * will be peddled for truth on this network.
So you listen to me.
Listen to me.
television is not the truth,
television is a goddamn amusement park
television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troup of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.
Were in the boredom killing buisiness
so if you want the truth go to god
go to your gurus
go to yourselves, because thats the only place your ever going to find real truth
cause man.... your never going to get any truth from us.
We'll tell you anything you want to hear, we lie like hell
we'll tell you that Kojak always gets the killer
and that nobody ever gets cancer in archie bunker's house,
and that no matter how much trouble the hero is in,
don't worry look at your watch, at the end of the hour he is going to win.
We'll tell you any * you want to hear.
We deal ilusions man, none of it is true.
but you people sit there day after day, night after night
all ages, colors creeds, were all you know.
Your beginning to believe the illusions were spinning here
your beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal.
you do whatever the tube tells you.
you dress like the tube, you eat like the tube,
you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube.
this is mass madness you maniacs.
In god's name you people are the real thing, we are the illusion.
SO turn off your television sets, turn them off now.
turn them off and leave them off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wordskills
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops
That's from a movie called [i]Network[/i] By the way
From one of many personal heroes, Howard Beale

Give credit where credit is due.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

War On Terror Phase Two - The Media Battle
Back in Old Testament days scribes and masons were society's journalists. On the walls and columns in Egyptian temples the history of that civilisation was quite literally carved in stone.
Cut to the present day... and modern archaeologists, checking over the Pharaoh's official version of history, have discovered staggering omissions in the official account. Entire devastating campaigns are missing from the text because the Egyptian army lost.
Without self-criticism an individual descends into madness. An empire will die and it is towards such vile distortions in our public discourse that we are moving today.
Through most of the cold war the NATO countries were a beacon of fair comment and free speech in a world dominated by what was truly a flourishing Western media culture. Largely unleashed from state cultural control, publishing, broadcasting, music and other creative industries flourished.
As just one example of how far we’ve come in a few decades in February last year Russian president Dmitry Medvedev invited his favourite rock band Deep Purple to play the Kremlin.
While Russia has advanced, opened up, building incidentally more churches than anywhere else on earth, the West has been in high-speed reverse, serving up a poisonous diet of soaps, game shows and other circuses in an attempt to propel the NATO population into the cultural stone age.
Two massive changes are slowly grinding our hard earned cultural freedoms to dust.
Firstly the binning of legislation which prevents owners like Murdoch from cross-media ownership. TV empires which own radio stations, newspapers and book publishing houses soon become monopolies of the mind.
Then there is the consolidation of corporate media power into fewer and fewer hands, the sacking of thousands of journalists leaving only a handful of national media editors. In the last year Independent Television (ITV) which brought us countless investigative documentary series’ such as World In Action, and John Pilger’s classics has, it seems, gone for ever. The likes of earth-shattering programmes like Death On The Rock which uncovered a British Army assassination squad in Gibraltar and Maggie’s Militant Tendency which exposed the Tory far right may never be seen again. Our eyes and ears are being ripped from us.
And the financial catastrophe is sealing off the last breathing holes of free humanity in the West by wiping out all but the global media conglomerates. With once sacred religious tolerance too in the crosshairs the war for our hearts and minds is beginning in earnest.
In a final desperate grab for global power the criminal elite and their Mafia chums are determined to smash the media’s potential to show people where the threat to their lives and liberties comes from. By sending out waves of phantom threats, lies and disinformation they are attempting to psychologically batter us into ignorant submission.
But the good news is that this evil plan can never actually work. There is already vast bloodshed in the name of fake democracy but the elite’s lust for power will be their undoing and more than enough people are shrewd enough to see straight through their Orwellian lies.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6317

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Album opens with NATO a remix of 'Mars, Bringer Of War'
then goes into a Remix of War (What Is It Good For) citing such Great Corporations as CNN, Sony and so on and so forth.
Album release was 1994 hmm would that be around the Yugoslavia conflict??

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5369
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a list of Council for Foreign Relations members in top levels of media, compiled by G. Edward Griffin in his article 'The Quigley Formula' in Republic Magazine, Issue 11:

Now in the media, a pretty important place to be, if you want to control public opinion, we find CFR members in management and operational positions at the following media corporations: The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Barons, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, WW Norton and Company, Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harpers, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight,
Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, The New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, NewsMax, Newsweek, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Reader’s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time Warner, Time,
US News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Did we leave anybody out? I don’t think so.

The media personalities, the talking heads - not so important, yet still important: David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, and Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan (and by the way, Alan Greenspan, in case you were wondering, former chairman of The Federal Reserve System, is a member of the CFR).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5369
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wordskills wrote:
Sorry about the spelling mistakes, I typed it up "stenographer style" HAHA.




Were in alot of trouble!
Because you people...
and 62 million other Americans are listening to me right now,
because less than three percent of you read books,
because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers.
because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.
Right now there is a whole, and entire generation that never knew anything.
That never came out of this tube.
This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation
This tube can make or break popes, president's prime ministers
this tube, is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world
and woe is us if it never falls into the hands of the wrong people.
And when the twelth largest comapny in the world, controls the most awesome goddamn force,
in the whole godless world, who knows what * will be peddled for truth on this network.
So you listen to me.
Listen to me.
television is not the truth,
television is a goddamn amusement park
television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troup of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.
Were in the boredom killing buisiness
so if you want the truth go to god
go to your gurus
go to yourselves, because thats the only place your ever going to find real truth
cause man.... your never going to get any truth from us.
We'll tell you anything you want to hear, we lie like hell
we'll tell you that Kojak always gets the killer
and that nobody ever gets cancer in archie bunker's house,
and that no matter how much trouble the hero is in,
don't worry look at your watch, at the end of the hour he is going to win.
We'll tell you any * you want to hear.
We deal ilusions man, none of it is true.
but you people sit there day after day, night after night
all ages, colors creeds, were all you know.
Your beginning to believe the illusions were spinning here
your beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal.
you do whatever the tube tells you.
you dress like the tube, you eat like the tube,
you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube.
this is mass madness you maniacs.
In god's name you people are the real thing, we are the illusion.
SO turn off your television sets, turn them off now.
turn them off and leave them off.


This also appears on one of the 9/11 videos, I believe 'Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime'.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5369
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've just re-watched 'Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime', and above does appear in it.
This has to be one of the Truth Movement's absolutely top rank videos:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9007079754355711945

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got to agree.
Without a cowardly and compliant media these shysters could never have gotten away with 9/11, lighting the blue touch paper for world war three.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
nrmis
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TonyGosling wrote:
Got to agree.
Without a cowardly and compliant media these shysters could never have gotten away with 9/11, lighting the blue touch paper for world war three.


So who do we go after? Does anyone really know where their orders originate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5369
Location: East London

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nrmis wrote:
TonyGosling wrote:
Got to agree.
Without a cowardly and compliant media these shysters could never have gotten away with 9/11, lighting the blue touch paper for world war three.


So who do we go after? Does anyone really know where their orders originate?


'Fraid you've got your work cut out:

Here is a list of Council for Foreign Relations members in top levels of media, compiled by G. Edward Griffin in his article 'The Quigley Formula' in Republic Magazine, Issue 11:

Now in the media, a pretty important place to be, if you want to control public opinion, we find CFR members in management and operational positions at the following media corporations: The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Barons, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, WW Norton and Company, Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harpers, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight,
Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, The New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, NewsMax, Newsweek, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Reader’s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time Warner, Time,
US News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Did we leave anybody out? I don’t think so.

The media personalities, the talking heads - not so important, yet still important: David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, and Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan (and by the way, Alan Greenspan, in case you were wondering, former chairman of The Federal Reserve System, is a member of the CFR).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2541
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Medias hand in propaganda.
Just returned from hols in Norfolk where the skies were plagued by ladybirds and our gallant RAF were daily practicing manouevres in their Tornadoes and Eurofighter Typhoons criss crossing the clear blue sky. I was sitting in a cafe in the centre of Sheringham enjoying a coffee. To my right the view from one window showed happy holiday makers walking up from the beach armed with ice creams, buckets and spades. On the wall to my left a tv showing News 24 relaying the news that 3 soldiers killed in Afghanistan had been named and they showed coffins clad in the Union Jack being unloaded from Hercules plane on the shoulders of servicemen. I took another look at the holday makers and tried unsuccesfully to marry the 2 contrasting scenes. Our polticians are failing to convince me that the scenes I see on the TV are happening so that we all can enjoy the scene I see out the window. Rest assured visitors and townsfolk of sleepy Sheringham your streets are safer now because 200+ of our men (and 1 women) have sacrificed their lives and hundreds of others are maimed for life.

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC Hypnosis Radio Five Live's Gabby Logan admitted, in the midst of a fawning interview on Sunday 16th August with one of the wounded soldiers from Afghanistan, that she is engaged to be married to an ex Royal Marine.
Well, I wonder whether that is why she and her producer failed to mention anything about the number of those nasty dark-brown skin and be-bearded Taliban have been murdered, mangled and injured by NATO since 2001?
Preferring instead to dwell on the dreadful lack of figures for wounded member of our own military.
And suprising still no mention of NATO war crimes.

This is classic 'terms of reference' debate control as taught in GCSE media studies and Sociology. Blatant pro war-crimes bias.
Never mind Lord Haw-Haw. Gabby effing Logan! Why wasn't she slagging off the right of black people to self-defence at this weekend's BNP rally?

The vile Tory 'opposition' defence zombie minister this morning was challenged by the betrayed Dad of one of the brave boys killed to explain why we were fighting the Taliban at all since they have never threatened the UK nor any of our interests.
The zombie replied 'because they are giving a home to Al Quaeda'.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/


Last edited by TonyGosling on Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed.

And don't forget to take a look at the many ways the BBC are in breach of their royal charter as analysed in this blog on their treatment of 9/11:

http://www.bbcmot.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 'legal' fraud by the media just got MUCH bigger
One more Nazi nail in the coffin
Product Placement - taboo in British television
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=39928 855001

Quote:
Product placement to the rescue of broadcasters
Easing of advertising rules could be worth £100m a year to ailing television industry
By Lewis Smith
Monday, 14 September 2009
In the glamorous world of Hollywood, James Bond famously traded his Aston Martin for a BMW when the price was right. Now, in the somewhat seedier surrounds of Coronation Street, the Rovers Return may soon become a Weatherspoons.
A ban on product placement which has kept brand names off the small screen for almost half a century is to be lifted, the Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, will announce on Wednesday. Manufacturers will now get the chance to pay for their wares to form part of the plot or background in televisions shows – as they can already do in films............
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/product-placement- to-the-rescue-of-broadcasters-1786860.html

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15251
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mainstream media’s conspicuous silence over the collapse of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory has clearly exposed them as “the dogs that didn’t bark”. (Life is getting precarious in Pakistan - rest of that article is blaming Jews for everything)
http://www.daily.pk/it-wasnt-muslims-10972/

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group