It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reporter Spills the Beans and Admits All the News is Fake!

page: 6
85
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think in the case of CIA, they would have enough resources to introduce certain witnesses or key sources in the field, that report to news agencies. If a certain story or evidence is independently "confirmed" several times, it would be assumed to be true or at least verified, while in fact the CIA has now fed their version of the truth, to whatever purpose they deem necessary.

You said it yourself, newsrooms are dependant on the information they get, so this is one way it could be done, without raising suspicion, especially if it's combined with bribing certain key figures within the newsroom.
Sure, newly introduced sources wouldn't be trusted immediately, however if they slowly build up trust over the years, which is not unthinkable in case of the CIA, even the most experienced reporters could fall into this trap.
Look at how many years undercover cases of the police can sometimes take, before they have enough evidence for a trial.
All the while the informant has to gain a certain level of trust and believe me, none are more suspicious than criminals.

I think it would be fairly easy for intelligence agencies to infiltrate newsrooms.
If you could tell if a person is a spy, even if you worked with him for years, there would be no point to it, would it?
This is all purely hypothetical of course, but I do believe this could happen, if it isn't already.




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sigh.. ok then, your not some snot nosed kid typing in your mama's basement, still where is the proof of which you speak? Honestly proof is everything here on this forum. You can't just say well [example] I'm the Queen of England's 2nd Nephew of her fifth cousin[/example] and expect anyone to automatically believe it. That would just be gullible.




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Then answer me this - how? How could they do it? Go on, tell me.


They've already done it, I don't need to demonstrate how. They preferred the "details be left to the executive session."


Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Consequently, doesn't what's his face.. white haired guy with talk show i forget his name.. cooper... He's a cia op i believe and i also recall cnn mentioning they have them operating within the news. It's not a secret.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
Consequently, doesn't what's his face.. white haired guy with talk show i forget his name.. cooper... He's a cia op i believe and i also recall cnn mentioning they have them operating within the news. It's not a secret.



Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt, too.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.


Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.


Okay, you appear on RT and argue against what this guy is saying.

He has experience of it happening at a rather High profile, while you work for which media company exactly?

You claim to be a journalist, share some of your work with us, you must be right in with everyone in order to talk on behalf of all of them.
edit on 5/11/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: Rebuff Utrecht yuk to. Tit



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes he is, it's somehow not surprising though, they all seem to be of the same dreadful line.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
One time journalist here, too (and I write terribly enough to be one)... nobody told me what to write and nobody edited my work for content... only atrocious English.

It is well known by the core "journalists" that Fox News is a propaganda machine.. .and that's not leftist propaganda. I actually turned down a job with Murdoch's minions due to knowing they "manage" the news (and kick myself every once in a while when the bills aren't getting paid)... but most journalists know how important it all really is and are dedicated, cantankerous skeptics who dislike power and corruption... a whole lot.

That stance is dying, though, due to newspaper's slow death and the corporate monopolies that control most outlets, but there are still many, many dedicated folks trying to shed light on scummy situations... and should be supported as their pay (except in rare cases) is awful.

Nothing is more important than the free flow of accurate info and ideas... or so I and many people in the industry believe, anyway.

To be clearer... although some AP stories do just come in and are used by all outlets and there are whispers that some rare few ARE from Big Bro... but I was saying the average print journalist has integrity... broadcast guys are ... not as quick.
edit on 11/5/2015 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/5/2015 by Baddogma because: Edited for suckage

edit on 11/5/2015 by Baddogma because: context to content



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
We knew and now we know. AGAIN!

This isn't news it should be called olds.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   


It is well known by the core "journalists" that Fox News is a propaganda machine.. .and that's not leftist propaganda. I actually turned down a job with Murdoch's minions due to knowing they "manage" the news (and kick myself every once in a while when the bills aren't getting paid)... but most journalists know how important it all really is and are dedicated, cantankerous skeptics who dislike power and corruption... a whole lot.



It sure is, everyone should see Out Foxed, all about fox news..



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I'm also wary of embedded journalism .
Censorship and propaganda comes in many forms, unlike the freedom of press society they'd like us to believe we're in.
Maybe it's time to stop pointing fingers at countries like North-Korea and start looking more at are own.



On June 14, 2014, The New York Times published an opinion piece critical of embedded journalism during both the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. It was written by PVT Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst now serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking the largest set of classified documents in American history. At no point during his 2009–10 deployment in Iraq, Manning wrote, were there more than a dozen American journalists covering military operations—in a country of 31 million people and 117,000 U.S. troops. Manning charged that vetting of reporters by military public affairs officials was used "to screen out those judged likely to produce critical coverage," and that once embedded, journalists tended "to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags out of fear having their access terminated. " A result," wrote Manning, "is that the American public's access to the facts is gutted, which leaves them with no way to evaluate the conduct of American officials." Manning noted, "This program of limiting press access was challenged in court in 2013 by a freelance reporter, Wayne Anderson, who claimed to have followed his agreement but to have been terminated after publishing adverse reports about the conflict in Afghanistan. The ruling on his case upheld the military's position that there was no constitutionally protected right to be an embedded journalist."



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.


Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.


And he do we know that, you being a journalist, you aren't in on it and trying to preserve the status quot? Hmmmm.... quite the catch 22... >.>


I fear that a) you are being either a tad paranoid or a tad provocative and b) that once again the powers of the CIA are being overestimated. I have never been approached by a member of the CIA. If I had I would have laughed a lot at them. Besides, in on what? That would imply payment or some such reward. Sorry, but nope.


Nope you don't need to be paid or anything. What you can and cannot put into paper gets approved or disapproved by those above you. Chances are either the stuff you write about is either irrelevant to anyone important, or you simply are unaware of some of the reasons your articles are disapproved. Also whether you are bribed personally or not, IF there's something going on you're still part of the industry, if it's undermined and people stop buying it and write you off, that's a threat to your very job and lively hood. Also if there are people in power, chances are even with this guy trying to rock the boat, chances are they'll still be in power and there's only bad and nothing good to come from you doing the same unless you want to be blacklisted by the very industry you're in.

Also what I said was mostly tongue in cheek, but your reasons why you couldn't be are rather silly and null in void by the very fact that if you were or weren't your actions would remain the same, so there really is no way for us to know. It really is a catch 22, cause if the paranoia people are having is true or not, someone like you would be here saying this either way.

Addendum: Hold up I just read that you report on... insurance... yeah seriously your article matter to anyone important I'm sure. Definitely need someone to babysit your articles alright. One way something like this would work is that they don't need to micromanage things and people that don't matter to the story they are trying to tell. If you aren't important you're not important, and insurance really? You're not important.
edit on 11/5/2015 by Puppylove because: Addendums are fun



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I´ve been watching this guy the last ten years and the publisher he´s working at.
I´m also reffering to him in another post I wrote yesterday, didn´t knew about your thread then.

The publisher he´s working for (Kopp-Verlag) has a free info section info.kopp-verlag.de.
He´s a bit nuts and sensatianolistic but I have to give him credit for his researches. There was a scandal where another female reporter was burned in public for saying "Hitler did not do everything wrong". She was flamed in public, her name is Eva Herman. The public press is trying to push them into the right corner, and I would settle them on the edge of right if you ask me.

However, over the years, articles there went from fresh and critical researches over to logical fallacys and repeating articles that are overdone sometimes and posted as "news".



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

That all sounds plausible, but it's actually impractical. All journalists use a wide range of sources over the years - people age, retire, switch jobs, etc. Life happens to them. I've been a (re)insurance journalist for 12 years now and before that I was a financial journalist. Lots of sources, lots of angles, some of which were competing ones.
If the CIA was manipulating things then they'd be doing it in a way that no-one would suspect any of these sources. But with so many sources can you really count on them all to keep up to date with whatever the policy was? And what policy come to that? Where's the CIA's angle in say asbestos, or flood modelling or if it's even possible to insure the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar (the cancellation insurance on that last one is going to be a cast-iron bitch to negotiate given all the corruption that seems to be leaking out about FIFA)?
The reinsurance companies have stuck to the same position over the past 20 years about global climate change for another example. They are all terrified of it - and they all say that it's happening. Even during the Bush years in the White House, when you'd expect the CIA to be more ambivalent about it, the reinsurers never changed their position, or softened it or introduced caveats. It's business and you can't play silly buggers with it.
What more can I say? I'm sure that there might be some Middle East experts with friends and contacts in the CIA, but throughout the entire gamut of topics that journalists write about? Hell no - do you really think that the CIA is a) that rich, b) that large and c) so efficient that no-one even suspects it?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.


Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.


And he do we know that, you being a journalist, you aren't in on it and trying to preserve the status quot? Hmmmm.... quite the catch 22... >.>


I fear that a) you are being either a tad paranoid or a tad provocative and b) that once again the powers of the CIA are being overestimated. I have never been approached by a member of the CIA. If I had I would have laughed a lot at them. Besides, in on what? That would imply payment or some such reward. Sorry, but nope.


Nope you don't need to be paid or anything. What you can and cannot put into paper gets approved or disapproved by those above you. Chances are either the stuff you write about is either irrelevant to anyone important, or you simply are unaware of some of the reasons your articles are disapproved. Also whether you are bribed personally or not, IF there's something going on you're still part of the industry, if it's undermined and people stop buying it and write you off, that's a threat to your very job and lively hood. Also if there are people in power, chances are even with this guy trying to rock the boat, chances are they'll still be in power and there's only bad and nothing good to come from you doing the same unless you want to be blacklisted by the very industry you're in.

Also what I said was mostly tongue in cheek, but your reasons why you couldn't be are rather silly and null in void by the very fact that if you were or weren't your actions would remain the same, so there really is no way for us to know. It really is a catch 22, cause if the paranoia people are having is true or not, someone like you would be here saying this either way.

Addendum: Hold up I just read that you report on... insurance... yeah seriously your article matter to anyone important I'm sure. Definitely need someone to babysit your articles alright. One way something like this would work is that they don't need to micromanage things and people that don't matter to the story they are trying to tell. If you aren't important you're not important, and insurance really? You're not important.


Congratulations, you just utterly failed to comprehend how pervasive insurance matters are in the Western World. 0/10, go back to the back of the class please and do some very, very, basic research.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

That's right. There is no news because nothing happens. lol Listen to yourself. You sound like the news. I think we all knew the news is slanted to offer what ever the prevailing viewpoint is. We are supposed to read between the lines. To say that all the news is fake is like one of those fake headlines. You pay no attention to the ridiculousness and read between the lines instead. Apparently some of the news we are getting is manipulated. A duh.....Yes. Agreed.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: redeyeblue
Government agencies from around the world have been exploiting the media for decades, anyone thinking otherwise must be walking around in a daze. It is no secret, that successive media outlets have been bought out to leave a handful, that control all TV networks and print. Any dim witted reporter can easily pick up on this, problem is all networks have slashed budgets or released reporters involved in investigative reporting. Any brave enough to get a story, never see it released for one reason or another. There is no free press anymore, it is authorized propaganda and people love it, it should be called celebrity juice.


Gosh, then that must make me particularly dim-witted, to have never caught of sniff of any such manipulation. Same with my father, who spent decades in the industry in London. Astonishing that they covered their tracks so well, whilst being obvious to some people who are able to spot the conspiracy!

Oh, wait...

Come off it people, all I'm seeing are wild claims and generic assumptions about the media. Bad assumptions by the way.


Well I guess you must be dim witted, there are a hell of a lot like you.

When people talk of suppression of news, or manipulation of news, they are not talking of what comes over the wire at Reuters or any other main feeds. It is what is discovered by reporters, or information volunteered by the public or Government officials or indeed any whistle blower. It may not be the story that's manipulated or withheld, it could be the players in that story. Facts, circumstances and names are easily changed, altered, deleted or otherwise to deliver a story that can be interpreted a certain way. Editors and media owners can squash a story as quick as it comes in, I have also worked in the media and know of this first hand. The average reporter would not encounter this much, if at all in their career, but Editors, senior investigative reporters and media owners are well aware.
Government agencies like the CIA and others have been exposed over the years, either influencing or attempting to influence, or indeed admitting they did.
Simply because you, or your father have not had experience of this means nothing at all, neither can you claim it does not exist because you work in the media, that is just a ridiculous claim and holds no more validity than someone claiming rampant corruption and collusion.
I want to clarify also that I do not believe the suppression or manipulation is rampant throughout the media, but it is sporadic and widespread and very few media outlets escape it.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You know, the fact that this man basically throws himself into the mix of all the negativity, fraud and corruption he is describing, and openly admits to having taken part in it himself, I for one am leaning towards him being credible. Anybody else feel this way for a similar reason? I mean let's be honest. We always hear the same rhetoric. Oh, he or she is just trying to make a buck selling books or DVDs. Oh, they just want money, and people are stupid enough to buy into their scams. Fair enough. While that is certainly true very often, if one decides that they would like to blow the whistle on any range of topics by releasing said information through a book, that takes work. That takes time. That takes effort. One shouldn't automatically write someone off just because they have released a book detailing whatever it is they would like to share with as many people as they can reach. Books cost money. Materials are required to create them. So, that being said, I will have to look into this man's credentials and background further. If everything checks out though, which I feel will probably be the case, that will be further affirmation of my current stance on this matter. I think he's telling the truth.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
One time journalist here, too (and I write terribly enough to be one)... nobody told me what to write and nobody edited my work for content... only atrocious English.

It is well known by the core "journalists" that Fox News is a propaganda machine.. .and that's not leftist propaganda. I actually turned down a job with Murdoch's minions due to knowing they "manage" the news (and kick myself every once in a while when the bills aren't getting paid)... but most journalists know how important it all really is and are dedicated, cantankerous skeptics who dislike power and corruption... a whole lot.


And when there is a big story, where does the information that ALL reporters use for sources come from?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The CIA planted agents in every European newspaper and radio station after WW2.
The news is there hasn't been any since at least 1945.
On a side note the CIA also left weapons caches all over in case Russia invaded.
Probably still hidden away quietly waiting.
Don't be surprised if Islamic radicals "mysteriously" discover them.




top topics



 
85
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join