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.

 

WikiLeaks Reveals Jaw-Dropping Email That Proves Failing New York Times & Hillary Collusion

page: 1
110
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+89 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

It appears, the State Department was receiving email updates from the New York Times to let them know what would be published DAYS before the stories were actually released!

Wikileaks tweeted:

“New cable shows New York Times “reporter” Scott Shane handed over Cablegate’s secret country by country publication schedule to the US government giving the State Department (then headed by Hillary Clinton) up to a week in advance to spin the revelations or create diversions.”

Basically, what the tweet means is that Hillary Clinton was receiving the news BEFORE it was released to the public. This would give her time then to manipulate the public with her own ‘spin’. Clearly, this is collusion between the failing New York Times and former State Department under Hillary. Solid proof and evidence.


daggernews.com...

Sickening that this happens here... we deride 3rd world countries for this BS...

This is the kind of info you have to have in your back pocket next time someone tries to talk about Drumpfh being Hitler because he wants to get rid of the freedom of press. Let them know that HILLARY ALREADY had the press in her pocket. If she had won, she'd already have 95% of the news media as government propaganda outlets. Not only that but she would have had at least one SCOTUS seat to give to another "empathy" judge. America narrowly avoided being destroyed from within. MAGA



+52 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
The likes of Hitler & Putin would be jealous & proud.

America dodged a massive bullet that HRC got thrashed in the election.

...since propaganda can legally be used against us (and is)!


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Wait a second, are you telling me that the media is complicit in a conspiracy to push allow a corrupt politician to lie to their base and convince them of the BS story they are selling!?!?!?

Oh my god, this is shocking!!

Thank god Trump made #fake news a household term, without it the masses would still never question a thing coming from their favorite authority!


+9 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

WL is evidence. JA is now in protective custody. He was removed from the embassy on Christmas day and is now on his way or in the USA.



+15 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
New York Times was already fake news 70 years ago:




posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

WL is evidence. JA is now in protective custody. He was removed from the embassy on Christmas day and is now on his way or in the USA.


Any links to back that up?


OP, thanks for sharing and confirming what many of us had suspected. This is hardly the first time that the MSM has carried water for corrupt government officials.


According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was also able to restrict newspapers from reporting about certain events. For example, the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala.

Ignorant Little Mockingbirds Never Leave the Nest

S+F


edit on 31-12-2017 by eisegesis because: added


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Skyfloating
Nice Find!

The NY Times has always been propaganda. During the 1930s Walter Duranty was the Times Moscow correspondent. When Gareth Jones reported on the holodomor (the murder by starvation of roughly 4 million Ukranians) The NY Times and Duranty tried to cover up the story. Duranty won a Pulitzer for his reporting.

It wasn't until almost 50 years later that the Times admitted Duranty was corrupt. But Jones story had been corroborated by Muggeridge. So the Times knew then that they were simply engaging in Stalin's propaganda.

The myth is that the Times was at one point an honest and respected news organization. This is a myth. It has never been true.
The New York Times actively and passionately covered up mass murder by the communists in the 1930s.

They are evil, ignorant and vapid tools of murderous regimes. Nothing has changed. Just as the Pulitzer prize is awarded not to the best, but to the most essential propaganda.

If ATSers ever for one second believe that the New York Times is a news organization or that professional journalists work there, just search a bit of their history like Skyfloating has done.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
This is recommended reading for anyone who is naive enough to trust the NYT or think that NYT propaganda machine has anything to do with actual journalism or facts/news reporting. It was written in September 2016 by the Swedish journalist Johannes Wahlstrom, "An Obituary of The New York Times":



A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Bill Keller at The New York Times building on Manhattan. Keller was the long time editor in chief of the newspaper and Sulzberger its proprietor. We met at what must have been the 50th floor of the company headquarters, on 8th Avenue. I write company headquarters, instead of newspaper, because this part of the building was accessible only through a separate elevator-system and was strictly off-limits for the regular New York Times reporters.

We spoke for about an hour and a half for the film Mediastan that I was shooting at the time, and now in hindsight, I’m both grateful and surprised by how honestly the administrative and real heads of the enterprise described the nature of their work. Grateful, because the degree of openness they exhibited is a rarity in the backrooms of journalism. Surprised, because what they were doing wasn’t journalism, at least not in the sense that I had been taught in journalism school in Sweden. No, the work that Keller and Sulzberger were describing was something entirely different, and as such it was a shame that this part of the building was off-limits to the journalists of their own newspaper. Because, as I would soon realize, the upper levels of the New York Times building was a place where a variety of important political decisions were negotiated and taken. A space, ironically, very far from scrutiny of the public eye.

Read the rest here: www.unz.com...


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

It so happens that I do :-)

Julian Assange In Protective Custody

Look at the link I provided for in thread for AnonScan christmas day tweet. It is very telling. It links the US Navy and Julian Assnage.

Look at the tweet from the US navy.. 'Julian Assange' look at who posted it. There avater was the washington image. The same one QAnon used and that trump used a not long later.

If you have time read the thread. I really think there is a message there to those that have ears. Did you see the WL Forever war christams video. Very strange.
Of course it is

All the very best in the coming year to you.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

WL is evidence. JA is now in protective custody. He was removed from the embassy on Christmas day and is now on his way or in the USA.

Wouldn't surprise me. There has to be a reason his account was taken down for a few hours and then brought back online with no explanation. Add to that the Navy tweeting his name. It's a crazy timeline we are in right now.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler




Wouldn't surprise me. There has to be a reason his account was taken down for a few hours and then brought back online with no explanation. Add to that the Navy tweeting his name. It's a crazy timeline we are in right now.


There is more than that if you have time read the thread. I think i may have cracked it. Either way. Happy days and thank you for your reply.



(post by Perfectenemy removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

"the heads up could give the State Department time to create a diversion for the same day"
The diversion tactic is what's being used on the drunk Papadopoulos, talking to an Australian diplomat in a UK bar story.
That nonsense is out to cover up the fact that the FBI is to be held in contempt of Congress on Thursday.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Did this really make your jaw drop?

So they informed them of their schedule ahead of time. I'm not seeing the big deal.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


It appears, the State Department was receiving email updates from the New York Times to let them know what would be published DAYS before the stories were actually released!


I wonder when/if this stopped... and when it began.

I also wonder who decided this was a good idea to begin with. Was it one reporter doing a buddy at the State Department a solid? Was it an agreement between the NYT bosses and Hillary? Was it a longstanding arrangement between the NYT and the State Department -- as in before and after Hillary?

This is intriguing, but leaves me with more questions than conclusions.


+26 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Did this really make your jaw drop?

So they informed them of their schedule ahead of time. I'm not seeing the big deal.


Suppose you didn't mind when CNN gave HRC the debate questions ahead of time either.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

To be true the media does tell the gubment which stories it is going with ahead of time to make sure they got what they are supposed to say straight.

It is surely collusion at the highest level.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I'd say I don't care which is a little different.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
And people say CNN is a biased news source.


+15 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I'd say I don't care which is a little different.


You don't care if one party tries to subvert the democratic process by illegally obtaining the questions to a debate beforehand, in order to gain the advantage?

Any of you other liberals want to back him up on that?

Do you all think like that?



new topics

top topics



 
110
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join