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: 4
110
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Not on any medication, as for some conservatives, it would make sense as to why they believe the most idiotic conspiracies if they are not taking medication for their mental health.




posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 01:53 AM
link   
More information..


After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself.


www.nytimes.com...

So it appears that Wikileaks knew the NYTimes were communicating with the State Department. So why do they say otherwise?



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Pyle

It's not propaganda because it is true. Hillary is, has been, and will always be a lying sack of shlt. The hyperventilating left is freaking out because they've had their psychotropic love fest with Obama's handouts come to a crashing halt and they can't handle the new reality they no longer matter.

No amount of screaming at the sky (yeah...you people actually did this), no amount of denial, no amount of fake news, no amount of telling yourself "it's not real" is going to change the fact you are now marginalized. And for the next 7 years no less.

Just wait...it's going to get sooooooooo much worse for the hyperventilating left.



So you do or do not think its normal for journalist to contact subjects of their stories before they post them?



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Hasn't NYT been exposed as a purveyor of fake news for con artists and left-wing ideologues over and over again... especially after it bacame obvious that it's a mouthpiece for the Mexican government?





posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

When it comes to national security, yes.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Doesn’t change the fact that the OP article, and Wikileaks are purveying fake news here.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:42 AM
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.


indeed. that's exactly how magazines are build. frontpages only is done day before not a whole thing



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:48 AM
link   
originally posted by: Konduit


Why do you people conveniently leave out that Comey won Trump the election? The main reason he squeaked out a virctory

edit on 1-1-2018 by bearclan because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2018 by bearclan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
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.


Which is exactly why we're getting a refresher course in why news papers are important with "The Post" starring Tom Hanks, of all the most random times.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus
You posted an article defending The Failing New York Times, from... wait for it..., The Failing New York Times???







posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
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)!


yup another one of those "Thanks Obama" moments. although i have to concede the fact that even though it was illegal to do for a long time its not like it wasnt the norm to do so for decades.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: six67seven


The likes of Hitler & Putin would be jealous & proud.

You mean Joseph Goebbels, head of the Propaganda department for the Third Reich.

He invented the variety show; mixing sports, weather and music with news bulletins, 'programming' that has been developed to a high degree for uS nowadays.

When you turn on television you are watching what he started. Scientists, war technology and police state apparatus weren't the only things captured from war time Germany. But don't take my word for it, check out his speech to the Berlin Radio Convention in 1933...

Archives



If you replace "radio" with "social media" or "internet", that gets quite creepy.

Glad you see it too.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Ok, well the managing editor of Le Monde, Sylvie Kauffmann has confirmed that her paper along with others, including the New York Times were in communication with Wikileaks the whole time..



WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with the New York Times, and the five news organizations have been working together to plan the timing of their reports.

They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents, Ms Kauffmann and others involved in the arrangement said.


www.thehindu.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Konduit

Doesn’t change the fact that the OP article, and Wikileaks are purveying fake news here.


Correct.

What's interesting is that wikileaks would push a narrative against something that is not only common practice, but so easily verified.

It's become clear that wikileaks has politicized itself, we know they are pro-Right Wing and rely on the ignorance/laziness of those people to push it's narrative.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Absolutely. It should be self-evident that media talks to politicians, whether it be as bad as the debate questions being given to her, or more harmless like the case in this thread. And no one should be surprised to realize that Breitbart is partial to Trump, just like NYT is to the other side. It's pretty glaring. Looks like a lot of people are naive about these things though, so this is why we need organizations like WL. They are pushing this for partisan reasons but it's still good to make people aware, the core usefulness of WL.

a reply to: stormcell

Come on. It can take weeks or months to write a story in some cases. It literally is the job of a paper editor to decide what the news will be the next morning, in the future. A paper is not the Internet, it can't be updated in real time. You've got an unrealistic take on the industry, there.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

My problem with this is that the stories beimg referenced were about Hillary. It wasnt some routine administrative article, or an expose on government. It was relating to alleged crimes by Hillary, and she was given a preview amd opportunity to redact prior to it being run.

But that aside, i find it indefensible that our government would be given a chance to review media stories prior to beimg issued. The headline here should read, "US government under Obama exerts control over media and creates an advertising supported propaganda machine."

This isnt fake news. It really happened. The government influences media directly in the USA. Our press is obviously not "free".



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



My problem with this is that the stories beimg referenced were about Hillary. It wasnt some routine administrative article, or an expose on government. It was relating to alleged crimes by Hillary, and she was given a preview amd opportunity to redact prior to it being run.


Well, it must be noted that the government did not dictate what they could publish. They only gave recommendations.
Even though Hillary, the SD and Obama could have laid the hammer down, they do not appear to have done so..



Our press is obviously not "free".


The thing about a free press is that they man that owns his own press can do with it what he will.

Freedom has it's consequences.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How do you know they dont dictate what is published? Because they say so? Lol

The point is, if the press feels compelled to ask permission they are by definition not "free" and have become propagandized.

I see no reason to defend that status quo.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

This:


“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.”


Doesn’t match up with this:


The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself.


and this:


They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents, Ms Kauffmann and others involved in the arrangement said.


Wikileaks knew full well what the NYTimes and the other news outlets that had these cables were doing.

The tweet from wikileaks is absolute nonsense.


edit on 1/1/18 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



How do you know they dont dictate what is published? Because they say so? Lol


Without evidence, we cannot make any claim that they do.



The point is, if the press feels compelled to ask permission they are by definition not "free" and have become propagandized.


They didn't ask for permission. Unless you have a link that says otherwise.



I see no reason to defend that status quo.


I see no reason to put blame on people for things they have not been proven to have done.



new topics




 
110
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join