Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

[1950] CIA Director Admits Manipulating US News; CBS Confirms

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   


This video is from 1950, just imagine how much control there is over the media now!


Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

Congressional hearings in 1976 proved CIA had been paying off editors and reporters in most mainstream media outlets

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm guessing today we could look at some of the biggest names in the media and if we follow the money it would lead back to the CIA.

Now we are in 2012, just imagine how evolved Operation Mockingbird must have become
edit on 27-2-2012 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I'm not surprised. This is has been a well known fact already. There was never a freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

And yes, I imagine the manipulation is far more extensive than this was in our modern day.

I just find it funny and a bit sad that there are people in the mind-set that this never happens, and that the news is there to always tell the entire truth, even though people are coming out now and saying that it was done in the past -- well, why in that case should we think it's not being done now?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
They'd NEVER do that kind of stuff now, we are so much more civilized than we were back then.

Also, who cares? It's not like people are dying younger from a plethora of cancers and immune deficiencies, or sacrificing themselves for wars of terror and world conquest.

I love tap water!
Semper Fi!!
Turn all those middle east countries into glass parking lots!
Kill all those hajis!



idiots.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
For those that are interested here is more reading:


First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature".[1] The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are:
1.Ownership of the medium
2.Medium's funding sources
3.Sourcing
4.Flak
5.Anti-communist ideology

The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote a book called Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330356092&sr=8-1

Could be an interesting read, thinking of purchasing it



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
It's a thousand times harder now to fake or manipulate news. Fifty years ago they could say nearly anything they wanted about other countries, espcially remote ones like Afghanistan or Iran. Now we have real time bloggers, pictures, video, twitter...



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
It's a thousand times harder now to fake or manipulate news. Fifty years ago they could say nearly anything they wanted about other countries, espcially remote ones like Afghanistan or Iran. Now we have real time bloggers, pictures, video, twitter...


Doesn't mean they still don't do it.

Remember that supposed image of Obama and his team watching the raid on Osama Bin Laden? Well, that image has clear signs of manipulation.

With the advance of technology, manipulating images or videos has become easier, but you're right - with the internet in the picture they are getting caught out more than they used to. They still do it though.

i.dailymail.co.uk...

^There's the picture for reference by the way. It becomes obvious when you look at the man and the woman right at the back of the image. As for how much of the rest is manipulated, I can't be entirely sure.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I recently read an article about a subject I'm very familiar with. This article was the worst example of investigative reporting I've seen for a long time. I decided to learn a little more about the traitor who wrote it. I call him a traitor because the public should be well informed on this subject. His article is a cover-up.

I was a little surprised to find he teaches investigative journalism. This answered some of my questions about control of the media. Some of the people who teach journalism are intelligence officers whose job it is to ensure journalists write rubbish.

I'm not going to name this particular man because I want him to be unprepared when I ambush him with a hidden camera and put his treachery on youtube.


I can add a little more. The brother of a friend is fairly high up in an intelligence agency that is better not named. I was told that when he was in a more junior position his job was to "make up the news".
edit on 27-2-2012 by Kester because: addition



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
It's a thousand times harder now to fake or manipulate news. Fifty years ago they could say nearly anything they wanted about other countries, espcially remote ones like Afghanistan or Iran. Now we have real time bloggers, pictures, video, twitter...


It's actually easier for them now to promote false stories on the news than back then, because there are less critical thinkers these days and the majority will only accept a news story with that "official" stamp of approval. Alternative news is laughed off by them.

Example: The propaganda they peddled about Lybia and the evils of Gaddhafi. The news told us about all the fighting going on there, yet in Lybia people were looking outside for all this fighting and saw nothing. No one could confirm all the news stories. It was even proven that the news was manipulated by faking background scenery... yet no one noticed or cared.

People literally can't think anymore. They are sponges for propaganda and don't want to hear both sides of any story. Lybia was a beautiful country and was doing fantastic compared to the UK & USA economically, so of course they had to be taken out.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I too, believe everything the news spits at me. They are so convincing. They usually have some numbers, and charts, and witnesses.. Very compelling entertainment, I mean news. They look so perty too.. All done up with makeup and what not.. How you not going to believe a perty person? Beauty dont lie. My favorite is beginning to be the new young hot meteorologists.. I mean puppet lady getting 6 figures to read a chart of atmospheric numbers that are meaningless to a dumb moron like myself.. They so perty.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
It's actually easier for them now to promote false stories on the news than back then, because there are less critical thinkers these days and the majority will only accept a news story with that "official" stamp of approval.

OMG you are soooo rightttt
There are so little critical thinkers out there I just can't believe it

You can barely talk to people about current events these days, any critical thinking and they think you are a loonie.
There's always a few people that think like us but maybe 1/5 or so, perhaps less.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


normally i´m quite a fan of your posts.

but why did you turn this into a ´bash anyone i can think of thread´?




Also, who cares? It's not like people are dying younger from a plethora of cancers and immune deficiencies, or sacrificing themselves for wars of terror and world conquest.

I love tap water!
Semper Fi!!
Turn all those middle east countries into glass parking lots!
Kill all those hajis!
idiots.


i'm as anti-war and military as it gets but i just didn't see the point.

this is about the CIA controlling news, planting nws etc.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 




i'm as anti-war and military as it gets but i just didn't see the point. this is about the CIA controlling news, planting nws etc.


Right, and Joe tapwater public soaks it all up, and spouts the kind of nonsense I demonstrated. I have friends who will not look at any news unless it's from a top network, they love their tapwater, and they high 5 each other about killing any Iraqi kid holding a weapon.

They are the people the CIA is hoping buys into these false propaganda news stories, and it works. These same people then join the military and that blind ignorance is carried out in the real world.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
the government has tremendous power over the media, from threatening to cut off access to the presidency and the whitehouse, to using their connections in the corporate world to shut down or heavily censor news from within the news agency.

time warner, viacom, cbs and all the national news outlets contribute heavily to campaigns for the privilege to have insider access.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This video is from 1950, just imagine how much control there is over the media now!

Now we are in 2012, just imagine how evolved Operation Mockingbird must have become.


This film is not from 1950. Is is about the Church Committee (1975) and one of the answering CIA-witnesses is the director William Colby.
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1977, Carl Bernstein has written a famous article for the Rolling Stone, which goes beyond the findings of the Chuch Committee.


THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit.

There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

carlbernstein.com...

How willing "journalists" are willing to sell out shows Iran in 1953. It took just a few weeks for Kermit Roosevelt to bribe so many editors and journalists, that he had 80% of Teheran's newspapers under his control. He did this as a foreigner. Those journalists commited treason against their country and their democracy. How many journalists do you think are willing to suppress informaton or act as a megaphone for the authorities, if they believe, that they serve not only their career, but also their own country?

Here is a good video of the former CIA employee John R. Stockwell about the massive scale of manipulation.


The rest of this very illuminating interview can be found on Information Clearinghouse.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

And here is a link to an interesting memo from 1967 in which the CIA advised its media assets to suppress and ridicule "conspiracy theories" about the JFK assassination.
mtracy9.tripod.com...

The used propaganda techniques are more or less always the same. Oftentimes it is very difficult to discern disinformation from truth. But here is helpful website, which shows some of the more prominent propaganda tactics.
www.globalissues.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
this must be why they are experts at controlling society. It has been going on for a long time now practice makes perfect



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Those journalists commited treason against their country.....


I recently became aware that teachers of media law and investigative skills are often intelligence officers whose job it is to ensure budding journalists lose the ability to use their brains. They are traitors. The journalists and editors who are aware of the situation are also traitors. The nature of journalism ensures that an adequate paper trail has been left. The evidence is damming. Some of them will no doubt attempt to escape. They can't escape from their own minds. They're trapped by their own treachery.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
well I see it everywhere I am online. and I do mean EVERYWHERE. It is really disgusting to think of all that effort being out into lies.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   


Disgusting ....I was brought in USA thinking it is freedom and democracy ,but we were no better than Communism



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 



I'm not surprised. This is has been a well known fact already. There was never a freedom of speech.


Don't confuse government propaganda and censorship of mainstream media with an absence of freedom of speech. The New York Times would run stories planted by the CIA, but you could always buy The Daily Worker. Americans are so spoiled, they take their freedom of speech for granted. You wouldn't be saying this online if you lived in some countries today.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join