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.
For instant release.....
page: 16
share:
You ever wonder what kind of relationship the US government has with the media?
Here's an interesting thing to notice....
Near and dear to me, but not evidently to the "public" considering ... is the "retroactive immunity" granted telecommunications companies which participated in wiretapping the collective communications trunk for every American citizen in the country.
The above excerpted little press release was passed on to the AP "journalist" who apparently just slapped "AP" on the end of it and sold it as news. Within hours scores - if not hundreds - of media companies started "reporting" it... and when I say "reported," I mean they simply 'retransmitted it" as if it were their "news product."
Just use a search engine and look up "Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case" and you'll see how many agencies passed on the press release - as a product of journalism.
Here's a tiny sample....
You and I might be accused of misrepresenting the matter were we to have taken a similar goal and called it "reporting." The publication times on this are about 1 to 2 hours apart; which might mean that "marching orders" were issued once the SCOTUS issued the release saying they weren't going to touch the matter of "retroactive immunity."
Kinda pisses me off..... all we get is a paragraph and the story is over....
Here's an interesting thing to notice....
Near and dear to me, but not evidently to the "public" considering ... is the "retroactive immunity" granted telecommunications companies which participated in wiretapping the collective communications trunk for every American citizen in the country.
Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case October 9, 2012 (AP)
—The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program. The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers.
The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.
The case stemmed from surveillance rules passed by Congress that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.
The above excerpted little press release was passed on to the AP "journalist" who apparently just slapped "AP" on the end of it and sold it as news. Within hours scores - if not hundreds - of media companies started "reporting" it... and when I say "reported," I mean they simply 'retransmitted it" as if it were their "news product."
Just use a search engine and look up "Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case" and you'll see how many agencies passed on the press release - as a product of journalism.
Here's a tiny sample....
- The Seattle Times
- The Washington Times
- St. Louis Post Dispatch
- The Chippewa Herald
- KFVS (CBS) Illinois
- Live5News (CBS) Charlston South Carolina
- WMBF News (NBC) South Carolina
- KSTP News (ABC) Minnesota
- KMPH/KFRE (Fox) California
- KTIV (NBC) Iowa
- KSAL (Raycom) Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
- WREX (NBC) Rockford Illinois
- WBRC (Fox) Alabama
- WGEM (NBC) Quincy, Illinois
- WDAM (Raycom) Mississippi
- News Sentinel, Fort Wayne Indiana
- Times Union (Hearst) - Albany New York
You and I might be accused of misrepresenting the matter were we to have taken a similar goal and called it "reporting." The publication times on this are about 1 to 2 hours apart; which might mean that "marching orders" were issued once the SCOTUS issued the release saying they weren't going to touch the matter of "retroactive immunity."
Kinda pisses me off..... all we get is a paragraph and the story is over....
Please pardon my lack of understanding, but are you suggesting that the Government released this information and through a series of pre-established
relationships had this quietly released article from AP to be spread by the major media providers?
If i have missed the point i apologize, but I was a bit confused by the post.
If I am to operate under my above assumption i would say, these media companies Just see $$$ values and all want to be the first to break news that they believe will sell their product.
If i have missed the point entirely please let me know.
If i have missed the point i apologize, but I was a bit confused by the post.
If I am to operate under my above assumption i would say, these media companies Just see $$$ values and all want to be the first to break news that they believe will sell their product.
If i have missed the point entirely please let me know.
edit on 9-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
It is simply another example of fascism in the US today.
The news agencies played along with the government and did a 'quiet' release, no big fanfare. No big discussion on the talk shows about how fascism exists with the telcoms doing the govt's unconstitutional bidding, then being absolved of any liability.
The news agencies played along with the government and did a 'quiet' release, no big fanfare. No big discussion on the talk shows about how fascism exists with the telcoms doing the govt's unconstitutional bidding, then being absolved of any liability.
edit on 9-10-2012 by butcherguy
because: spelling
Originally posted by butcherguy
It is simply another example of fascism in the US today.
I will agree to this only when the US government is using the media outlets as tools to sway public opinion in matters of foreign policy, war and expansionism....oh wait....they do!
I just not sure what to make of this release though, i am still partially confused.
There are a couple of issues here, and I can understand that I may not have hashed them out well enough....
One the one hand there is the whole matter of the 'retroactive immunity'... on the other there is the matter of the shotgun release of this statement over a huge swath of the internet - practically simultaneously. Now these are two separate issues... but they manifest themselves together here in such a manner as to create the "no big deal - tiny news release" that people will read as 'trivia.'
But there is nothing trivial about this matter... at all.
For five years, commercial telecommunications companies channeled private information (phone conversations, facsimiles, emails, and more) to government intelligence centers.... secretly.
While you and I payed for a service in which any reasonable person should have expected privacy ... we got none.... everything became fair game... the telecommunications giants just facilitated and redirected information to NSA... etc.
When the story broke; the Telecomms suddenly faced potential legal action for what was then - by law - a criminal act that they had perpetrated; "warrantless wiretapping". In all, some 40 suits were filed... and political chess pieces like Dick Cheney enjoined the media to launch a campaign of information dissemination that was to convince us that the government "needed" this access from the telecomms to "protect us."
Many argued the rationale... after all, to protect "me" you have to spy on "me?" seemed a ridiculous assertion to many. Further, the urgency and marketed 'effectiveness' of the breach of trust was inflated ten-fold (hyperbole, I know... but you may have witnessed the 'sales pitch')
But there was another campaign happening at the time: Bush began an Executive Administration lobbying campaign to secure "retroactive immunity" for these companies .. lest they "refuse" to cooperate in the future (which was odd - since they never stopped cooperating)
(from 2011) - www.techdirt.com... shtml
The advocates for citizens pushed this legal boulder up hill until reaching the SCOTUS... which - in a quiet - tiny little press release issued yesterday said....
"No way, nuh uh, not touching this... hammer time!"
If it was illegal - they committed a crime.... if they want to make it legal (which the patriot act did) then it is NO LONGER a crime. But that doesn't change the illegality of what they did... and as proof it is a simple matter of logic....
If it had not been illegal to do what they did... they wouldn't need "immunity."
I placed this in Deconstruction/Disinformation to add to the body of our understanding of how we are victims to the way information gets used, massaged into other forms, and otherwise made into something which offers the citizen no value....
One the one hand there is the whole matter of the 'retroactive immunity'... on the other there is the matter of the shotgun release of this statement over a huge swath of the internet - practically simultaneously. Now these are two separate issues... but they manifest themselves together here in such a manner as to create the "no big deal - tiny news release" that people will read as 'trivia.'
But there is nothing trivial about this matter... at all.
For five years, commercial telecommunications companies channeled private information (phone conversations, facsimiles, emails, and more) to government intelligence centers.... secretly.
While you and I payed for a service in which any reasonable person should have expected privacy ... we got none.... everything became fair game... the telecommunications giants just facilitated and redirected information to NSA... etc.
When the story broke; the Telecomms suddenly faced potential legal action for what was then - by law - a criminal act that they had perpetrated; "warrantless wiretapping". In all, some 40 suits were filed... and political chess pieces like Dick Cheney enjoined the media to launch a campaign of information dissemination that was to convince us that the government "needed" this access from the telecomms to "protect us."
Many argued the rationale... after all, to protect "me" you have to spy on "me?" seemed a ridiculous assertion to many. Further, the urgency and marketed 'effectiveness' of the breach of trust was inflated ten-fold (hyperbole, I know... but you may have witnessed the 'sales pitch')
But there was another campaign happening at the time: Bush began an Executive Administration lobbying campaign to secure "retroactive immunity" for these companies .. lest they "refuse" to cooperate in the future (which was odd - since they never stopped cooperating)
In response, Congress quickly passed the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which included a provision granting retroactive immunity to the telcos who helped the government by passing along private info despite the lack of any warrant. Then Senator Obama originally opposed this provision, but changed his mind at the last minute... and has been an enthusiastic supporter of retroactive immunity since becoming President.
(from 2011) - www.techdirt.com... shtml
The advocates for citizens pushed this legal boulder up hill until reaching the SCOTUS... which - in a quiet - tiny little press release issued yesterday said....
"No way, nuh uh, not touching this... hammer time!"
If it was illegal - they committed a crime.... if they want to make it legal (which the patriot act did) then it is NO LONGER a crime. But that doesn't change the illegality of what they did... and as proof it is a simple matter of logic....
If it had not been illegal to do what they did... they wouldn't need "immunity."
I placed this in Deconstruction/Disinformation to add to the body of our understanding of how we are victims to the way information gets used, massaged into other forms, and otherwise made into something which offers the citizen no value....
edit on 9-10-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)
Ahhhh i see what you are saying now. Thank you for the clarification, i was not entirely sure what was being discussed, the contents of the news
release or the means by which it was released, but now i see its both
I think right you hit the nail on the head here at the end of your second post.
I think many of us have under estimated the ramifications of retro-active changes that be instituted as a result of the Patriot act which you mentioned.
I would agree that for relatively important news, they have made it seems like everything is of the norm. Great catch! I am glad I got clarification. I will look into this a bit more
I think right you hit the nail on the head here at the end of your second post.
I think many of us have under estimated the ramifications of retro-active changes that be instituted as a result of the Patriot act which you mentioned.
I would agree that for relatively important news, they have made it seems like everything is of the norm. Great catch! I am glad I got clarification. I will look into this a bit more