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

Well, if i can have a personal opinion without providing any source to what I'm about to say (I'm using plain common sense), here is what I "know":

mainstream media (major broadcasts) are not commited to the truth - generally speaking. They can spread or hide whatever information is more adequate for the government.
Hollywood, too. It's just about the same scheme. And they work together.

They obviously work not for the public, but for some kind of government.

If they want you to smoke, it will be all about smoking is cool.
If they want you to take the HPV shots, it will be all about the stuff.
If they want you to quit smoking, it will be all about how smoking is bad for you.

The news (therefore its journalists and reporters) work simultaneously, using about the same words, printing the same headlines, showing the same images. How can anybody trust anything coming from them without filtering?

originally posted by: Flesh699
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Leo Ryan was the first congressmen to be murdered by the CIA during Jonestown massacre. Along with four reports. Ryan was shot soon as he stepped off the plane. The Hughes-Ryan Amendment was killed in Congress soon afterwards.
Ever since, the CIA has infiltrated every media house. You will not find names, these people aren't dumb enough to just post up their names for everyone to view.

............?????????????????
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Hughes-Ryan Amendment passed both House and Senate and was signed into law by Ford. In 1974. Ryan was murdered in the Jonestown massacre in 1978 and by the way Jones himself was a lunatic who saw conspiracies all around him at the drop of a hat. He probably thought that the local insects reported to the CIA.
Speaking as the son of a journalist who worked for a major UK publication and the nephew of a journalist who worked for a major news agency, and also speaking as someone who has worked for several major news companies I have to say that talk of CIA plants in said organisations is ludicrous.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It had nothing to do with the CIA.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

The officer in charge of all U.S. Army Special Forces for Latin America at the time of the Jonestown holocaust was Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz. Gritz was the original soldier after which the movie character "Rambo" was patterned. Gritz was the most decorated soldier to come out of the Vietnam war.

Gritz has more about Jonestown in his autobiography, *Called to Serve.* Perhaps you simply cannot believe what I am telling you. Will you believe it if told to you by the Green Beret officer in charge of the men who did the killing? He admits that the information was "compartmentalized" and it was not until later that he learned what his men were actually doing. The following information is from pages 584-587 of his book:

"The true story of the Jonestown camp in Guyana has been brought to light through an extensive investigation conducted by John Judge, from Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., and other dedicated researchers and investigators. The truth, which was thoroughly suppressed by the American media, is that it was actually a slave-labor camp run by Jones with the assistance of the CIA. Most of the information which follows is from John Judge's summary of the investigation, supplemented with information provided by Special Forces teams I had earlier trained and commanded, who were sent in to 'clean up the remains of Jonestown.'

a reply to: stonerwilliam

It had nothing to do with the CIA.

I'll take the word if those who were actually witness to the events and had first hand knowledge over forbidden knowledge any day.

Gritz has more about Jonestown in his autobiography, *Called to Serve.* Perhaps you simply cannot believe what I am telling you. Will you believe it if told to you by the Green Beret officer in charge of the men who did the killing? He admits that the information was "compartmentalized" and it was not until later that he learned what his men were actually doing. The following information is from pages 584-587 of his book:

Amazing what people say to sell books.

originally posted by: tsctsc
Well, if i can have a personal opinion without providing any source to what I'm about to say (I'm using plain common sense), here is what I "know":

mainstream media (major broadcasts) are not commited to the truth - generally speaking. They can spread or hide whatever information is more adequate for the government.
Hollywood, too. It's just about the same scheme. And they work together.

They obviously work not for the public, but for some kind of government.

If they want you to smoke, it will be all about smoking is cool.
If they want you to take the HPV shots, it will be all about the stuff.
If they want you to quit smoking, it will be all about how smoking is bad for you.

The news (therefore its journalists and reporters) work simultaneously, using about the same words, printing the same headlines, showing the same images. How can anybody trust anything coming from them without filtering?

You don't actually know how the modern media works, do you? Smoking was cool in the 1950's, when the negative medical results were being suppressed by the tobacco companies. When the truth got out the media covered it - it was hard not to, given the way that big tobacco screwed the world. You know what else? It was the same with asbestos. Speaking as an insurance journalist I tend to get my facts about the industry from as many reports as possible, as many companies as possible and as many people as possible. Do you know what the reinsurance companies have been shouting about for the past 20 years? Global climate change, that's what. There's no scientific conspiracy about it, there's no left-wing bias about it, there's just a vast industry that's terrified about what's going to happen because they have listened to the science and studied said science - and have an open mind about it.

But wait! My CIA handler is here now and I must away to be briefed!

The latter was sarcasm by the way.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz.

A little about Mr. Gritz.

www.miafacts.org...

Seems he likes to embellish a bit.

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.

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.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz.

A little about Mr. Gritz.

www.miafacts.org...

Seems he likes to embellish a bit.

Just a tad it might seem - if by 'a bit' you mean by a bloody ton.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

At least RT is upfront about their propaganda.

Few governments across the globe can claim that they have not dabbled in this. I watched a round table discussion on RT the other night and it was all about Anti Americanism rhetoric. There is obviously going to be national bias and spooks of said nations will attempt to interfere so if folk want to point the finger at the CIA, they may as well point their finger to the KGB, MI6, BYO and all the other alphabet agencies across the globe that hope exploit the media.

The sad fact is that it detracts attention from the true journalists who bring us the cold hard facts.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Just a tad it might seem - if by 'a bit' you mean by a bloody ton.

Yep.

Although he has just written a book on the subject (Bought Journalists) and is obviously looking to make some money from this, although he claims he isn't.

Riiiiight.....
He goes on TV all the time to "expose" this

originally posted by: TXRabbit

Although he has just written a book on the subject (Bought Journalists) and is obviously looking to make some money from this, although he claims he isn't.

Riiiiight.....
He goes on TV all the time to "expose" this

Plus he was David Duke's VP candidate for the Populist Party ticket in the 1988 Election. Perusing his writings reveals him to be a right-wing whackadoodle. Plus he made what I suspect was quite a bit of money off the Vietnam MIA scam. Remember that? The vast mound of 80's and early 90's bullcrap that spawned so many Chuck Norris egotrips, sorry, 'films'?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Only problem being, he hasn't worked for any of those organisations, so he is not at liberty to call them out.

I have never worked for the US government...doesn't mean I can't call them out for lying.

He can when they have been shown to do just the same, and they have.

I am not saying they haven't, he's not saying they haven't.

He is actually commenting on something that he has experienced as a journalist in western society, you know, the society where we are sold the freedom of the press message?

We have been told time and time again that the Russian press is controlled by their Government, which I am sure it is, but now we have a prominent journalist saying that the same thing goes on in the west.

Why are you so keen to divert the message this guy is spreading?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Speaking as the son of a journalist who worked for a major UK publication and the nephew of a journalist who worked for a major news agency, and also speaking as someone who has worked for several major news companies I have to say that talk of CIA plants in said organisations is ludicrous.

Just out of curiousity...
Would you be able to identify if there were for instance CIA staff planted there?
If so, how could you prove it?
Point is, that agencies like CIA usually don't like to leave traces unless intended or caught, so it would be difficult for anyone in the public to investigate this, without the proper resources.
Sometimes things get out in the open by whistleblowers, however that kind of info usually can't be verified either.
One can only guess by observing the direction that, in this case, the news takes and who will benefit the most of it in the end, by overly steering public opinion on a subject.
Of all the large media outlets today, I still have to find one that is unbiased (as news should be).

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Speaking as the son of a journalist who worked for a major UK publication and the nephew of a journalist who worked for a major news agency, and also speaking as someone who has worked for several major news companies I have to say that talk of CIA plants in said organisations is ludicrous.

Just out of curiousity...
Would you be able to identify if there were for instance CIA staff planted there?
If so, how could you prove it?
Point is, that agencies like CIA usually don't like to leave traces unless intended or caught, so it would be difficult for anyone in the public to investigate this, without the proper resources.
Sometimes things get out in the open by whistleblowers, however that kind of info usually can't be verified either.
One can only guess by observing the direction that, in this case, the news takes and who will benefit the most of it in the end, by overly steering public opinion on a subject.
Of all the large media outlets today, I still have to find one that is unbiased (as news should be).

Well, let's start off with the fact that the CIA are not the all-efficient secret service with an eye behind every door that the film industry might allow us to think. The CIA failed to spot that Iran was about to get rid of the Shah and massively failed to spot the fall of the USSR - whilst also failing to spot the KGB agents that littered its own ranks. Let's face it, the world is not a Bond movie.
Then there's the issue of how people can influence a media organisation. In my father's time he relied on the news wire services - AP, PA, Reuters, one of which his own brother worked for. News comes into major organisations from all over the world. Dad even used to look at the reports coming in from Lloyd's staff in major ports (pointless fact of the day - the first report to reach London about the start of the eruption of Krakatau came from a Lloyd's Agent in the area, because it was a danger to shipping). So vast amounts of information come in. The news editors look and assess and talk to the various other editors (Foreign, Domestic, Science, Sports - where do you want me to stop?) who assign reporters to investigate, research and write about the stories based on availability and competence.
So where can 'CIA meddling' come in? In the wire services? Too many people know too much about the world to be able to fool people there. In the editors? Same problem? Sure, things are going to get missed, sure people will skate over some stories because it seems too ridiculous ("Argentina's invading where again? South Georgia? Rubbish!" "Jill Dando's been shot??? Pull the other one!") but once confirmation comes in then it all changes. Too many sources to block.
Now, in these days of the Internet and the Cloud I can access sources of news that makes my Dad very jealous. I talk to people all over the world about insurance and reinsurance. Where's the CIA there? Hell, where's the SIS there? Plus no-one has ever noticed, besides this paranoid German idiot. Journalists are a) nosey and b) observant (most of us anyway).
By the way, if you want an anecdote about who used to be able to impact papers, I direct you to my father. He still remembers the day when the building stopped quivering because the presses had stopped. He wondered what was going on and then he saw the Father of the Chapel of the printer's union arrive and tell the editor that there was a disparaging reference to the members of another Union on page whatever the hell it was, his members objected strongly, and the presses would stay cold until the reference was removed from the story and new hot press poured in the form.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsctsc
Well, if i can have a personal opinion without providing any source to what I'm about to say (I'm using plain common sense), here is what I "know":

mainstream media (major broadcasts) are not commited to the truth - generally speaking. They can spread or hide whatever information is more adequate for the government.
Hollywood, too. It's just about the same scheme. And they work together.

They obviously work not for the public, but for some kind of government.

If they want you to smoke, it will be all about smoking is cool.
If they want you to take the HPV shots, it will be all about the stuff.
If they want you to quit smoking, it will be all about how smoking is bad for you.

The news (therefore its journalists and reporters) work simultaneously, using about the same words, printing the same headlines, showing the same images. How can anybody trust anything coming from them without filtering?

You don't actually know how the modern media works, do you? Smoking was cool in the 1950's, when the negative medical results were being suppressed by the tobacco companies. When the truth got out the media covered it - it was hard not to, given the way that big tobacco screwed the world. You know what else? It was the same with asbestos. Speaking as an insurance journalist I tend to get my facts about the industry from as many reports as possible, as many companies as possible and as many people as possible. Do you know what the reinsurance companies have been shouting about for the past 20 years? Global climate change, that's what. There's no scientific conspiracy about it, there's no left-wing bias about it, there's just a vast industry that's terrified about what's going to happen because they have listened to the science and studied said science - and have an open mind about it.

But wait! My CIA handler is here now and I must away to be briefed!

The latter was sarcasm by the way.

You want sarcasm? Here: hahaha

Did you really write this bs in reply to my post where I clearly stated that this was my opinion with no source? hahahaha

I'll write to your CIA handler and say you failed to interpret a simple text. But, oh wait! Your CIA handler won't care 'cause he wouldn't have done any better!!!

pffff...hahaha

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Although I do appreciate you're somewhat lengthy response and background info, it doesn't answer the question if you would be able to identify agents if there were any.
I'm not saying you or your father are not doing your jobs correctly, I assume you do of course, however in all the bustle, would it be impossible for any agent to operate in way that would go unnoticed to an untrained eye?
A succesful agent is an agent that operates unnoticed imo.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Why are you so keen to divert the message this guy is spreading?

I'm not, but to single out the west for the same thing all media around the world does is a bit biased when it comes from one of the same type media outlets.

If your going to only discuss one certain style of media it pretty much shows you have a biased agenda.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

But we all know that anyway, we are continuously told that their press is controlled by their Government.

So, yes they have a bias slant, but then do you seriously believe this guy would be given any airtime on the West's MSM?