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

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the news is manipulated by government agencies. How else could "false flag" operations work otherwise. The Easter bunny video actually made the point quite well...anyone else remember "weapons of mass destruction" being repeated over and over.....until finally the Agenda to invade Iraq was accomplished.

I applaud Dr. Udo Ulfkotte for speaking up and writing his book, I'm interested in reading it. Writing books has always been important to preserve historical perspective, that may end up looking very different in the History textbooks. What makes him seem credible to me is his own reflection and willingness to be very honest about how he himself was "seduced" to lend his credibility as a journalist to false stories that influence a justification for WAR...and to his credit that's a burden he can't live with. He does point out he has health issues and no children, which gives us even more insight on how journalists are kept in tow....if "seduction" doesn't work, loss of livelihood, credibility, your families safety and perhaps even your life are threatened.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
The title of the thread has been lifted straight from the YouTube video title.

A top German Journalist and Editor Dr. Udo Ulfkotte has gone public and exposed how many western journalists write fake articles with a pro European and/or U.S slant.

He claims that the German secret service actually wrote an article and asked him to put his name to it, which he agreed to do and the article was published world wide in a number of Newspapers and journals. The article in question relates to Libya and the building of a chemical plant, by Gadaffi.

He also claimed the CIA would steer a number of journalists down a certain route in order to push their agenda. He claims it is endemic in Germany and the U.K, but also goes on in most countries that are allied to the U.S.

The video isn't too long and worth watching as he seems legitimate wanting to expose what is actually going on in the western media. 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.

Although his claims do not come as a complete surprise, this does confirm what quite a number of members here have been suggesting for a long time.

Edit - I have added a link to Dr Ulfkotte's wiki page

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Understanding this is one of the most important keys to understanding both our world and how the common person is manipulated by the powerful.

The news and media are utilized to "manufacture consent" for all desired outcomes and policies of the powerful.

One of the most essential requirements for this is that the populace believe that the media remains independent and free, objective, and outside of the control of the government or corporations. Most people still believe that this is true, and hence do not see mainstream media for what it is, propaganda.

hope.journ.wwu.edu...

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, proposes that the mass communication media of the U.S. “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication."

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What a horrible realization that manipulation of truth is the status quo and not the exception. Did I know this to be true? No. Did I suspect this? YES.

This man is to be commended as a whistleblower. I will buy his book and circulate it amongst my circle of influence.

Question: How does one become an honorary citizen of Oklahoma and what benefits does that designation bring?

THere is no need to "suspect," with all due respect. Just look up Operation Mockingbird.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Operation Mockingbird is a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA."

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

With all due respect, Wikipedia has proven itself to NOT be a reliable source for fact.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The CIA planted agents in every European newspaper and radio station after WW2.
The news is there hasn't been any since at least 1945.

Well, I wouldn't doubt that but the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency in the world and the rest of them haven't just been sitting around twiddling their thumbs either. The world is more complicated than the CIA. That is unless we already have a global government and all the borders and regional governments are just a sham.

God bless this man. God protect this man!

A truth teller from the MSM is as rare as a flying pig…

This “free press” in the West, it looks like, is presently stirring up the idea that the plane in Egypt was taken down by ISIS.

I see the CIA stirring this pot in the background.

Of course with the help of that ambulance chasing network CNN

Whose initials really stand for

CIA NEWS NETWORK

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
That is unless we already have a global government and all the borders and regional governments are just a sham.

That is a very interesting point you make here.

a reply to: s1ngular1ty
Good point and I totally agree.
Often times, life is made impossible for whistleblowers to continue their profession.
This is of course intended, to scare off future whistleblowers.
It takes alot of courage for one man to expose a conspiracy, which not only affects him, but also his family and surroundings.
He still has to pay the bills, so I don't find him less credible for making money out of it out of survival.
If he was in in it purely for economic reasons, surely there are more efficient ways to do it.
Not saying he is telling the truth because of that, however don't write off someone because of it.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

With all due respect, Wikipedia has proven itself to NOT be a reliable source for fact.

There are other sources for this. I put it simply for ease.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The world is more complicated than the CIA. That is unless we already have a global government and all the borders and regional governments are just a sham.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yeah, we all are guilty of laziness instead of accuracy on occasion.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yeah, we all are guilty of laziness instead of accuracy on occasion.

It's not an accuracy issue in this case. Operation Mockingbird happened.

I have zero problem sending people Wikipedia as a simple and basic topic starter if I know that something is much more widely cited than just what Wiki is saying.

Obviously someone who actually wants to research something for real needs to be reading a wide range of sources, and ones that are more credible.

a reply to: NewzNose
Ok, without being lazy, what would be a reliable source to refer to in your opinion?

OK, so if these amazing, dedicated journalists are out discovering the truth, and the newspaper will just go ahead and print whatever they write, why do newspapers have an openly acknowledged political slant?

Why is it that some newspapers are staunchly right-wing, while others are staunchly left-wing? Do all journalists at a paper share the same political views? Or, are there editors who set the tone and content of the newspapers? Isn't there such a thing as an editor-in-chief? Doesn't everybody know what this person's political beliefs are and cater to them, if they want to keep their jobs?

What happens when a reporter submits a pro-union article to an anti-union newspaper? Does the editor just check for grammar and spelling and print it?

I honestly don't know what kind of news an insurance reporter covers, but you're telling me you've never had an editor re-slant your work? Turn "demonstrators" into "rioters", or turn "rebels" into "terrorists"? Anything you put across your editor's desk gets published, no questions asked?

It's not necessary for every private on the battlefield to know the army's strategic goals, nor even to believe in the mission. As long as the generals do.

Why do you think they want WikiLeaks dead? It presents info without spin editorial......

And this whole subject comes as a revelation to anyone...why????

At least RT made its mission statement clear; to suppress information which was critical of the government and steer attention away to less pressing matters.

The MSM in the US and UK are far less transparent about their agenda...all of them!

I'm sure that this quote from Hermann Goering is one way or another saying that this is how propaganda works.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials