Debunked: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media"

[Mick]

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - attributed to Former CIA director, William Colby.

Step 0 - Check to see if it's already been debunked

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647

Chronology:
1) William Colby CIA Director 1973-1976.
2) Colby dies April 1996.
3) Quote first appears in David McGowan’s 2000 book “Derailing Democracy”, Common Courage Press, 4 years after Colby’s death.
4) April 2011 Google search Of Colby’s quote results in 423,000 hits

A. Did Colby say that quote?
1) There is no primary source or other earlier source extant but McGowan’s for this quote.
2) The quote appears prominently in his introduction (p13) , with no first source attribution.
3) Over 200 other quotes are cited in this book with first source attribution, but not Colby’s.
4) In this book another McGowan unattributed quote (p33), of Lincoln, is a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
5) A search of McGowan’s conspiracist web site does not result in any mention of this Colby's quote. He avoids bringing up his most referenced Colby citation.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/

The preponderance of the evidence shows the Colby quote is a lie and that those who repeat it as true, after knowing the provenance, are frauds.

Well, that was easy. Thanks BasqueArch!

Step 5 - Single Sentence Debunking

"Colby never actually said that, it's a made-up quote".

Step 6 - Discuss the degree of truth in the quote

Of course the quote being fake does not automatically mean there's not some truth behind it. More reputable sources say:

In November 1973, after many such shifts had been made, Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.”

After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full‑time or part‑time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station”

The CIA did have extensive paid and contractual relationships with journalists. But that policy ended 35 years ago. Even if the quote is correct, it's not referring to the current state of affairs, as is implied by the sign. It's mostly likely a corruption of Colby's remarks to the press in 1973.

[Unregistered]

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

[Mick]

Yes, those quotes are from the Rolling Stone article I linked above. They describe the relationship of the Times with the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s. One should always look at the original source. See what was omitted:

The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

The Colby quote is still fake though. It is, of course, grounded in some historical accuracy, but conspiracy theorists like to present it (and the two other quotes you mention) as if they refer to the present day, and not 50-60 years ago.

[Juror No. 8]

The CIA did have extensive paid and contractual relationships with journalists. But that policy ended 35 years ago.

How do we really know these CIA-Big Media financial relationships ended? How do we really know they didn't continue in some other, more secretive way?

[Spongebob]

MI5 here in the UK. Jon Snow (channel 4 news reader) was offered a tax free salary if he would work for MI5 (become their agent). He refused.

Jon Snow believes that others in the media have been made the same offer and accepted.

Without doubt I believe the media is controlled. From local press to national press, to the major TV news companies.

I am surprised that anyone would question this?

[Mick]

MI5 here in the UK. Jon Snow (channel 4 news reader) was offered a tax free salary if he would work for MI5 (become their agent). He refused.

That was in 1976. 36 years ago. Don't you think if the entire media (tens of thousands of people) was controlled, then a few more examples would have been leaked out since then?

And what does it mean that the media is controlled? MI5 individually vets everything that is said before it goes on to the press, or on air?

The media certainly exhibits a variety of biases. But I think "controlled" is rather too strong a descriptor.

[Spongebob]

If it was offered in 76, then that shows at least how long these methods have been in place.

It is fact, MI5 do indeed control the key players in the UK.

The "slant" presented to the general public via so called "reputable" media / news channels is the most powerful 'message' delivered to society in general.

It is so simple to control society through the "information" they receive sitting in front of their ignorance boxes that to refuse to abuse this single most influential power would be unthinkable.

Biases, messages, neurolinguistics, subtle censorship...

It requires very little once top level editing is in place, with the presenters on side.

Newspaper editors have the final say, journalist who cover alternate stories will not be printed. It is simple and easy to accomplish with a budget, power and the top / key personnel on the payrol.

[Spongebob]

Write a letter to your local paper.

Question "global warming" - windfarms - fiat currency - common purpose (a so called charity in the UK)

The letter will never, ever be printed.

Point proven.

[Juror No. 8]

I don't believe the entire media is controlled directly, as hand puppets are. I believe it is much more subtle than that, and there is probably a combination of factors at work here:

- A small fraction of media personalities, pundits, and journalists are probably either current or ex-CIA/Operation Mockingbird assets (funded, trained, monitored, etc...). These people are put in place and are called on to deliver certain types of propaganda on command at key moments.

- A larger but still relatively small fraction of notable media personalities, pundits, and journalists are members of influential corporate NGOs and think tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations, for instance, which was originally created by J.P. Morgan international banking interests to steer the United States toward world government. Membership in these NGOs and think tanks probably has some influence on how these media people report the news, and might also indicate a shared, globalist ideology.

- Advertising dollars from large, multinational corporate sponsors has a gigantic influence on how the news is reported. News outlets and TV shows that peddle the right mixture of approved Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Oil, Big Finance, and military-industrial complex propaganda get the most money.

- Media ownership and control of editorial desks, writers, studios, and producers. Media moguls who outright own their own media outlets or a controlling stake in media outlets can dictate news coverage of any subject by having control of the people who bring it to the masses. You'll also find that a number of these media moguls are active members of NGOs and think tanks, again, like the Council on Foreign Relations, for instance.

These are just a few examples.

I believe most of the media control comes in the form of the false paradigm we live under and how it makes us perceive the world around us so incorrectly. This, in turn, leads to even the honest media personalities and journalists reporting the news and covering certain topics incorrectly, even when they don't intend to. This is the most subtle, and comprehensive, form of media control of all.

We are all taught to believe in certain "truths" about democracy, political representation, government, the financial system, money, the legal system, history, and the State. Many of these truths are really just fabrications. They have been put in place by the ruling elites over the course of hundreds of years to help them maintain control of the population they exploit, the same way a cattle rancher might erect fences to keep his herd from scattering. We the People, along with the press we rely on to give us the truth, are stuck within this false paradigm, and many of us don't even realize it, including the news media.

This is what is really meant by the phrase, "controlled media".

[Mick]

Write a letter to your local paper.

Question "global warming" - windfarms - fiat currency - common purpose (a so called charity in the UK)

The letter will never, ever be printed.

Point proven.

Huh? I see letters like that all the time in local papers. See, for example my old local paper:

Google Search for "global warming" site:www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/news_opinion/tafeaturesletters

Just one example touches two of your bases:

Content from external source


SIR – Having just read an interesting article by our former chancellor Nigel Lawson extolling the virtues of our ever-green policies, I felt I had to put pen to paper.
It is becoming more and more apparent that our folly of climate change is falling apart and carbon emissions are having little, if any, effect on the global warming and how much harm, if any, it would do.
By installing many very inefficient wind turbines to alleviate the carbon emissions, we are indeed creating many ‘green’ jobs, but at an ever-increasing subsidy by us all – and if you think we aren’t paying for them, look at your electricity bill.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they were manufactured in the UK.
An ever-increasing fuel bill is making the UK less competitive for real productive jobs, and companies always take into account these costs when deciding where to establish a manufacturing base.
I say to the greenies when the coal-fired ships are sailing off into the sunset, instead of shouting to the sailors, “You will fall off the edge of the earth,” you should get on board and face reality.
Derrick Hodgson, Falcon Road, Bingley

Content from external source

[Spongebob]

It goes beyond "allowing" a few comments on the global warming con.

Common Purpose in the UK have seemingly total control of major national broadcasters (TV and press) down to local level.

It`s not a conspiracy, it is simply fact. There is no debunk for this it is simply true.

Look into "common Purpose" (charity?) and all will become clear.

[Mick]

It goes beyond "allowing" a few comments on the global warming con.

Common Purpose in the UK have seemingly total control of major national broadcasters (TV and press) down to local level.

It`s not a conspiracy, it is simply fact. There is no debunk for this it is simply true.

Look into "common Purpose" (charity?) and all will become clear.

I looked it up, an I did not find anything to back this statement. Could you provide a couple of links that have evidence of their control of the press?

[Spongebob]

http://cpexposed.com/

http://cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose

I asked a local councillor if he knew of, or had been on a CP course - he declined to answer...



Leveson Inquiry - Control of the Press and Media by David Bell’s Common Purpose:

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/leve...common-purpose

[Mick]

I'm still not seeing the evidence that they control the press. I just see Brian Gerrish continually asserting that they do. Could you maybe paraphrase what you think the evidence is?

[Spongebob]

I'm still not seeing the evidence that they control the press. I just see Brian Gerrish continually asserting that they do. Could you maybe paraphrase what you think the evidence is?

Not really Mick.

I am not sure about Gerrish, something I can`t put my finger on?

Either way, CP are a very odd organisation who`s reason for existing is what?
Not a conspiracy as such as it is documented, more why does it exist and who benefits from the organisation/charity??

[Unregistered]

This isn't about the CIA owning the media, Mick here was simply 'debunking' a quote. Mick most likely has no clue who owns or gives orders to the media like the rest of us mere mortals. However, Operation Mockingbird was there for a reason.

And to receive praise from the great David Rockefeller, they must have done something to get in his good books.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

[Mick]

That sounds like he was just talking about the Bilderberg meetings. The directors of the newspapers were invited to attend, but not to write about what they heard and discussed there.

[Edit] Actually, it's a disputed quote, with one indirect source.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller

Content from external source:

Disputed

• We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
  
  • Purported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, The remarks are said to have been printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter; as quoted inProgramming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales (1993) by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn, p. 65. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or outright fraudulance.

[Unregistered]

We know... no one was asking where it came from and no it's not disputed, stop reading wikipedia and get a real source. It shows the alarmingly cosy relationship between them all, the meeting has been going on quite a long time now and the sheer loyalty the mainstream media have at honouring Rockefeller is astounding. Have you ever considered you have a problem? You seem desperate to convince yourself everything is fine, nothing to be even just a tad suspicious about. Operation Mockingbirds only purpose was to get the U.S media on its side.

[Mick]

I most certainly do not think everything is fine. Unjustified wars, the worlds largest prison population, massive wealth inequality, endemic homelessness, weak education, government and corporate corruption are not "fine". They are very real problems.

But bunk can stand alone. If bunk supports or does not support your world view should not come into reckoning when you choose to debunk it.

The Rockefeller quote, for example - there is no real evidence he actually said it. It IS disputed, because people dispute that he said it. It shows up only in conspiracy literature.

Why are you so convinced that he actually said it? (besides it ringing true to your world view)

[Unregistered 2]

It is far more than unjustified wars, homelessness, etc. It is far more deep and complex. It goes beyond quotes and starts with actions and reactions, their is a method to the madness. That being said, the media today either doesn't report on, spins, or smears many topics. Political dissidence is silenced and made unpopular. If you believe that the CIA stopped manipulating the media in the 1970's you are very naive, the very fact that they began the process should be ringing church bells inside your head. Look up operation mockingbird and checkout the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBZKCgobqo

All lies by the media

“You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.”
–CIA operative, quoted in Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis
“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.”
–William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
“The Agency’s relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”
–The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
–former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition

And not to mention this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=V6n44caBl18#!

[Mick]

It is far more than unjustified wars, homelessness, etc. It is far more deep and complex. It goes beyond quotes and starts with actions and reactions, their is a method to the madness. That being said, the media today either doesn't report on, spins, or smears many topics. Political dissidence is silenced and made unpopular. If you believe that the CIA stopped manipulating the media in the 1970's you are very naive, the very fact that they began the process should be ringing church bells inside your head. Look up operation mockingbird and checkout the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBZKCgobqo

All lies by the media

Not those were lies or exaggerations, or weak deductions, by the administration, or by individuals. The media repeated the information that was given to them, as they had no way of disproving it.

Later it was the media the exposed the inaccuracies.

Where is the evidence of direct CIA manipulation of the media in the last 30 years (1980 to the present)? Specifically?

(BTW, if you intend participating here, I'd appreciate it if you log in, as otherwise it makes conversation difficult to follow).

[Unregistered]

All there is on the TV is CIA propaganda. The pretty women on fox news are CIA. I AM SURE. Brazinski's daughter works for MSNBC!

ALL TV IS PROPAGANDA AND IS CONTROLLED.

This is a disinfo blog.

[random guy]

First of all i suggest you read this as its a blueprint for propaganda.

http://deoxy.org/huxley1.htm

Second of all only 5 corporations and their subsidiaries control 95% of all media in America. so a perceived bias is probably real whether intentional or not its a product of a closed system i.e. a monopoly of mass media and corporate monopoly of just about everything else.

http://www.corporations.org/media/

but thirdly i believe that conspiracies arnt so much constructed in back smoke filled rooms with a bunch of guys planing it, as its more as a product born of a system, in this system symbiotic goals emerge since its in their interests to pursue these goals that are mutually beneficial, the people who control vast wealth and media no doubt use them to push their own agenda, and i don't think they work much to stop rumors and wild speculation of facts if it furthers their own agenda.

[BlueCollarCritic]

All there is on the TV is CIA propaganda. The pretty women on fox news are CIA. I AM SURE. Brazinski's daughter works for MSNBC!

ALL TV IS PROPAGANDA AND IS CONTROLLED.

This is a disinfo blog.

No offense intended but if metabunk.org is a disinfo blog thens it not a very good one.

Yes Mick does tend to go with twhat is commonly termed "the mainstream" but hes admitted several times that there are problems everywhere, far from "everythings fine". He also is far too patient in dealing with those who take the opposing side and post emotional rants instead of points/persuasive arguments, to be a disinfo warrior. Thats not to say there aren't a few disinfo trolls here sometimes howevre Mick isn't one.

[Felix Vainglory]

This might be of interest to you good people:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/29-10


EXCERPT:

Content from external source:


Correspondence and Collusion Between the New York Times and the CIA
Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

"...what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:

"My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon."

She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciate[d] it".

...

It may be "inconsistent with the New York Times standards" for one of its reporters to secretly send advanced copy to the CIA and then ask that the agency delete all record that he did so: one certainly hopes it is. But it is not, unfortunately, inconsistent with the paper's behavior in general, when it comes to reporting on public officials. Serving as obedient lapdogs and message-carriers for political power, rather than adversarial watchdogs over power, is par for the course.

The most obvious example of this is the paper's complicity with propagating war-fueling falsehoods to justify the attack on Iraq – though, in that instance, it was hardly alone. Just last month, it was revealed that the NYT routinely gives veto power to Obama campaign officials over the quotes from those officials the paper is allowed to publish – a practice barred by other outlets (but not the NYT) both prior to that revelation and subsequent to it.

Worse, the paper frequently conceals vital information of public interest at the direction of the government, as it did when it learned of George Bush's illegal eavesdropping program in mid 2004 but concealed it for more than a year at the direction of the White House, until Bush was safely re-elected; as it did when it complied with government directives to conceal the CIA employment of Raymond Davis, captured by Pakistan, even as President Obama falsely described him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" and as the NYT reported the president's statement without noting that it was false; and as it did with its disclosure of numerous WikiLeaks releases, for which the paper, as former executive editor Bill Keller proudly boasted, took direction from the government regarding what should and should not be published.

And that's all independent of the chronic practice of the NYT to permit government officials to hide behind anonymity in order to disseminate government propaganda – or even to smear journalists as al-Qaida sympathizers for reporting critically on government actions – even when granting such anonymity violates its own publicly announced policies.

What all of this behavior from the NYT has in common is clear: it demonstrates the extent to which it institutionally collaborates with and serves the interests of the nation's most powerful factions, rather than act as an adversarial check on them. When he talks to the CIA spokesperson, Mazzetti sounds as if he's talking to a close colleague working together on a joint project.

It sounds that way because that's what it is." -Glenn Greenwald

[Mick]

This might be of interest to you good people:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/29-10

The "official story" there is that Mazzetti was fact checking with the CIA at Dowd's request, but sent them too many facts:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...mn-133479.html

Content from external source:

Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.

[Unregistard]

ALL TV IS PROPAGANDA AND IS CONTROLLED.

This is a disinfo blog.

X2

"ASK ABOUT ILLUMINATI THUG BOYS" in 1980's "Duck Tales" cartoon.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=83e_1...397&comments=1

"clearly some of the people who were forced to create these propaganda shows for the masses were unhappy about the situation and tried to warn others about the masonic luciferian new world order that controls the media

look at ducktails, it was a very anti capitalist, anti american cartoon which depicted wealthy people as negative characters"

[Usually a comment on a rare piece of the puzzle such as this, will usually reveal some pertinent well researched facts - as everyone I know who has the courage to look at the truth will all come to the same conclusions in time, if they care to]

Proof Chemtrails are being edited into old moves, commercials, cartoons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrlwFo-_P1c

What don't believe the "government" would be "evil" enough to do such a thing as edit big fat Chemtrails in childrens cartoons to train them....????

Then that is probably because you don't believe the government would commit and coverup such a thing as Chemtrails do you now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGm5URFuj_c


The only Conspiracy with a big honkin smoking gun is 9/11, and most people can't see it, or try to argue it until peoples heads hurt, focusing on the little things. The 3 towers that collapsed on 9/11 all defied the laws of thermo-dynamics... The fires were almost out, and several researchers have confirmed perfectly round sphere's of nano-thermite, that could have only been formed under those conditions.

1 Hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
2 Hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pI


"Wake Up Sheeple"
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.files.wordp...dees.jpg?w=640

Of course Mick here agrees there is stuff wrong with the world... He's disinfo... I hate posting here. This is the mental institute for those who can't handle what they've looked into, what they caught a glimpse of.

Like all these shootings, to de-arm the population.

Sandy Hook & Aurora
Both In Dark Knight Rises -
What Are The Odds?
http://rense.com/general95/sandyaurora.html

and The Satanic Olympics
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/08...t-to-show-you/


The Tears Of Obama, Sandy Hook And GO SH at the Olympics
http://merovee.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/gosh/

[Mick]

Quite the Gish Gallop there, unregistard. Would you actually like to discuss any of that?

[JRBids]

"Second of all only 5 corporations and their subsidiaries control 95% of all media in America."


I'd really like to know if this is true. It's certainly all the rage to say it on Facebook.

[Unregistard]

you edited my post (for politeness!?)

[...]

Your infringing on free speech, Mick. Well, this no longer America anyways... Free speech "zones" and you can get a felony for asking Obama questions that upset him... Not to mention Businesses dont have to allow free speech on or near their property.

You know a few years ago I had cops walk into my house and arrest me for a sound ordinance violation- even though I had a decibel meter on the edge of my property and was WELL within limits...? Not that the cops cared about constitutional rights anyways.

[...]

BTW, if Adam Lanza's AR15 was found in the trunk of his car, how did he use it to kill those poor kids? Durrpa durp!

[Unregistered]

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - attributed to Former CIA director, William Colby.

Step 0 - Check to see if it's already been debunked

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647



Well, that was easy. Thanks BasqueArch!

Step 5 - Single Sentence Debunking

"Colby never actually said that, it's a made-up quote".

Step 6 - Discuss the degree of truth in the quote

Of course the quote being fake does not automatically mean there's not some truth behind it. More reputable sources say:


The CIA did have extensive paid and contractual relationships with journalists. But that policy ended 35 years ago. Even if the quote is correct, it's not referring to the current state of affairs, as is implied by the sign. It's mostly likely a corruption of Colby's remarks to the press in 1973.

First of all, do you really believe the CIA when they say "oh those relationships ended LONG ago...hyuck hyuck hyuck" (yes I paraphrased that one loosely)? This statement should be reworded to "Everyone of any significance in major media is owned and influenced by corporations...not real journalism".

[Mick]

you edited my post (for politeness!?)

[...]

Your infringing on free speech, Mick. Well, this no longer America anyways... Free speech "zones" and you can get a felony for asking Obama questions that upset him... Not to mention Businesses dont have to allow free speech on or near their property.

You know a few years ago I had cops walk into my house and arrest me for a sound ordinance violation- even though I had a decibel meter on the edge of my property and was WELL within limits...? Not that the cops cared about constitutional rights anyways.

[...]

BTW, if Adam Lanza's AR15 was found in the trunk of his car, how did he use it to kill those poor kids? Durrpa durp!

It wasn't, that was a shotgun.

There are limits to free speech. Your limits were that it was annoying your neighbors. Here the limit is simply that you be polite. I don't think being polite should in any way restrict you from expression of ideas. Just express them politely.

[Mick]

First of all, do you really believe the CIA when they say "oh those relationships ended LONG ago...hyuck hyuck hyuck" (yes I paraphrased that one loosely)? This statement should be reworded to "Everyone of any significance in major media is owned and influenced by corporations...not real journalism".

I discuss this in the original post. I'm sure the CIA has some kind of relationships with some people in the media, particularly those with dealings outside the US. That does not make the quote less fake - or at least totally without provenance.

[Unregistered]

The "official story" there is that Mazzetti was fact checking with the CIA at Dowd's request, but sent them too many facts:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...mn-133479.html

Content from external source:

Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.

The politico article you shared even casts doubt on the official story. I encourage you to read the original Greenwald article as he includes various links for reference. Without endorsing any of the other comments by the other posters I do recommend following greenwald on twitter. I do appreciate your debunking of the original quote re : CIA and media; shedding light on many of our culture's hollow narratives is not helped through the use of incorrect information.

[Unregistered]

This was a good film by Colby's son. Highly recommend it: Streaming on Netflix. The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father CIA Spymaster William Colby. (2011). http://imdb.to/YwRvK8

[Cairenn]

I have yet to see ANY PROOF that the CIA or big business controls the media.

If advertisers controlled what was shown on the news, then we would never hear of someone killed by a drunk driver, or by someone killed in an alcohol fueled rage, since the BEER companies are one of the biggest advertisers on TV.

The HUGE problem with all the conspiracies you mention is that it would TAKE thousands of folks, knowing and never telling to cover them up.

I have been checking out Mr Greenwald's articles and don't find them as interesting as you do. He constantly shows a bias in the information he uses to support his opinions. He seems to be full of complaints, but he offers no real solutions. He seems to be on that far left wing that is edging into anarchy.

[The Light]

I have yet to see ANY PROOF that the CIA or big business controls the media.

Read "Into The Buzzsaw: LEADING JOURNALISTS EXPOSE THE MYTH OF A FREE PRESS". It's written by award winning journalists. These journalists have all had major story shut down by Corporate or Gov't pressure. Most were fired.
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-L.../dp/1591022304

You can't comment knowledgeably on this topic until you read that book.

Two friends of mine work in the editing rooms of 2 of the biggest news agencies on Earth. What gets on air is approved.

Not many people are allowed to approve what gets on air. Reporters and editors only work on what management wants them working on. If the "slant" of a story isn't what management wants the story gets re-edited or doesn't air. Very powerful reporters may have some leeway BUT they don't become powerful reporters unless they are management friendly. That's true in EVERY business. If management doesn't like what you're up to you're not promoted. No conspiracy required.

I'm a filmmaker. I know ANY story can be altered massively by the edit and the presentation. Even the "experts" the media chooses to represent each side of an argument skews the argument massively. Hannity vs. Colmes, for instance. It's the WWF. Maybe everything isn't a blatant lie, but it's all "managed". Ann Coulter vs. Code Pink etc.

I recently shot (filmed) something for a medical industry company. Our expert (the best expert) was not attractive enough for the client company. No kidding. We had to find someone else to say the same stuff. Why? Perception. The message is always optimized.

Additionally, there are several positions of the argument that go completely unreported. Those are probably the interesting positions. The way the media FRAMES an argument ALTERS the argument. It's not a lie. But it alters perception.

I recently saw a debate on whether torture "worked". No one brought up the possibility we might be torturing innocent people. No one mentioned Ben Franklin's quote "It is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer".

This was a "debate" of what level of evil was OK. Not IF evil was OK. That's a disingenuous reframing of a more important question. What does it mean to be America? Is this Liberty?

Richard Clark was drummed off television when he didn't follow the preferred script of the networks in the lead up to last Iraq War.

There are so many subtle ways the media skews a message that any "debunker" can say it wasn't skewed. If you're ignorant of the techniques then it does seem real. And the individuals on TV a very likely genuine. It's the SELECTION of who gets on TV that skews the debate. Sean Hannity doesn't have to be "in on it". He can honestly voice his opinion and tell people he can say anything he wants uncensored. Could be true. He doesn't have a history of saying things management doesn't like.

If you understand persuasion works it's obvious that everything on TV is a managed persuasion effort. It's not all in one political direction either. It's two. Controlled opposition to give the illusion of a fight so people can pick a side and feel they are being represented.

But when you get in on the news yourself you'll see the gray areas. I actually did that in Shanksville PA. I spoke to witnesses there. I spoke to a national reporter that wanted to report his true, controversial findings regarding Flight 93. He was told by his Big New York paper editor "the gov't told us what happened and that's what we're printing". His story was killed.

But a Philly reporter did get stories published regarding Flight 93 from 9-11:

"What is surprising is this: Go to Shanksville and the surrounding farm fields where people actually saw or heard the jetliner go down at roughly 10:06 that morning and there are a number of people - including witnesses - who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or at least aren't ruling it out.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms - and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down," insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART..._93_crash.html

Remember how NBC recently reported only handguns were found inside Sandy Hook. You don't?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJkvB9goPAA

Hmm... that would seem to downplay the Assault Rifles are evil spin. So the media forgets it. Even the conservative media forgets it. Why?

Speaking of FOX, Who partly owns FOX? A SAUDI. Does he believe he helps control the message? Yes he does:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-saudi-...corp-coverage/

Alwaleed said he got the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.” This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them.. with a phone call.

One powerful dude makes a phone call and "fogs perception". That's REAL world persuasion. And it's admitted. No conspiracy. Now the FACT that he can do it and brag about it PROVES how malleable the news is. He's just a 5% owner. Rupert Murdock can say the sky is Magenta and they'll color correct the sky to magenta. Or they will lose their posh job. What would you do?

Recently CCN's Amber Lyon was not allowed to report on roadside executions in Bahrain. She alleges Bahrain has paid CNN to report favorably. Amber is no longer with CNN. Bahrain apparently still is.
http://www.examiner.com/article/form...ore-oppression

Now is the CIA involved in "some" way? They'd be negligent NOT to be involved. And they'd be negligent if anyone KNEW IT. They have a long history of CREATING news. Why in the world would they STOP one of their most effective practices? It's nonsensical to even posit the proposition.

"The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-t...deas_to_d.html

The incubator story in Kuwait that vaulted the first Iraq war into outrage was a CIA fake story:
http://www.whale.to/b/kuwait_babies.html

The CIA can manipulate US news by channeling it through a foreign companies. And CIA paid reporters... including TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bEOCWkoZ3Q

There's a great quote in that video I'll paraphrase: "I think it's still going on today (CIA reporters) but reporters need to be much more careful than they were in the 70s."

So these are stories from the 50s through the 2000s. Operation Mockingbird never stopped. And why would it??? Don't be naive.

Anyone reading along saying "prove it to me". That's why I've included so many links. But why aren't you looking for yourself? Are you afraid to have your world view messed with? If so, stick with Dancing with the Stars and don't post on ANYTHING ANYWHERE that requires research. Really.

I often research and find I'm wrong about things based on my opinion of the evidence. I don't stop when I find the first article to support my position. That's not what a real skeptic does.

I want to see every side of the issue. Critical analysis is not taught in school.

In the end, many things are unprovable. But at least concede that instead of taking a position like "the CIA said they stopped doing something 30 years ago and i trust they don't lie, so... well... they stopped." The CIA LIES FOR A LIVING. Come on.

Everyone in the movie business knows that if you want military cooperation (vehicles etc) their media relations people need to approve the script. Common sense. Heck, the local church won't let you film there unless they see the script. No conspiracy required.

More food for thought
Who's Mika Brzezinski's Father? What's he do?

Who's CNN Anderson Cooper's mother? (google it, it's worth it). He's the sole heir to the family fortune.

Those two need jobs reading teleprompters??

What was Matt Drudge's biggest complaint about the media when he "broke in". He said it was an insider's game. He was right. But in the past 20 years the job of "journalist" has gone away as the news has gone towards infotainment. It's still an insiders game. And the on air talent may believe every word they say. They should. It's more believable and that's why they got the job. Focus groups showed people believe them.

Consider this: big advertisers don't need to sell crap via a TV commercial. Many already have a distribution monopoly. For instance, drug reps sell drugs to doctors who pimp them to you. Drug companies don't want too many negative news stories. Commercials are the PAYOLA for relatively favorable news. The "tell your doctor you want Viagra" part is icing on the cake. There will be the occasional bad story just to "keep it real".

But Monsanto threatened to pull all advertising off FOX nationwide ($300 Million) and sue them if they ran a local affiliate story about Bovine Growth Hormone. Why? It's was HUGELY profitable despite potentially serious problems for children consuming that milk. That's documented in the Myth of a Free Press book linked above.

BTW - Donahue had the highest ratings on MSNBC and was beating Chris Matthews Hardball when Donahue was cancelled in 2002. He was anti-war. Who owned NBC. General Electric. Where do they make tons of cash? Defense Contracts.

Trivia - What was the largest never bombed weapons factory in Berlin at the end of WWII? General Electric. I hope the dots are starting to connect.

Donahue:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/15...ti-war-voices/

GE and Hitler:
http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

Double think this. WE didn't bomb two GE plants in Germany EVER in WWII. We bombed everything else into oblivion. That might take 3 read throughs before the implications really hit you. GE had enough power to make their factories off limits to Allied bombers. This is documented in the book "Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler".

GE is a HUGE company. NBC is pocket change. Comcast now owns 51% of NBC but GE still owns 49% (wikipedia). If a 5% Saudi shareholder in FOX can alter their news it's a safe bet both GE and Comcast can tune in or out whatever they want at NBC.

Now here's what a real interview looks like - let the witness speak unedited.

Barry Jennings was inside WTC 7 and his testimony is not covered or included in the official NIST report. This inside witness details the EXACT order of events clearly. He states WTC 1 had not yet fallen when he heard explosions going off around him in WTC 7. He clearly states WTC 1 debris did NOT cause WTC 7 to fall. BEST WITNESS ON EARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc

Here's what an independent journalist looks like:
http://www.gregpalast.com/ballotbandits/
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

Who owns the media?
http://the4thpillar.files.wordpress....ediamoguls.jpg

It's a MASSIVE consolidation of power. Truly, probably 50 people control the general tone of the news message worldwide with a few independent voices. That doesn't mean it's the SAME message for every outlet. Remember - the game is controlled opposition and the illusion of honest reporting.

I could go on forever. And ever. Really. If you believe the news isn't rigged when it comes to anything important you simply aren't being intellectually honest.

But, you've been manipulated your entire life. (My degree was in Marketing and I'm a filmmaker. Trust me, we're screwing with you even if it's just to make a buck - but the exact same tactics are used to start wars. Study any marketing or propaganda book then turn the TV back on. You'll wake up.)

Carroll Quigley is the key to understanding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVqPnMQ2sI

"Tragedy and Hope" by Carroll Quigley is the only true inside account of the how elite Americans guided the course of the last 100 years. It is not a conspiracy. He was commissioned as a Harvard Professor and trusted insider to write their history. The book was not intended to become public.

Truly, you can't be a skeptic without reading that book.
Also, read the "Reese Commission Report on Tax Exempt Foundations".

If after REAL research you still believe the media is "liberal" or "conservative" or "unbiased" then I give up. I tried.

Remember - CIA, NSA and similar have programs to participate in and alter Internet conversations. Any discussion like this one SHOULD have disinformation posts. Maybe mine is one.

Good Luck and Have Fun.

Start here - it's an easy read:
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-L.../dp/1591022304

[The Light]

Also, read the "Reese Commission Report on Tax Exempt Foundations".

The correct title of that report is:
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations (1954). This outlines how massive private wealth is hidden and used to change US Policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5eHdTk5hjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZx_27dYTNA

Charlotte Iserbyt is also important. Many don't know that Rockefeller Foundations created public schooling and remain active. And why. She had access to all the inside documents in the Department of Education under Reagan. This is 10 minute intro of how the system of Education "actually" works. Truly a must watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

The truth is so interesting. And horrifying. And documented. And unreported.

Do debunkers know any of this stuff? If you're high IQ please be aware of the intelligence trap.

Edward de Bono - The intelligence trap
Unfortunately, many people with a high intelligence actually turn out to be poor thinkers. They get caught in the 'intelligence trap', of which there are many aspects. For example, a highly intelligent person may take up a view on a subject and then defend that view (through choice of premises and perception) very ably. The better someone is able to defend a view, the less inclined is that person actually to explore the subject. So the highly intelligent person can get trapped by intelligence, together with our usual sense of logic that you cannot be more right than right, into one point of view.

The less intelligent person is less sure of his or her rightness and therefore more free to explore the subject and other points of view.

A highly intelligent person usually grows up with a sense of that intellectual superiority and needs to be seen to be 'right' and 'clever'. Such a person is less willing to risk creative and constructive ideas, because such ideas may take a time to show their worth or to get accepted.

Highly intelligent people are often attracted to the quick pay-off of negativity. If you attack someone else's ideas or thinking, there can be an immediate achievement together with a useful sense of superiority.

In intellectual terms attack is also cheap and easy because the attacker can always choose the frame of reference.
From Edward de Bono's I Am Right, You Are Wrong

(Thank You for approving my long winded stuff - it's written for "the few")

[Mick]

I don't think anyone neutral who has ever seen Fox News is in any doubt that it's biased. There's obvious SOME corporate (and individual) influence of the media. The question is how much, and who, and what does the CIA do with domestic media.

You give a lot of examples. Can you pick the one that you think has the strongest evidence? Preferable a CIA related one.

[The Light]

You give a lot of examples. Can you pick the one that you think has the strongest evidence? Preferable a CIA related one.

I think the problem is trying to pick one example and then someone focuses and debunks. All my examples prove the point on their own. Combined they are irrefutable.

The CIA is secret so "proving" anything regarding them means they didn't do their job. We're going to find out about today's lies in 20 years. Maybe.

Trivia: The CIA is a private company. Most people think it's a government agency. Not so. Private company contracted to the Gov't. Just like Halliburton. Or Blackwater. But they are above and beyond the law. By law.

What true investigative reporters even exist today? The elimination of those reporters is bias. Now the news simply reports what it is told. They don't find anything out for themselves anymore. It's not real news.

The CIA drug running is the easiest example of the power and problem with the CIA. This guy tells you how the media suppressed his story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6dHqP9wc3k

Since the story was killed it means the CIA or simliar has enough influence to do so.

Read The Myth of Free Press book. Another CIA insider writes one of the accounts.

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
George Orwell