Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

40 Replies - 3291 Views - Last Post: 03 February 2015 - 07:22 PM

#1 Rhino1111  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 106
  • View blog
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 08:19 PM

NDAA Legalizes Propaganda(This is kinda old (from 2012), but I still found it interesting)
Articles:
http://www.businessi...opaganda-2012-5
http://foreignpolicy...s-to-americans/

Operation Mockingbird hearing (old):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

And with the increased prosecution of journalists/whistleblowers under the current administration,
Articles:
https://cpj.org/repo...ce-post-911.php
http://www.theguardi...ort-prosecution

I want to leave the following John F. Kennedy quote:

Quote

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.


His speech:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8
Full version:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs

I find it funny how JFK warned us years and years ago...then BAM, right through the head.
Thoughts, Opinions? looking forward to hearing what people think on all this.

This post has been edited by Rhino1111: 27 January 2015 - 10:04 PM


Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

#2 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 2024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,609
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 09:35 PM

*
POPULAR

I dislike having to read the contents of 4 links just so you can post a cryptic quote suggesting JFK may have been a closet psychic whenever he wasn't boning movie stars instead of his hot French wife.

How about you do us a favor and summarize all that for us.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 27 January 2015 - 09:36 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 5
  • +
  • -

#3 Rhino1111  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 106
  • View blog
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 10:17 PM

well it's a lot of information, I'll try to summarize it as best as I can (copy pasted the most relevant information, not written by me).

NDAA Legalizes Propaganda
IO = Information Operations

Davis defines IO as "the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own."

IO are primarily used to target foreign audiences, but Davis cites numerous senior leaders who want to (in the words of Colonel Richard B. Leap) "protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will" by repealing the Smith-Mundt Act to allow the direct deployment of these tactics on the American public.

Operation Mockingbird

Operation Mockingbird was 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.


Prosecution of Whistleblowers/Journalists

A couple whistleblower examples:

Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou: “I’m the Only One in Prison”.
Chelsea/Bradley Manning.
Edward Snowden.

A couple journalist examples:

A Dallas, Texas court has sentenced journalist Barrett Brown to 63 months behind bars for links to the hacktivist collective Anonymous.

"The fact that the government has still asked you to punish me for that link is proof, if any more were needed, that those of us who advocate against secrecy are to be pursued without regard for the rule of law, or even common decency," Brown told the judge.

The administration has also targeted journalists. In May, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly seized AP reporters’ phone records while investigating a potential CIA leak, and targeted a Fox News reporter as part of a criminal leak case. No journalist has been charged with a crime. But the news prompted an outcry that Obama’s hard line on leaks could have a "chilling effect" on investigative reporting that depends on inside sources.

Some more of JFK's speeches that the Military Industrial Complex probably didn't like.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_cPQiLBrUA (part 1)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBhcE3lcGEY (part 2)

/end summary

This post has been edited by Rhino1111: 27 January 2015 - 10:33 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 13554
  • View blog
  • Posts: 54,090
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 10:21 PM

Agreed - is there some sort of argument here, or just vague hand waving about

Oh.. tossing out 'Operation Mockingbird'. Please give me a minute to get out my Coast to Coast AM coffee mug and patiently sip it while listening to your theory.

Spoiler


Quote

I find it funny how JFK warned us years and years ago...then BAM, right through the head.

'Right through the head'? That was in poor taste.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#5 laytonsdad  Icon User is offline

  • Let it rip!
  • member icon

Reputation: 466
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,991
  • Joined: 30-April 10

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 10:24 PM

I have yet to see anything to discuss here, what is the the point of this thread? Not sure.. never mind.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#6 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Chinga la migra
  • member icon


Reputation: 10720
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,353
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 10:52 PM

Quote

NDAA Legalizes Propaganda


When was propaganda ever meant to be illegal?
Was This Post Helpful? 3
  • +
  • -

#7 Rhino1111  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 106
  • View blog
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 11:09 PM

View Postmodi123_1, on 27 January 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

Agreed - is there some sort of argument here, or just vague hand waving about

Oh.. tossing out 'Operation Mockingbird'. Please give me a minute to get out my Coast to Coast AM coffee mug and patiently sip it while listening to your theory.


Does there need to be some argument? The point? "Interested in hearing people's thoughts/opinions" on this information(Aren't programmers supposed to have good reading comprehension?). There's much more "pointless" things posted in this section, it's your "off-topic" section after all.
(Though people who think freedom of the press and government transparency is pointless should probably go back to their Bread&Circus)

My theory? JFK probably rubbed some fairly influential people the wrong way. Executive Order 11110 might have had something to do with it. Maybe some of his speeches that the Military Industrial Complex didn't like. Who knows.

Why was MLK Jr. assasinated?

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 27 January 2015 - 10:52 PM, said:

When was propaganda ever meant to be illegal?


Under the Smith-Mundt Act. (Only applied to home soil, though).

This post has been edited by Rhino1111: 27 January 2015 - 11:29 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Chinga la migra
  • member icon


Reputation: 10720
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,353
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 27 January 2015 - 11:49 PM

Looking at the provisions of that act, it seems to me that you're getting worked up about the idea that the Voice of America might be heard within the borders of the United States. I don't see why that would bunch up anyone's panties. Can you give me a hint about why it would be a bad thing?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 Rhino1111  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 106
  • View blog
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 01:17 AM

Nothing is wrong with the Smith-Mundt Act. The problem, in my opinion, is the NDAA which amended sections of that act.

Public Law 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012),
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA 2013)

“Amendment No. 114 – Reps. Thornberry (R-TX) and Smith (D-WA): The amendment would amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (known as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to clarify the authorities of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information [propaganda] abroad and to strike the current ban on domestic dissemination of such material. The amendment would clarify that the Smith-Mundt Act’s provisions related to public diplomacy information [propaganda] do not apply to other federal departments or agencies (including the DoD).”

The full text of the amendment is assumed to be H.R. 5736, euphemistically labelled the “Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2013″.

“The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts – the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987 – that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns… The new law would give sweeping powers to the government to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. ‘It removes the protection for Americans,’ says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. ‘It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false…’

Lol, reminds me of the whole WMD debacle. Waving around a test tube with washing powder at the U.N. assembly.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson — who prepared the U.N. speech, later renounced it.

We could take a look at other countries for examples of why state run media is a bad idea.

This post has been edited by Rhino1111: 28 January 2015 - 01:32 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 baavgai  Icon User is online

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon


Reputation: 6995
  • View blog
  • Posts: 14,630
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 05:08 AM

The "US Media" focuses on what it chooses to and it's actually kind of obvious; no need for conspiracy. Mass media is simply a business. Businesses don't bite the hand that feeds them, so main stream outlets will never do some in depth piece on a corporate corruption, for instance.

The "media" doesn't hide information, they just ignore what they don't want to deal with. You needn't look for conspiracy, there lots of wonderful well documented stuff to show various biases.

You can easily find information on the Koch brothers, but the media likes to ignore these leaders in government buy offs. A quick Washington Post piece on how SCOTUS recently legalized such activities. And, of course, the obvious result.

Is the media worried about the US Oligarchy? Of course not. After all, it's ultimately folks like Rupert Murdoch who pay the bills.

Years ago, when Bush was in full sword of God fervor, you could easily read the The Downing Street Memo if you knew it existed. The US media must not have known know it existed, since you never really heard about it. Bush later spells out clearly that his belief in biblical prophesy fueled the charge. Curiously, this never hit US media.

Ever notice that when a couple of Muslim guys try to blow stuff up, they're terrorists. Well, sure, of course they are. But when a couple of Christian white guys blow stuff up, they're "troubled." Unless they're Muslim, the white guys are never labeled terrorists, even if they are by any reasonably definition.

Bottom line, I'm not real bothered by the crazy shit I have no evidence for; there really is enough verifiable crazy for me.
Was This Post Helpful? 4
  • +
  • -

#11 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 2024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,609
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 07:23 AM

I think, lost in all this mild hysteria, is the absent understanding that governments, all governments and all forms of government, stand in direct opposition to personal freedom. Their entire existence is a trade off between personal freedom and the benefits that come from enforced collective will. If you understand that and then go a step further and understand that government of a society assumes the characteristics of a living entity then you have enough of the picture to discern why these things happen and what the ultimate outcome must be.

Once a government is established (in the interests of whatever ruling class will derive from it) its primary interest is NOT in serving the needs of that ruling class but in ensuring its own continuance. This is actually okay because a government that can't sustain itself cannot commit to long term projects which, generally speaking, are in the interests of the society it governs. So, once a government focuses on its own continuance, which does not take up its full attention, it then turns its capacity to serving the elected class. But make no mistake: this is the order of operations for each and every government. It comes first, you come second.

Finally, if you accept that a government is a sort of living entity whose primary concern is its own survival then it should be no great leap to understand that all governments die. Everything that lives, dies. Every single government in human history was established, worked more or less well and eventually died. For as well as our country was set up back in the late 1700's and for as prescient as our Founding Fathers were, no man can create a system of government wherein the role of that government can be changed via the ruling class and have it survive indefinitely. In some cases, that government devolves into a despotism...which is, I believe, what the OP was coyly avoiding saying directly with the subject of this thread. Propaganda is the government attempting to sway the opinions of those it serves (when it's directed inwards). It would be natural to assume that the propaganda furthers the interests of government longevity.

In any event, the balance of our governments interests tips ever more to the side of perpetuating itself and that perpetuation is and will always be at the expense of the personal freedoms of the governed. Less privacy, higher taxes, less freedom...these are all happening right now. Some of them are covert, some less so, some disguised as something else, some not even disclosed. In all cases though, all you have to do is look back a few decades and realize, for the most part and with some notable exceptions, we are not freer now than our parents and grandparents were.

The irony is that the Founding Fathers knew this would happen and tried hard to create a mechanism where we might avoid the despotism as long as possible and once those efforts proved futile, the means to establish another government again.

The real challenge, to me anyway, would be in creating a system of government wherein we can put a hard limit on the excesses of the government we establish. We have laws but the government is now in the business of breaking those laws on a seeming more regular basis.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 28 January 2015 - 07:23 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#12 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 7467
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,067
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 07:46 AM

View PostRhino1111, on 28 January 2015 - 01:09 AM, said:

Does there need to be some argument? The point? "Interested in hearing people's thoughts/opinions" on this information(Aren't programmers supposed to have good reading comprehension?). There's much more "pointless" things posted in this section, it's your "off-topic" section after all.


There does not need to be an "argument" per se, but there DOES need to be a point for discussion. It's not a matter of how valuable you find the rest of the Lounge threads to be. It's not a matter of how "off-topic" you want to go. It's a matter of this being a discussion forum. If there's nothing to discuss, there's no thread. Please check your pomposity at the door. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#13 Rhino1111  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 106
  • View blog
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 01:23 PM

I couldn't agree more Craig. Your post is probably the best thing I've read in a long time.

Quote

The real challenge, to me anyway, would be in creating a system of government wherein we can put a hard limit on the excesses of the government we establish. We have laws but the government is now in the business of breaking those laws on a seeming more regular basis.


Those checks and balances put in place only hold with an informed and active population. If people are uninformed, and/or don't care about what is transpiring, then governments aren't ever held accountable. So to me, the corner stone to any democracy("Rule by the people") would be an informed and active population.

Quote

Bottom line, I'm not real bothered by the crazy shit I have no evidence for; there really is enough verifiable crazy for me.


Haha, this is a great point too. We really are living in a crazy world. Guess it makes life a bit more interesting. :rockon:
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 874
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,706
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 03:03 PM

View PostCraig328, on 28 January 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:

I think, lost in all this mild hysteria, is the absent understanding that governments, all governments and all forms of government, stand in direct opposition to personal freedom.


Governments stand in opposition to anarchy.

Our freedoms are granted by government. i.e. one another.

This is the entire reasoning behind the founding of our government, as flawed as it may be.

Personal Freedom definition:

"freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public"

To claim that the government is somehow standing in the way of your granted freedoms is a bit hyperbolic. It sounds like nonsensical, anti-government propaganda, to be honest.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 2024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,609
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

Posted 28 January 2015 - 03:58 PM

Quote

Our freedoms are granted by government


Wow. I suppose the mildest reply I can offer is that, clearly, you're possessed of a different philosophy than most. I'd be curious to know where it was acquired but suffice to say I'll suggest you have the concepts "freedoms" and "rights" confused. The opposite of freedom is captivity whereas the opposite of rights is duties. Put more simply you may have a right to vote but you'll find your freedom when you can vote for whoever you want. Clearly we are not captive until freed by the government. Indeed, it is government that imposes captivity and not freedom.

I had assumed you were American and, as such, might have absorbed a civics lesson somewhere along the way. I appear to have been mistaken in my assumption. Government doesn't exist to grant you either freedom or rights. They exist solely to restrict both. People exist as entirely free with every right and it is the imposition of the government that restricts both. For your statement to be accurate, we would all be born into a state with zero freedom or rights and it is only through the benevolence of the government that we acquire any of either at all. I can't think of a single American statesman who would agree with your sentiment, past or present.

You were right about one thing though; government does indeed stand in opposition to anarchy but that's because anarchy is defined as: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

I can guess why, with such a flawed perspective on the definitions in play that you'd label such as hyperbole and being nonsensical propaganda...but I assure you, most informed and historical political thought doesn't agree with your perspective.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3