911 and massive deception by the US Government

[twinstead]

911. The housing bubble. Coincidence? I think not

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Good media employees are, like the rest of us, trained from birth. Their political progress is checked when they are interviewed for the job. Those whose minds stray from the accepted norm don't get the job.

Biggest. Evasion. Ever.

Now how about offering an actual answer to the question.

Originally Posted by metamars

Also, can anybody suggest a forum where serious, knowledgeable individuals can discuss, debate, and investigate media bias, where the participants observe civility but cover a large swathe of opinions?

Perhaps you can explain how the media of other nations are going to be biased in favour of the American government?

Are you completely unaware of the strains of anti-Americanism (some mild, some not so mild) which exist in other countries? You seem to be making the mistake that as goes American media, so goes the media in the rest of the world.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Biggest. Evasion. Ever.

Now how about offering an actual answer to the question.

Perhaps you can explain how the media of other nations are going to be biased in favour of the American government?

Are you completely unaware of the strains of anti-Americanism (some mild, some not so mild) which exist in other countries?

Not at all.

Quote:

You seem to be making the mistake that as goes American media, so goes the media in the rest of the world.

My assumption is that European media covers a wider political spectrum than American media, reflecting the (supposed, by me) fact that they tend to parliamentary democracies. I really have little idea of what the media in the rest of the world is like, and that's true of European media, though I've seen some BBC broadcasts here and there.

To be sure, the point that foreign media should be expected to be less subservient to the needs of the American power structure is a good one. However, it's being brought up in not just one, but a few vacuums. Not least of which is: the US is the most significant hegemon. To assume that US political power doesn't extend indirectly into foreign media by way of foreign political structures is naive.

I vaguely recall a Canadian politician or bureaucrat who basically said that Bush was an idiot, and was out of a job soon thereafter. Is Canadian media less susceptible to filtering (as Chomsky would say) than American media? I doubt it, and if I'm correct, then I don't expect it to embarass the Canadian government too much. (I think I quoted Canadian Barrie's Zwicker experience in trying to get his 911 stuff published. I've marked a bunch of stuff I wanted to quote from his Towers of Deception, but aborted reading that book.)

But what would be nice is if there was a forum for discussing these sorts of questions, that is frequented by people who have either researched them directly, themselves, or have read up on such research. Finding such people who will deal with "deep politics" is probably difficult, but there must be tons of them who have something significant to say about how, e.g., the AAA rated trash scandal, threatening the entire world's economy, is being treated by the media. From Engdahl and other considerations, I believe this does indeed involve massive fraud and hidden agendas. However, it doesn't involve something as extreme as assassinating one's own citizens (just ruining their lives), so the taboos against delving too deeply into it shouldn't be as severe.

See also the 'Containing the Enemy' chapter in Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. See especially pp. 22-24. P. 24 is particularly depressing, because it gives the impression that market forces make the decline of populist publications inevitable. Even if that's been true in the past, I'm hoping that the lower cost of distribution via the internet can lead to a revival of large, non-corporate controlled media.

[Confuseling]

So you believe that the tentacles of US influence extend into the governments and medias (should one manage to find a distinction) of Iran and China?

Doesn't this provide a perfect control case, illustrating plainly that the US media isn't duped or subverted into misreporting 911?

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

Oh pom, you are a one aren't you!

Returns to scheduled afternoon programming / indoctrination on the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation...

Yeah, you make an excellent point. There is, after all, one prominent representative of the three major networks who doesn't support Obama. Oh? Really? Absolutely NONE?

Well, if there were one prominent representative of the three major networks who didn't support Obama, you would be making an excellent point.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

So you believe that the tentacles of US influence extend into the governments and medias (should one manage to find a distinction) of Iran and China?

Iran, not at all. China, I expect some influence. If we annoy China to much, where will we get stuff to sell and buy in Wal-mart? And if China annoys us too much, what are they going to do with the millions of Barbie Dolls sitting in their ware-houses?

Quote:

Doesn't this provide a perfect control case, illustrating plainly that the US media isn't duped or subverted into misreporting 911?

Perfect? Heck, no. Again, we see an argument basically in a vacuum. I suspect you've investigated media coverage and investigative reporting of 911 by Chinese and Iranian media as much as I have. Which is to say, not at all.

Can you tell me how many $$ Chinese media have budgeted for investigative reporting of American scandals involving high-level politicians? Ever? What about the Iranian media?

If they just rely on wire services, plus a few people in offices who attend press conferences, how the heck are they supposed to learn anything new or contradictory, moreso than the American media serves up to the American public? Even if they're willing to ring up Jim Fetzer or Stephen Jones, are they willing to confront American officials with any of their claims?

And if they do have a budget which allows for investigative reporting, in general, (I would guess the Chinese have something), can you give 1 instance, ever, of where they used it to investigate theories involving high-level treason?

BTW, just to underscore how lame the American media is, the head guy at therealnews.com points out that the mainstream media rarely criticize either the Democratic or Republican parties, beyond the limits of the Republicans or Democrats, respectively. Is such a cowardly media going to investigate possible high-level treason, with any sort of enthusiasm?

Also, it shouldn't need repeating, but here at JREF, apparently it does. US media, foreign media, 911 truthers, and debunkers all share 1 characteristic in common: They have no state power. Finding stuff out, for the government, is a heck of a lot easier when individuals are making a deliberate effort to conceal things, than for these other players. The government can compel testimony and subpoena evidence. You and I cannot.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Yeah, you make an excellent point. There is, after all, one prominent representative of the three major networks who doesn't support Obama. Oh? Really? Absolutely NONE?

Well, if there were one prominent representative of the three major networks who didn't support Obama, you would be making an excellent point.

So pomeroo you don't believe in massive deception by the government but you do believe in massive deception by the liberal media? Did the liberals conspire to take over the media? How many were involved? I mean just how vast of a conspiracy are we talking about?

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by metamars

BTW, just to underscore how lame the American media is, the head guy at therealnews.com points out that the mainstream media rarely criticize either the Democratic or Republican parties, beyond the limits of the Republicans or Democrats, respectively. Is such a cowardly media going to investigate possible high-level treason, with any sort of enthusiasm?

Uh-huh...

I guess Jack Abramoff, Walter Reed, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Michael Brown, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Valerie Plame, Alberto Gonzales, David Safavian, Abu Ghraib, Enron, Halliburton, and the Downing Street Memo are all just figments of my imagination, eh?

By the way, that's just the stuff that's happened during Bush's term. I haven't even gotten started on Clinton's, or anyone before Clinton's.

...and it's not even ALL of the stuff that's happened during Bush's term.



Now you're probably going to get all pissy at me and whine about how I'm "missing the point" or some crap like that, right? Let me just say that it's kind of difficult to miss the point, when you haven't even made a point in the first place.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

So pomeroo you don't believe in massive deception by the government but you do believe in massive deception by the liberal media? Did the liberals conspire to take over the media? How many were involved? I mean just how vast of a conspiracy are we talking about?

It's enormous, larger than you can possibly fathom. I'm part of it, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us from manipulating world events.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

So pomeroo you don't believe in massive deception by the government but you do believe in massive deception by the liberal media? Did the liberals conspire to take over the media? How many were involved? I mean just how vast of a conspiracy are we talking about?

You could read Bernie Goldberg's book--I don't mean you could read it, of course. A person could read Bernie Goldberg's book and learn why the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy and everything to do with a shared worldview. The mainstream media have been liberal as far back as anyone can remember. What has changed in the past few years is the media's evolution from bias to outright partisanship. Tom Brokaw, a liberal Democrat, was appalled by the crude, unprofessional antics of Chris Matthews and Der Olbermann.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by metamars

I really have little idea of what the media in the rest of the world is like...

So, to be clear, you admit you know next-to-nothing on the topic of media in other nations but feel confident in asserting nefarious global conspiracies control them? Bit of a disconnect wouldn't you say? How can you pass judgement without actual knowledge?

Originally Posted by metamars

To assume that US political power doesn't extend indirectly into foreign media by way of foreign political structures is naive.

Please offer proof that the U.S. government has prevented the media of another nations from running a story on the media of that nation. Explain, as I asked at the start, how the U.S. tells CTV, CBC, Global, Cityty, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, Maclean's, etc., what news stories they can and cannot cover.

Originally Posted by metamars

I vaguely recall a Canadian politician or bureaucrat who basically said that Bush was an idiot, and was out of a job soon thereafter.

Rather than vaguely recall it, why didn't you look up the story to find out the relevant details? I'm sure you can still find the articles about it on the CTV or CBC web sites; probably on some of the newspaper web sites as well.

Originally Posted by metamars

Is Canadian media less susceptible to filtering (as Chomsky would say) than American media? I doubt it, and if I'm correct, then I don't expect it to embarass the Canadian government too much.

Again, you admit to having no knowledge and yet feel confident to make accusations of some grand, global media-controlling conspiracy? Don't you think you should arm yourself with some direct knowledge of the media in other nations first? You risk looking like a fool otherwise.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

So, to be clear, you admit you know next-to-nothing on the topic of media in other nations but feel confident in asserting nefarious global conspiracies control them? Bit of a disconnect wouldn't you say? How can you pass judgement without actual knowledge?

You're mis-characterizing my views of media bias. In a nutshell, they're 90% like (what I understand of) Chomsky's view - a series of filters, essentially autonomous, deriving from financial realities and power structures; plus maybe 10% along the lines of control/influence by intelligence agencies (which, for some reason or other, Chomsky doesn't talk a lot about; not that I'm aware of, anyway). Operation Mockingbird, and all of that.

The 90% Chomsky-ish filter components is most decidedly not a "conspiracy", at least if you accept Chomsky's use of that word. He's pointed out so much himself, explicitly.

And no, don't take the 90/10 breakdown as some sort of precise measure.

I've read parts of Chomsky's books on media, have heard him interviewed on Democracy Now over a period of at least 15 years, and have listened to his CD "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind".

I wish I had read more of Chomsky's books (which I own). I don't even own any books which deal with foreign media. And since I don't even take in foreign media, save a rare BBC broadcast, it'd be rather dishonest of me to pretend that I know much about it. Which doesn't stop me from making reasonable assumptions about what forces I expect to be in play, there. If you don't like my assumptions, too bad. Feel free to contradict them with facts, should you be in possession of same. But don't expect me to swallow your assumptions about foreign media, either. As far as I'm concerned, the rather superficial treatment that "debunkers" accord to the embarrassment that is American media inspires zero confidence in me that I should buy anything they say about foreign media. OTOH, I'd be far more inclined to value the opinion of a Noam Chomsky, who obviously knows a great deal about American media. (He also knows something about foreign media. My recent mention of the depressing message of p.24 in Necessary Illusions derives from what it describes happened in England.)

Now it's your turn. What do you know about foreign media? Or even Chomsky's views on domestic media? And by the way, by foreign media, I'm really more interested in the non-Anglo world, which I expect to be heavily biased towards the American power structure, as their governments certainly seem to be.

N.B. I've also read about half of Towers of Deception, by Canadian media person Barrie Zwicker. Canada is also part of the Anglo world (sorry, Quebec), so I'm less interested in pro-American power structure bias there, also.

[Corsair 115]

So, your sole experience with foreign media is reading Noam Chomsky? In this day and age, you should be able to do much, much better. You've got newspapers and magazines and television networks from around the world just a few mouse clicks away. Perhaps you ought to read some of them every day for a few months to get a better picture of how other nations do news...

Originally Posted by metamars

Now it's your turn. What do you know about foreign media?

Living next to the U.S. means we get ringside seats to the goings on in American media. Pretty much all the American news networks are readily available here for example (the reverse is most certainly not the case).

Originally Posted by metamars

I'm really more interested in the non-Anglo world, which I expect to be heavily biased towards the American power structure, as their governments certainly seem to be.

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with Canadian politics. It is a completely different animal from the American version in terms of system, structure, operation, and style. Familiarity with Canadian politics and the political environment here allows for instant recognition of how the "NAFTA superhighway" and "North American Union" stuff is pure nonsense, for example.

And as I asked before, how is Canadian media being controlled by the U.S. in regards to 9/11 when it was a Liberal government in charge until 2006, and that same goverment decided against participation in Iraq. These two things do not square with your supposition.

Originally Posted by metamars

I've also read about half of Towers of Deception, by Canadian media person Barrie Zwicker. Canada is also part of the Anglo world (sorry, Quebec), so I'm less interested in pro-American power structure bias there, also.

Perhaps some direct experience instead of your admitted lack of knowledge would be more useful.

[Travis]

Ahh, so we have ourselves a Chomsky adherent. That explains a lot of what I'm reading.

Why didn't the media report the existence of huge stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq after the invasion? Why didn't the media not report on Abu Gharib? Why didn't the media invent some horrible story about Obama and not report anything bad about McCain?

[dtugg]

metemars, if you value Chomsky's opinion so much, what do you have to say about what he says about 9/11 twoof? I'll find the link where he says exactly what he thinks if you haven't already heard it.

[ULTIMA1]

You guys do know the government has admitted to lying about the Golf of Tonkin incident, which got us involved in the Viet nam war?

Also documents have been declassified about the attack on the USS Liberty.

And do not forget about the declassified docuemnts that state that the government knew about the attack on Pearl harbor, and they let it happen.

[dtugg]

Wow, he's back. How is that FOIA request going?

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Wow, he's back. How is that FOIA request going?

Just fine. Just wish others would try fileing FOIA request too but it seems they are afraid of the truth.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Just fine. Just wish others would try fileing FOIA request too but it seems they are afraid of the truth.

Yeah because the government is just going to tell us that they were lying about 9/11. They are just going to give you the documents proving it was an inside job. I'll believe it when I see it.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Yeah because the government is just going to tell us that they were lying about 9/11. They are just going to give you the documents proving it was an inside job. I'll believe it when I see it.

I never stated anything about an inside job, why must you lie and misquote me?

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

I never stated anything about an inside job, why must you lie and misquote me?

Fine. I'll amend it. Do you really think they are going to tell you that they have been lying about 9/11 all along? If 93 was intercepted that is exactly what they have been doing. I'll believe it when I see it.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Fine. I'll amend it. Do you really think they are going to tell you that they have been lying about 9/11 all along? If 93 was intercepted that is exactly what they have been doing. I'll believe it when I see it.

Well as stated in the letter from the FOIA office they did find the specific document i was looking for and are sending it.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Well as stated in the letter from the FOIA office they did find the specific document i was looking for and are sending it.

As has been explained to you, that in no way means it says what you claim it does.

[GodisEnergy]

How can there not be some sort of media conspiracy when George bush grandfather was Funding Nazis .You would think this would be global hysteria in the Publishing world especially the middle east!

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

How can there not be some sort of media conspiracy when George bush grandfather was Funding Nazis .You would think this would be global hysteria in the Publishing world especially the middle east!

And Bush's grandpappy has exactly what to do with 9/11?

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

As has been explained to you, that in no way means it says what you claim it does.

Yes it does, when i requested a specific document. The only Critic NSA posted that day.

Why would i file a FOIA request for a document that for one i did not know what was on it and second i would have to have the proper access to even know the document existed?

[dtugg]

This has been explained to you. You are just to stupid too understand.

Nobody believes this document says what you claim.

Until you produce it nobody ever will. Even nuts at forums like ATS.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

This has been explained to you. You are just to stupid too understand.
.

I am going to love to see what you will do when i post the document.

The beleivers like you will have to actually face reallity and stop living in a media fed fantasy world.

[dtugg]

I'll believe it when I see it. Something tells me you will never post it though. Other posters here are already following your request and will post it when you don't. It will be great.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Yeah because the government is just going to tell us that they were lying about 9/11.

Also, MikeW of 911Myths has filed quite a few FOIA requests over the years. ULTIMA1 doesn't have a damn clue what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

How can there not be some sort of media conspiracy when George bush grandfather was Funding Nazis. You would think this would be global hysteria in the Publishing world especially the middle east!

And just how long should people continue to be personally outraged over that whole slavery thing here in the U.S.?

Also, why the obsessive focus on Grandpappy Bush's activities, when a handful of companies did much, much worse...?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

You guys do know the government has admitted to lying about the Golf of Tonkin incident, which got us involved in the Viet nam war?

In your own words, what were the lies and what really happened?

Quote:

Also documents have been declassified about the attack on the USS Liberty.

That showed that everyone involved basically messed up big time. We know all that.

Quote:

And do not forget about the declassified docuemnts that state that the government knew about the attack on Pearl harbor, and they let it happen.

Such as?

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

I'll believe it when I see it. Something tells me you will never post it though. Other posters here are already following your request and will post it when you don't. It will be great.

Are you for real? Why would i not post it when i filed the FOIA request to get the document just so you believers would have to finally face reallity.

[dtugg]

Because you are a liar. You have never seen it. As such, you will never post it because it will prove you a liar.

Oh I am calling you a liar some more. I guess you are going to get me banned. I am so worried.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Travis

In your own words, what were the lies and what really happened?

The Golf of Tonkin was a complete lie. Made up to get is into war.

Quote:

That showed that everyone involved basically messed up big time. We know all that.

Well it showed that the government might have known or actually help planned the attack.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Because you are a liar. .

But i have proven to the mods who i am, thats why i am back.

So i have proven i am not a liar.

[dtugg]

So you got a hold of your dad's NSA badge or something and sent it to them?

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

So you got a hold of your dad's NSA badge or something and sent it to them?

Oh you guys just have to keep saying things like this because you cannot have an adult discussion and you sure cannot debate me with evidence.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

So, your sole experience with foreign media is reading Noam Chomsky? In this day and age, you should be able to do much, much better. You've got newspapers and magazines and television networks from around the world just a few mouse clicks away. Perhaps you ought to read some of them every day for a few months to get a better picture of how other nations do news...

I should also lose about 30 pounds. But why this fascination with me? This is an open forum. If you have the experience which you say that I should have, what's stopping you from presenting facts or making an argument more nuanced than a variation of "everybody in on it is impossible"?

Quote:

Living next to the U.S. means we get ringside seats to the goings on in American media. Pretty much all the American news networks are readily available here for example (the reverse is most certainly not the case).

My commiserations.

Quote:

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with Canadian politics. It is a completely different animal from the American version in terms of system, structure, operation, and style. Familiarity with Canadian politics and the political environment here allows for instant recognition of how the "NAFTA superhighway" and "North American Union" stuff is pure nonsense, for example.

Well, I'm not going to take the time to familiarize myself with Canadian politics. If I was going to take the time to familiarize myself with a foreign country's politics, in order to try and understand any influence of the US over their media, it would be of a country that's not a close US ally. The poster who asked about China and Iran was asking a question far more likely to lead to an illuminating answer about details of control mechanisms, or inhibitory factors not well described by "control mechanisms". (Well, this is a little simplistic, too. These countries are also culturally very different from the US, and they are frankly not going to be as interested in our government's naughtiness towards our own citizens, since they will find it near impossible to identify with us. That's my presumption, anyway. I've worked in China, and while Beijing seemed very metropolitan and outward looking, in other major Chinese cities they didn't seem to give a hoot about the US, other than the Taiwan issue and us bombing their embassy in Yugoslavia. OTOH, I've read that Iranian youth tend to be pro-West, but as their mullocracy is authoritarian, I doubt their media responds to this factor. Bottom line is: I don't know which foreign country would be optimal to study, but I seriously doubt Canada is it.)

Quote:

And as I asked before, how is Canadian media being controlled by the U.S. in regards to 9/11 when it was a Liberal government in charge until 2006, and that same government decided against participation in Iraq. These two things do not square with your supposition.

And, as I told you already, you're mis-characterizing my views. My guess is that you don't know anything about Chomsky's views, and somehow even the brief synopsis I wrote is going right past you. Even without knowing the details, doesn't the fact that he has written whole books on the subject suggest to you that such a simple argument cannot possibly be an answer to Chomsky?

If you're acculturated to be quiet and respectful during church services, if you visit your friend's synagogue or mosque, does anybody need to tell you not to show off your tap dancing skills in the middle of a service? Does a rabbi or an imam have to conspire with anybody to suppress your tremendous urge to show the world your Fred Astaire moves?

If you're in the Mafia, does the Mafia don have to explicitly instruct you not to date the DA's daughter? Even more preposterous, does he have to conspire with his second-in-command to determine a sensitive way to deal with such issues, proactively?

If you're a waitress working a lunch counter, do the customers have to conspire to prevent you from giving the play-by-play of how you dealt with your disgusting fungal infection, oozing sores and horrible smell and all?

More to the point, I suppose, if your boss is Polish, and you want to get a good bonus and are seeking advancement, are you going to make a habit of telling Polish jokes in his presence? Do your fellow employees, who appreciate your service, have to conspire to tell you not to do that? Or are you able to figure out, all by your lonesome, that some behavior will lead away from promotion, and not towards it?

Media 'control', of a realistic sort, will have to do with the complexities of human behavior, their goal-seeking tendencies, psychology and sociology. Your simplistic view amounts to a strawman.

In the case of workers in the media, if they suffer from any illusions that their's is such a noble profession that truth-seeking, everywhere and always, will be rewarded, they need only read Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press to find out otherwise.

Quote:

Perhaps some direct experience instead of your admitted lack of knowledge would be more useful.

Of course. Also useful would be people who have already studied the subject, and aren't compelled to shoehorn their 'analysis' of the subject into patently naive characterizations, to share their knowledge. This is a public forum, after all.

Can't say that I'm optimistic that such domain experts will appear....

[dtugg]

metemars, can you answer my question about Chomsky and 9/11 twoof? You apparently value his opinion greatly but he thinks da twoof is BS.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

metemars, can you answer my question about Chomsky and 9/11 twoof? You apparently value his opinion greatly but he thinks da twoof is BS.

Why don't you try thinking for yourslef and doing your own research to find the truth?