The Pentagon Information Apparatus

8 Comments

1. 

   on April 20, 2008 at 11:10 am

   Go here:

   http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

   for an article on the findings of the Church and Pike Committees in the 1970s about CIA-financed journalists and propaganda ops.

   Nothing so new. Just that it’s so deliberate that it’s harder to deny.

   • 

     idredit on April 20, 2008 at 12:18 pm

     who remembers “The manufacturing of Consent” 1980s vintage?

     • 

       Cee on April 20, 2008 at 2:42 pm

       Chomskey? I do.

2. 

   SaltyDawg on April 20, 2008 at 11:20 am

   Bush’s greatest victory has been his subversion/coopting of the press. Starting with his claiming legitimacy in 2000, Bush & Co. have constantly been pulling the media strings.

   Embedding reporters with troops during the Iraq invasion ensured a continuation of the video propaganda barrage concocted by every network.

   Leni Riefenstahl and Goebbels would be proud.

   After Jan, 20009 I have no doubt that the newly emboldened press will begin to unmask even more insidious manipulation of American public opinion.

3. 

   Real History Lisa on April 20, 2008 at 11:26 am

   One of the causes of my life is to get people to understand how completely controlled the major media are in this country. That’s an important battle, because you can’t change people’s minds until they realize most of what they thought they knew is BS.

   Despite the fog, however, some people still do penetrate it and find the truth. A lot of people on this blog fall into that category.

   And abroad, it’s no surprise Obama is widely favored. They don’t get the news filtered through Wolf Blitzer and National Pentagon Radio:

   If all non-Americans had a vote — I’ve always favoured a one-tenth vote for non-Americans — then Barack Obama would win in a landslide. Like North Americans, most Europeans really don’t know much about the experience-light senator, but what they see, they like beaucoup. You can feel a passion here for Obama that is quite remarkable.

   He is, of course, the non-Bush. But so is Hillary Clinton, yet she inspires surprisingly little support even though hubby Bill, for reasons that elude me, was widely admired abroad. Hillary is regarded simply as an avatar of the Clinton political machine which, however formidable, is seen as empty of substance, and dedicated only to power and money.

   The three Americans most respected internationally are Obama, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. They are seen as representing America’s best qualities. They are also a potent antidote to the rednecks, holy rollers, and totalitarian neocon ideologues who hijacked the Republican Party — my life-long party — and blackened America’s name around the globe.

   Obama is widely seen abroad as the candidate who can end the shameful Bush era and return America to a moderate, productive role in world affairs. He is expected to end the Iraq war and Bush’s militarized foreign policy, and reintegrate the United States into the company of law-abiding, environmentally conscious nations, of which the European Union is now the leader.

   Obama comes across to Europeans as dignified, decent, eloquent, and truthful — qualities notably lacking in Bush and Dick Cheney who often represent some of America’s cruder instincts and synthetic patriotism. Much of the world would hail and admire America for electing a man of colour, but even more so, one who appears to capture so much of what is great and admirable about the United States.

   • 

     idredit on April 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

     “Obama comes across to Europeans as dignified, decent, eloquent, and truthful — qualities notably lacking in Bush and Dick Cheney who often represent some of America’s cruder instincts and synthetic patriotism. Much of the world would hail and admire America for electing a man of colour, but even more so, one who appears to capture so much of what is great and admirable about the United States.”

     Reflected in these two must read articles:

      – The Post-Gazette Backs Barack:Charm and “change” key to the steeltown daily’s choice

     and

     The Sunday Times, UK

     Hillary Clinton’s ‘Republican’ tactics backfire in battle for Pennsylvania

     “President Bush’s election guru Karl Rove tells our correspondent in Philadelphia that she has left it too late to assail Barack Obama”

     [.]After Hillary Clinton threw everything including the kitchen sink at Obama last week, one last wild move to boost supporters’ spirits would have surprised nobody – because nothing, so far, has been able to prevent the Democratic presidential nomination from slipping out of her grasp in the run-up to Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary.

     If it is too late for Clinton, 60, to turn the race around, she has only herself to blame, according to Karl Rove, the architect of George W Bush’s two presidential election victories. Democrats regard him as the master of the art of negative campaigning.

     “Her problem is not the attack on Obama, it is the timing,” he told The Sunday Times. “She was complacent at the beginning and took him for granted.”

     [.]

     For the last hour I’ve been phone banking PA. Hillary has lost supporters to Obama. Heard this more than once; “everytime Hillary hurled mud at Obama she turned me off. I can no longer vote for her”

   • 

     billjpa on April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

     your cause is the righteous cause. What the nyt report codifies is not so much the collusion of the “Experts” but the blatant willingness of the media to abrogate their responsibility to the citizenry.
     I too have been decrying this disgrace.and what I find so distressing is the unwillingness of the Congress to openly rebut this blatant disgrace.

4. 

   Cee on April 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm

   This reminds me of Operation Mockingbird when the CIA manipulated the media.
   I wonder how many of those people are still in place?