[cia_tradecraft] Three on Pimp/Whore Huddled-Masses Media

[President, USA Exile Govt.]

Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species. NOTE: Thanks to Peter Myers for the third of these. -- kl, pp


From: Henri the Celt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 15, 2006 2:50:14 PM EST
To: AAAHenri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fw: Knight-Ridder bangs the war drums


"...it could just as easily be argued that an Iranian nuclear bomb would stabilize the region by putting limits on Israel's ability to act unilaterally in using nuclear weapons, as it has threatened to do."
<x-tad-bigger>Iran: Knight-Ridder Bangs the War Drums </x-tad-bigger>

February 13, 2005  From: Iron_Clay

Knight-Ridder newspapers are out with a major article on Iranian nuclear activities; it's splashed all over page 3A of today's San Jose Mercury News, complete with ominous maps showing the alleged range of Iran's Shahab missiles (being sure to note that "American troops in the region" are at risk, naturally without asking the question of what those troops are doing there in the first place), ominous "Colin Powell at the U.N."-style aerial photos showing alleged underground buildings (quite a trick in an aerial photo) and alleged "dummy buildings covering the entrance to an underground truck road" (again, quite a deduction from an aerial photo). Here's the article's lead sentence:

Tehran's insistence on enriching uranium could destabilize a volatile region, wreak havoc on energy markets and bring nuclear weapons to an Islamic theocracy.

Throughout the article, which is more than a thousand words long, there is not one word to indicate that enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants; it is simply assumed that "Tehran's insistence on enriching uranium" is due to an intent to build a bomb. Iran's denial that it has any such intent? Never mentioned in the article.

And the "options" which the article lays out for the "international community" to "deal" with Iraq? Sanctions, "beef up treaty" ("significantly increase the diplomatic costs of Iraq ever deploying nuclear weapons," whatever that means), "strengthen regional defenses," "bypass the Persian Gulf" (meaning take Saudi Arabian oil by a different route), and military strikes. There are five options, some of them peaceful, so why did I title this post "Knight-Ridder bangs the war drums"? Because the entire thrust of this article is to convince the American people that there is a "problem" that "we" have to "deal with." Which, in the end, is quite likely to mean war of some kind, a war which articles like this will have pre-conditioned the American people to accept and support.

I mentioned that there is no clue in this article that enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants and not just in nuclear bombs. There's another subject missing from the article, and if anything it's even more astonishing than that. The word "Israel" does not appear in this article. How bizarre is that? Here's one quote from the article: "Arab states also will have to worry that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will embolden Tehran to revert to a more aggressive foreign policy." Arab states? Not Israel? A map accompanying the article showing "a nuclear world" even includes this curiously circumspect description: "Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. United States intelligence reports have labelled Israel as a de facto nuclear power for years." An uneducated reader would clearly be left thinking this was still an open question. After all, we all know "United States intelligence reports" were wrong about Iraqi WMD, clearly, they might be wrong about this too. And, by the way, what the heck is a "de facto" nuclear power? What other kind is there? Elsewhere in another sidebar describing "the role of the IAEA," the reader does learn than Israel is "estimated to own 200 nuclear warheads," but it's curious this information doesn't appear on the map's label of Israel itself

The curious (and absolutely intentional) omission of Israel from the article has an obvious effect on the central conclusion of the article. The author claims that Iran's "enriching uranium" (by which he means build nuclear weapons, as I've already discussed) "could destabilize a volatile region," but, had he noted that Israel is the sole nuclear power in the region, it could just as easily be argued that an Iranian nuclear bomb would stabilize the region by putting limits on Israel's ability to act unilaterally in using nuclear weapons, as it has threatened to do.

http://www.uruknet.com/?p=m20622&hd=0&size=1&l=e

=========================================================================================================================================

From: "Graham Jukes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 14, 2006 6:35:49 PM EST
Subject: Frog-marching the Media to the Gallows

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:33 PM
<x-tad-bigger>Subject:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Frog-marching the Media to the Gallows </x-tad-bigger>

<x-tad-bigger>From:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> FPF </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>To:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> [EMAIL PROTECTED] </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Cc:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> The New York Times Direct </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Sent:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:35 PM</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Subject:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Frog-marching the Media to the Gallows</x-tad-bigger>

Frog-marching the Media to the Gallows
http://tinyurl.com/ccanu


THESE INHUMANS IN THE MEDIA ARE WAR CRIMINALS AND MUST BE PUNISHED BY LAW.

They are to blame: the media traitors, cowards and killers. We'll remember their names!

FPF/HR: I've said it before and will keep repeating it: many people who before have been journalists have turned into treacherous killers. They have with their collaboration in the global crimes against humanity, become more than guilty.

AND AGAIN: I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND WILL KEEP REPEATING IT: WITHOUT THE COLLABORATION OF SO MANY MEDIA PEOPLE, ALL HORRIBLE SLAUGHTER AND WARS WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.

Without the warmonger's propaganda smeared out globally by those traitors in the media, the vile neocon men and women working at criminal rags like the New York Times, and the 'Judas Millers' of this underworld:

THE IMMENSE SUFFERING FOLLOWING THE AMERICAN GUNBOAT POLICIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.

At the coming War Tribunals, the media people who betrayed us all, must be first in line among the accused culprits.
In Nuremberg, after the collaboration with the other Nazis, they also were hanged or shot. I prefer life long hard labor in jail for them. Until the end of their traitors' lives making coffins for the victims of their media atrocities.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY MIKE WHITNEY IS STRAIGHT FROM MY SENIOR JOURNALIST'S HEART TOO: I WANT TO SEE THEM IN JAIL!

They not only helped kill people: they killed our profession.


Frog-Marching the Media to the Gallows
<x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>By Mike Whitney</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>02/12/06 "ICH" --</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> No one knows better than the editors of the New York Times that Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program. The Times editors comb through mountains of information every day and have not yet produced even a shred of evidence to support their fraudulent claims.

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>NOTHING. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

So what¹s the game here? Is the Times willing to sacrifice what¹s left of its tattered credibility just to pave the way to another unprovoked war?

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>IT SEEMS SO. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

Apart their from their daily updates, which are invariably skewed against Iran, their February 8 editorial reiterated at least 5 times that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>HUH? </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

According to the Times, Iran has continued to pursue "its two-decade long drive to build nuclear weapons". The editorial suggests that it would be preferable if the Iranian government was "more willing to put the economic future of its people ahead of building nuclear bombs."

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>"NUCLEAR BOMBS"? </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> But, where¹s the proof?</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Or is the Times simply circulating the same speculation, hearsay, and gibberish it did prior to the war with Iraq?

If the Times has knowledge of proscribed weapons-programs they should come forward and dispute the findings of the foremost nuclear weapons inspection team in the world (the IAEA), which has consistently found "no evidence" of nuclear weapons programs.

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>The Times charges are also refuted by the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) which projects that Iran will not be capable of building nuclear weapons for at least 10 years.</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>A STEADY STREAM OF BASELESS ACCUSATIONS</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

The Times, of course, needs neither evidence nor intelligence to achieve its objective of fabricating a crisis. They simply rely on a steady stream of baseless accusations that contribute to the rising public anxiety.

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>Judith Miller</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> may have left, but her legacy of deceit still courses through the paper of record like a raging torrent. The strategy for manipulating public opinion never changes. The media settles on a narrative grounded in pure fantasy and simply repeats the same fiction over and over again from its many outlets.

The Times has proved once again that the elite-media is a steadfast partner in mobilizing the masses for unpopular wars. Despite the countless thousands of innocent people who have already been killed by the Times fear-mongering coverage of "imaginary" Iraqi WMD, the editors continue to use the corporate-bullhorn to call the nation to arms.

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>IT IS TRULY OUTRAGEOUS.</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> When America's war of terror finally concludes, the international community will have to determine the culpability of the media in abetting the vast devastation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> No one should be surprised if the first group frog-marched to the gallows is the editorial staff of the New York Times. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>Their guilt was already established long before Iran. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>[and end] - The story can be found at - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ccanu</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger>========================================================================================================================================


<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>British Propaganda Passed Off as News Around the World</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 06:12:16 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
</x-tad-bigger>
The propaganda we pass off as news around the world

A British government-funded fake TV news service allows mild criticism of the US
- all the better to support it

David Miller, The Guardian (London), Wednesday February 15, 2006
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1709959,00.html

A succession of scandals in the US has revealed widespread government funding of
PR agencies to produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and the
"news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice has been adopted in
Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to insert copy. These stories have raised
the usual eyebrows in the UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things
are better here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004 that
"the values that drive our actions abroad are the same values of progress and
justice that drive us at home". Yet in 2002 the government launched a
littleknown television propaganda service that seems to mimic the US
government's deceptive approach to fake news.

The British Satellite News website says it is "a free television news and
features service". It looks like an ordinary news website, though its lack of
copyright protection might raise some questions in alert journalists.
Broadcasters can put BSN material "directly into daily news programmes". In
fact, BSN is provided by World Television, a company that also makes corporate
videos and fake news clips for corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and
Nestlé. It also produced Towards Freedom Television on behalf of the UK
government. This was a propaganda programme broadcast in Iraq by US army
psychological-operations teams from a specially adapted aircraft in 2003/04.

World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are entirely funded by
the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on propaganda activities in the UK alone
in 2001. A comprehensive post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably
markedly increased since then.

According to World Television, by November 2003 BSN "news" was being "used
regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries". "Over 400 stations around the
world receive BSN stories," it claims. "185 are regular users of the stories,
including broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan
and Australia."

The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes an endless
pageant of government ministers and other official spokespeople. Recent
headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such as "Prime minister in surprise visit
to Iraq" (December 22 2005) or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December
14 2005). Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions, as in:
"The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23 2005).

Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some criticism of US
policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia for the British occupation of
Iraq in 1920, the "suggested intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an
outside power has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in
Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The benevolence of the US and
the UK is simply assumed: "Today's USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers
of 80 years ago, are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from
corruption and abuse."

But the clumsy strategy of the US is potentially "alienating a large section of
the population". So the question arises of what "useful lessons could be drawn"
from the British experience. In reality the 1920 occupation led immediately to a
popular revolt that was ruthlessly suppressed. A puppet monarchy was imposed,
which was neither "modern" nor "democratic" but was, as argued by the historian
Mark Curtis, one of the least popular in Middle Eastern history.

The BSN strategy seems to be to emphasise Britain's cultural diversity.
Bulletins regularly highlight ethnicminority contributions to the UK and
interview leading moderate Muslims. But it is possible to hear muted criticism
of Israel. One item featured "A leading Israeli academic who has questioned both
the wisdom and the effectiveness of the controversial 'separation fence'."

A clue to the thinking behind this lies in a 2003 report for the Foreign Policy
Centre (FPC) thinktank, coauthored by its then director Mark Leonard. He advised
the Foreign Office on its Public Diplomacy Review in 2002 and was later
appointed to the resulting Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, which directs
Foreign Office propaganda strategy. Leonard wrote in 2002: "If a message will
engender distrust simply because it is coming from a foreign government then the
government should hide that fact as much as possible." The FPC report suggests
the British government should not be afraid of "bloodying the Americans' noses"
in its propaganda messages on Israel/Palestine. They must "ensure that the
differences between UK and American positions and thinking are emphasised". The
point is to tackle the perception that Britain "apishly follows every American
lead" so the "usefulness" of "UK support for the US" is increased.

This strategy of criticising the US, in order to support it better, conforms to
Blair's wider Iraq strategy. It is clear from documents leaked over the past
year (such as the Downing Street memo) that the plan was to use the UN as a
device for gaining legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. All this makes a mockery
of Blair's claims to progressive values. Indeed it suggests that such claims are
themselves cynical propaganda.

<x-tad-smaller>[David Miller is professor of sociology at Strathclyde University, see also
www.spinwatch.org ]

========================================================================================================================
</x-tad-smaller>