|
My bad... Your post story used quotes, links, and even a video from FOX's O'Rielly factor. I assumed it was FOX. The point is this is much ado about nothing, and the race issue is more driven by news entertainers then the actual news.
So if you're not watching FOX, let me ad, don't get you news from people that do.
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Why are you telling me what to watch and what to report? Are you one of those "control freaks"?
Why are you excluding certain sources? It appears you restrict your sources of information to those that support your predetermined conclusions and agenda.
If you have a problem with something reported, it's up to you to show proof that it is incorrect. It's rather immature and illogical to just say "don't pay attention to that".
The "issue" of morality divide in our country is much ado about the most important menace to the future of our country and Western culture.
Why are you supporting the ignorant, the immoral, and those that want to harm our country by mindlessly trying to minimize that issue? The same country that is the greatest hope of the world at this time? |
||
|
Police weren't the problem in Ferguson: ColumnThe Obama administration, the media and activists sow seeds of disaster. In Clayton, Mo., on Nov. 17.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images) Last week, a New York grand jury declined ??‹??‹to indict a police officer who, in efforts to restrain a non-compliant suspect, held him in what many saw as a chokehold. Their announcement came in the wake of public uproar over controversial events nearly 1,000 miles away in Ferguson, Mo. Americans were fixated on a St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer, Darren Wilson, for shooting at an 18-year-old aggressor following a convenience store robbery. Although the facts of the cases are dramatically different, good people have raised legitimate questions about police tactics and a perceived divide between law enforcement and at-risk communities. But it is time to take a step back and look at the long-term ramifications of the behavior of those surrounding the ordeals – the media, the Obama administration and radical activists. In addition to exacerbating the problems in Ferguson, all three have contributed to an epidemic that will most adversely affect those for whom they claim to advocate. Their insistence that law enforcement is inherently biased against or willfully ignorant in their dealings with the African-American community is transparently political. Their words and actions have insinuated – if not altogether declared – that America's police work actively in opposition to the people they are supposed to serve. In sowing these seeds of distrust and discontent in our inner cities, those seeking to undermine law enforcement are implying that police are simply untrustworthy, making it less likely those living in at-risk communities will cooperate with the very officers who seek to protect them. Without civilian cooperation, the police cannot keep communities safe. The Obama administration set the tone by sending three representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. It is reasonable to assume that in doing so, the White House was demonstrating they believed Brown to be the victim and the police officer to be the aggressor. The Obama administration knew what it was doing when they invited radical racial activists, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton – who owes a whopping $4.5 million in back taxes – to participate in a "civil rights" discussion at the White House. Of course, this discussion resulted not in a call for greater accountability in urban communities, but instead, in additional directives for police, yet again implying that law enforcement created the catastrophe we're experiencing, not criminals. This false narrative, accepted by too many as true, imposes a chilling effect on the decision-making of good police officers across the country. Instead of maintaining the confidence necessary to adequately and competently perform their jobs, leaders in the law enforcement community worry that cops will second-guess their training for fear that their actions will be characterized as racist, malicious, unrestrained or irresponsible. We witnessed a gut-wrenching example of this very form of contrived circumspection when police stood by as the town of Ferguson disintegrated into mob rule and a dozen local businesses were burned to the ground. Law enforcement, having in August been criticized as hyper-militarized and heavy-handed, mutely looked on as the St. Louis suburb was ignited, crushing the spirit of countless residents who watched their American Dreams go up in smoke. These false ideas ultimately served to denigrate due process protections and the rule of law in our nation. While Officer Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury for his split-second decision-making on that August afternoon, he was unjustly regarded as "guilty until proven innocent" in the court of public opinion. His life is forever threatened and his family will always be at risk. Many yearned for a scalp so desperately that they quickly discounted inconvenient facts, while demanding their desired result. As the grand jury discovered after weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, Michael Brown was the aggressor on August 9th. Brown controlled his own fate, Brown made his own flawed decisions. The reason Officer Wilson intersected Brown had nothing to do with biased policing. The fateful meeting occurred because Brown had just committed a felony by stealing cigars and assaulting the store worker who challenged him. Notably, Brown wasn't stealing food because he was hungry or drink because he was thirsty and had no money. He stole cigars. Why? Because he could. One need only observe his willingness to menace the store employee to get what he wanted to conclude that Officer Wilson received similar treatment. The remarkably uncurious press seemed all too willing to make this about a white cop shooting an unarmed black teenager, instead of finishing that clause with "…who had just committed a felony." In efforts to sensationalize what was otherwise a local crime story, hundreds of members of the media descended upon Ferguson, attempting to portray the events occurring as part of a larger injustice imposed on black citizens by a reckless justice system. Their presence and excessive coverage served only to fan the flames. There are real and meaningful justice reforms that must be made to protect our communities and ensure the rights of all citizens. Those begin with an honest assessment of the threats to our communities as well as training and funding of the police rather than the cynical blame-shifting of Ferguson. As we learn more about the case in New York, it also serves as an opportunity to get it right this time. Let's hope we all seize upon it. Ronald T. Hosko, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, served as assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation until April 2014. In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook. |
||
|
April 29, 2010 CMW REPORT, Spring 2003 ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004 Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D. In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise. According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997) Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX. FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly. During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.” UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling. Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers. What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.” “Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information! The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action? The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left-while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so. In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.” Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be. The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels-who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg-a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye. Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.” Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.
Does the Mainstream Media Lie by Omission?
———————————————————————- By John Hammer Guest Writer for Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com The mainstream media have protected President Barack Hussein Obama for as long as there have been articles about him. The mainstream media consider it racist to question anything about his background, upbringing or education. Obama’s popularity is dropping and continues to drop, and now the mainstream media, led by The New York Times, have left simple protection behind and are going with boldfaced lies. The New York Times on Thursday, August 5, ran an article under the headline “President and Illinois Stay at Arm’s Length.” In that article, Matt Bai states, “Unlike some past presidents, Mr. Obama has no chronically embarrassing relatives – no unpredictable brother like a Billy Carter or a Roger Clinton to crowd the gossip pages, no grown children like Patti Davis to publicly disavow his policies.” Incredible. It’s not entirely false. Although Obama does have such relatives, the mainstream media refuse to write about them, so they don’t embarrass him as much as they would if the news media wrote more about his relatives as they have written about the relatives of other presidents, both Democrats and Republicans. Why don’t they write about Obama’s relatives? Is it because to do so would be considered racist? Or is it because to do so would be embarrassing to Obama, and the press has never worshipped a president like they worship Obama? Probably a little of both. Obama has an aunt from Kenya who was living in dilapidated government housing in Boston and was in this country illegally. If President Ronald Wilson Reagan had had an Irish aunt who had snuck into this country illegally and was living in a public housing project in Boston, do you think it might have been big news? The stories about Obama’s aunt were big in British newspapers, but not so much in American newspapers. Remarkably, after Obama was elected president, the federal government decided that his aunt could stay in this country legally. The New York Times pointed out repeatedly on its website that Obama did not intervene. Obama is not just the president, he is an extremely wealthy individual. Why is his aunt living at taxpayers’ expense? According to the London Times, Obama’s “Uncle Omar” was evicted from his one bedroom apartment in Boston for being over $2,000 behind on his rent. Obama wrote about his African relatives affectionately in his book Dreams from my Father, but he doesn’t appear to do anything to help them. And Obama has a lot of African relatives. Obama’s father had children with at least four women. After he left Obama and his mother in Hawaii, Obama Sr. went back to Kenya and had more children with his first wife, whom he never divorced. Obama has a host of relatives living without running water or electricity in Africa. Some of them came to his inauguration. One of his brothers came to the inauguration in a sweater and blue jeans. Imagine if Roger Clinton had showed up at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in blue jeans. Do you think that might have been news? Obama has a brother George who, according to the London Telegraph, was living in a hut that measured 6 feet by 9 feet. He said he was living on less than a dollar a month. Why hasn’t President Obama helped his family? He is worth millions of dollars. Before he became a public figure, he and his wife, Michelle, gave almost nothing to charity. But doesn’t it seem like spending a few thousand dollars to help your family would be the right thing to do? If Obama sent his brother George $12, he would double his yearly income. Obama has a brother who lives in China and exports goods to the US. When Obama traveled to China he met briefly with his brother. That visit probably made millions of dollars for his brother, because the Chinese saw that he really could meet with the president of the United States. Doesn’t that seem like news that should be widely reported? Obama’s brother in China has written a book about being raised by Obama Sr., a book that it seems President Obama, who didn’t know his father, might be interested in reading. But Obama told a reporter he had not read it. One of Obama’s brothers is a radical Muslim. It is also true that Obama went to a Muslim school when he was living in Indonesia. His defenders say that it was not a radical Muslim school, but they don’t deny that it was a Muslim school. Very little is actually known about Obama’s upbringing and personal history. But what is accepted as the truth about his past come from his two autobiographies. However, in his first book he admits to creating composite characters and changing people’s names. Obama also admits studying the Quran in school in Indonesia. His younger sister Maya Soetoro-Ng was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” One of Obama’s teachers in Indonesia says that Obama not only studied the Quran but took a class to memorize the Quran in Arabic, which would not be done by anyone who was not a devoted Muslim. A childhood friend described Obama as someone who enjoyed playing football and marbles and as being a very devout Muslim. It appears that one reason Obama has distanced himself from his own family, including his brother Malik, who was the best man at his wedding, is because Malik is described as a militant Muslim. Obama was also the best man at Malik’s wedding. The mainstream media is willing to allow Obama to change even his own autobiography so that now he was never a Muslim. There are school records and people who say otherwise. The huge question here is why does Obama feel that he has to deny his heritage? He is not responsible for the kind of school his parents put him in or the type of religious institution they made him attend. Why does Obama feel that he cannot admit that he did go to a Muslim school and was being raised to be a devout Muslim? He writes about Quran class in his autobiography, but now that personal history is being rewritten by the White House, and the mainstream media are allowing it to be done. This is not ancient history. The New York Times had a team of reporters work for months to try and come up with a story about Sen. John McCain having an affair with a female lobbyist. But The New York Times can’t spare a reporter to go to Indonesia and interview people who taught Obama or went to school with Obama. Most schools keep records. The mainstream media have certainly given us full background on other presidents. Obama not only gets to write his own personal history, but when some of what he has written becomes inconvenient, then he gets to rewrite it. Being raised a Muslim would go a long way toward explaining why Obama left the prime minister of Israel in his office and went upstairs to the residence to eat dinner. A diplomatic insult of that degree is difficult to comprehend unless there is more to it than not liking the way the meeting was going. , , , It is so interesting that Democrats running for office this November are running away from Obama as fast as they ran toward him in 2008. When Obama was running for president, the stage didn’t appear to be big enough to hold all of the Democratic candidates who wanted to be seen with him. Now they hide in a closet when they hear that Obama is coming to town. The mainstream media have to report on such behavior, but it’s not considered big news. When Obama went to Texas this week he was greeted at the airport by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, but the Democratic candidate for governor, Bill White, was as far away from Austin as he could get. Fortunately for White, Texas is a big state and his duties on the campaign trail kept him as far away from the president as possible. This was reported on page A12 of The New York Times. Some might think that the president being dissed by members of his own party in the country’s second biggest state was big news, but the unbiased journalists at The New York Times keep making the unbiased decision that derogatory news about the president is not important and good news about the president is of the utmost importance. , , , Yet another example of The New York Times pulling out all the stops, including the one that reads “honesty,” when it comes to protecting their president: Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, went after Minnesota Congressman Paul Ryan for Ryan’s plan to get the country out of this economic mess. Ryan calls his plan “A Road-map for America’s Future.” Krugman wrote, “Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.” Krugman is critical of a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which he claims that Ryan misrepresented. But it is not the CBO that is charged with evaluating a plan like Ryan’s, it is the job of the Joint Committee on Taxation. This is not something that the average man on the street knows, but you would expect Krugman to know it. Instead Krugman used the figures from the Tax Policy Center, which he describes as nonpartisan. It is funded by the Brookings Institute, which is considered a left-wing organization by conservatives. It is funny, but according to the mainstream media, left-leaning organizations like the Brookings Institute are considered non-partisan, but right-leaning organizations like the Heritage Foundation are never considered anything but right wing. It all depends on where you are standing. , , , What we know about Obama is basically what he has told us. According to Obama, in his time as a community organizer his job was to organize the community so that it would get more assistance from the government. He wasn’t organizing the community to work on its own, or complete its own projects, but to get the government to give it more money, and that appears to be his solution to problems. ———————————— John Hammer, a native of North Carolina and a graduate of Duke University, has been the editor of The Rhinoceros Times since it was founded in 1991. He began his journalistic career in 1977 at Halifax County: This Week in eastern North Carolina and has won numerous awards from the North Carolina Press Association. Before becoming editor of The Rhino Times Hammer worked as a news director, bouncer, bartender, missionary, free lance writer, English as a foreign language teacher, and as the deputy director of operations for Electric Vehicles, SA. The Rhinoceros Times is a weekly newspaper, that covers the political scene in Greensboro and High Point, North Carolina, from a conservative point of view. (Click here to go to Rhinotimes.com) John Hammer’s column is called “Under the Hammer”. The Rhino Times also features columns and articles by renowned science fiction author Orson Scott Card and recently published a 92-part series giving an inside look at the Greensboro Police Department by New York Times best-selling author Jerry Bledsoe. It is the most successful conservative alt-weekly in the country. CNN shows the main stream media's bias
CNN reports on themshelf and their counter-parts, this is very interesting. Do we think anyone will listen? Probably not...sad
Mainstream Media Lies to the Masses - Media Lies - Media Lies Documentary
The behind the scenes machinations of big money and politics are so well hidden from most of the population, that if people actually knew how things were really run, we would quite literally have a second revolution overnight. Henry Ford knew this well when he said, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Operation Mockingbird: CIA Manipulation of the Media
Daily News @ http://RevolutionNews.US — The CIA's secret activities, covert missions, and connections of control are all done under the pretense and protection of national security with no accountability whatsoever, at least in their minds. Considering the public is held accountable for everything we think, say, and do there is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Operation Mockingbird - An Overview and History
An overview and history of the CIA program: Operation Mockingbird which was/is the conduit for the agency to, quote former Director William Colby, "Own everyone of any signifigance in the major media"
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/churchcommittee.html
CIA Disinformation in Action,
In the 1950s to ’70s, the C.I.A. paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets such as Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS, and others) to publish C.I.A. propaganda. The C.I.A. also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated Animal Farm, based on the novel by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed these activities in 1975.
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations. The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Services. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. […] Appropriately, the CIA uses the term ‘reporting’ to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?'” said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right….Can you set up a meeting for us? Or arrange a message?'” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives: the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors — usually without pay — in the national interest. […] Two of the Agency’s most valuable relationships in the 1960’s, according to CIA officials, were with reporters who covered Latin America — Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star and Hal Hendrix of Miami News, a Pulitzer Prize winner who became a high official of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. Hendrix was extremely helpful to the Agency in providing information about individuals in Miami’s Cuban exile community. [….] A note about Hendrix – he was the one who Seth Kantor, reporting on the JFK assassination, was told to call for ‘background’ on Oswald after Oswald’s arrest. Hendrix, from Miami, had all the info on Oswald’s pro-Castro leafleting activities in New Orleans, details about Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union, etc. Only years later did Kantor realize the significance of a guy like Hendrix, CIA, having so much info on Oswald so soon after the assassination. “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ??¨–William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” ??¨–CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. 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 “Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 … though Proxmire’s number is itself a conservative one. The “intelligence community” is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term…. The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number.”??¨–Jim Hougan, Spooks “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
"Why are you excluding certain sources? It appears you restrict your sources of information to those that support your predetermined conclusions and agenda. " is exactly what both party members do. I have never seen you conservatives posting from a liberal site unless it's an article that blast liberals and vice versa. |
Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo
For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!
