Media protecting perpetrators of 9/11 & WWIII

[Wokeman]

If the government's account of 9/11 is not accurate, wouldn't the media have been "all over it"?

Isn't the fact that most mainstream media sources don't spend much time covering these issues show that there's nothing there?

No.

Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there has been self-censorship by journalists.

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."

Indeed, journalists who have even asked innocuous questions about 9/11 have been threatened.

And, referring to another topic, a leading MSNBC news commentator has said that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

"You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system".
As Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski has written (at page 26):

"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."
Censorship by Higher-Ups

If journalists do want to speak out about 9/11, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:

"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....

Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."
In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.

And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).

There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups. One is money.

The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”

False flag terrorism is the most controversial topic there is. Exposure of the truth about 9/11 would challenge the government and the corporate status quo. Exposure of the truth of 9/11 would directly damage the bottom line of the war profiteers (see below). It would also damage the financial interests of the news organizations, since revelation of the truth would show how bad the mainstream media has been in covering real news, thus encouraging more people to get their news from other sources.

In addition, the Bush administration is allowing tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tactit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies. And censoring the truth about 9/11 is a large part of covering the administration in a favorable light.

Drumming Up Support for War

In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.

It is painfully obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.

Indeed, veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."
But this is nothing new. For example, the mainstream media also played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian has documented that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) . Also listen to this interview.

And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (page x)

In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars. For example, Hearst with the Spanish-American War.

In fact, the American press has always served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war.

Why?

One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).

Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.

9/11 was one of the main justifications for the Iraq war, as well as the entire American imperial war agenda. Revealing the truth about 9/11 would undermine the main reason for those wars, and therefore, is in direct conflict with the media giants' efforts to drum up support for war.

And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for conspiracies by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary shows that

there was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
Moreover, "the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers."

Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

Censorship by the Government

Finally, as if the media's own interest in covering up things like 9/11 and in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical. My hunch is that the media companies have already felt great pressure from the government to kill any real coverage of 9/11 other than the official story and attacking straw men.

For example, the head of CNN said:

"there was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"
Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation. Indeed, according to famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists.

Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the truth about 9/11 is that we live in a fascist country (see point number 6). Fascism actually means the blending of the government and corporate interests, and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.


Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?

The cards are heavily stacked against the media covering the facts disproving the government's version of 9/11 or the many credible people who have questioned that story. We are up against tremendous forces working to censor those facts.

But we have the ability to outsmart the bad guys. We can "be the media" ourselves. We can be the movie-makers, the commentators, the reporters and writers. A thousand voices are louder than one voice with a megaphone.

We cannot leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson

"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood

"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian and 9/11 truth advocate)

[TonyGosling]

Nice one Wokeman
Please also see my little treatise on this subject
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4631


Mainstream mass media - Why so little critique of the 911 tissue of lies?

Mainstream media is moving closer every day to the monolithic multinational model. Safeguards such as guarantees of regional ITV news and locally produced programmes have gone out of the window to benefit shareholders. These are some of the main reasons the media has failed us over 911 and terrorism as a whole.

1. Long time lag as evidence emerges - journalists don’t know the facts
2. Journalists’ fear - job insecurity is exacerbated by low wages
3. ‘Burden of proof’ is skewed in favour of government
4. Downing St./NeoCon/Zionist/MI6 (I/OPS) penetration of editorial process - journalists’ copy scanned & censored before publication
5. High cost of investigative journalism – pressure of time means journalists don’t leave the office
6. Ideological influence of media’s financial backers, banks and shareholders
7. Young and/or credulous candidates employed as journalists because they’re cheap and don’t ask too many questions
8. Reluctance to backtrack – “sorry everyone we got it wrong!”

The battle for public opinion

Centuries ago the Egyptian state mislead its people by censoring anything which showed its leaders in a bad light. Today, the battle for public opinion is much more subtle and being fought by a secret ‘rogue network’ of which researchers, producers and media managers are largely unaware. With tentacles in the secret state, police, the City of London, politics, press etc. the network keeps several steps ahead of the game. It uses the vacuum of information immediately following ‘spectacular’ false flag terror events to disseminate lies, which soon become myths. The rogue network then acts through its media owners and agents to discredit anyone who comes close to gaining enough exposure to challenge that myth and there is a reluctance amongst production staff to backtrack, a reluctance to admit professional mistakes. The rogue network also like to infiltrate our movement so that they can have pieces ‘on both sides of the chessboard’.

Phone-ins

0500 909 693, 0207 224 2000, learn these phone in numbers and use them. Phone-ins are the least used and most obvious way by which anyone can simply pick up a phone and present thousands of people with evidence (or just opinion) that 911 was an inside job, or point out misconceptions with any attack. Challenge the assumption that ‘suicide bombers’ were behind the 7/7 attacks, and remember, millions of people have simply not been posed basic questions like 'where was the US Air force for 1 hr 45 minutes on 911?'
Having worked on these shows I can tell you that some days there is a distinct lack of people calling in and that those producing the programme are only too happy to have someone make a controversial point to get the show going. Some phone-ins are on specific topics and others are an 'anything goes' so try to choose your phone-in sensibly. Particularly if you can move a stale debate on terrorism on by pointing out the lack of evidence that the four so-called 'London bombers' actually did it. A list of eight or ten ‘killer questions’ to hand might be helpful to have handy while you’re on the air, see if you can get them all the questions in!

Personal relationships

Behind the scenes journalists discuss at length the reliability of sources and contacts. Whispering campaigns abound which is why it's essential to speak to journalists personally, and build up a list of contacts (see 911 truth PR - below).

[Stefan]

Good stuff Tony and Wokeman,
Tony, what shows do those numbers respond to? What stations and times?

[blackcat]

[rodin]

96% of global media is in the hands of 6 Zio companies

[malcks]

im very interested in the names of these companies,wondered if you can help me out. cheers[/quote]

[TonyGosling]

BBC Radio 5 Live 909/693 MW 9-12am weekdays
BBC London Live 94.9 FM (my old show - don't know)

[malcks]

cheers, Tony the very thing!

[malcks]

News 24 are they infact a commercial channel?

[GazeboflossUK]

Here's a similar type of chart I have from 2006...

[Sherlock Holmes]

If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Like the graphic (above) Tony very nice !

But it's somehow not complete without this I think:




And let's not forget the *Israeli Megaphone*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool




"Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers" (The Times, London)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2289232,00.html[/url]

If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).

[Emmanuel]

who are kaplan?
i know they produce language study materials.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Don't they make 'Exceedingly good cakes'?

[Alex_V]

9/11 conspiracy theories do get a bit of coverage in the media - personally I think they probably get about as much coverage as they deserve. I think if there was a genuine grievance backed up by authentic evidence, there would be significant sections of the media who would jump on it.

I'm not sure what the diagrams posted here are really supposed to indicate. What, for example, does the fact that Bertelsmann is a big company have to do with suppression of any political issues? The Schumann foundation supports far-left organisations - in what way is that a 'phony' endeavour?

I agree that there are issues over media freedoms being suppressed for one reason or another, or too much power being in the hands of too few owners or corporations. But I don't think the problem is anywhere near as bad as indicated, and the internet gives much more freedom of expression than has ever been allowed in history.

[blackcat]

[TonyGosling]

How badly will the recession affect the media and its workers? Paul Mason, economics editor of BBC's Newsnight, says there will be fewer journalists at the end of it.

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Sv81czDoo

[TonyGosling]

This Channel 4 Dispatches special 'Unseen Gaza' shown last week is in itself clear evidence of the the pro Zionist media bias.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unseen-gaza/episode-guide/series-1/ episode-3

Part 1

Link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8132449999430251419

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9074563122846363135