August 21, 2017
CNN recently announced that after 10 years, it will no longer be working with ORC International, their polling firm. It stands for the Opinion Research Corporation.
August 21, 2017
CNN recently announced that after 10 years, it will no longer be working with ORC International, their polling firm. It stands for the Opinion Research Corporation.
July 6, 2017
SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=23218
There are no words for how insane the dinosaur lapdog establishment mouthpiece mockingbird media is getting. Case in point: remember that “infamous” meme of Trump wrestling CNN to the ground that the teleprompter-in-chief tweeted last weekend? Well after days of wall-to-wall pearl clutching coverage from the MSM, they’ve finally tracked down the vile reddit user who created it! And they’re threatening to dox him. As you can imagine, this is not going so well for the least trusted name in news…
July 6, 2017
CNN’s (aka #FraudNewsNetwork) TV viewership numbers are tanking.
CNN incurred a significant decrease in TV viewers in June as the month progressed thanks in large part to President Trump pointing out their media bias and false reporting,
For the month of May, CNN averaged 821,000 viewers per hour throughout the entire day and 1.12 million total viewers during the prime time hours. Comparably, FOX News averaged 1.42 million viewers per hour throughout the entire day and 2.24 million viewers during prime time, or twice as many viewers during prime time hours as CNN.
By the end of June, due to CNN being caught in a number of ‘fake news’ stories, its numbers dropped significantly.
On Wednesday June 28th CNN’s numbers dropped to only 666,000 TV viewers throughout the day and only 882,000 viewers during primetime. These pathetic numbers were roughly 80% of May’s monthly average for total day TV viewers and prime time viewers or 20% down.
FOX News on the other hand, had TV viewership that was up from May with 1.705 million total viewers daily per hour average and 2.647 viewers during prime time for an increase of roughly 20%.
July 1, 2017
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”
However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”
The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.
The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.
Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.
Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.
In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phoney determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.
CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.
The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.
Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.
Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”
That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.
For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”
The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.
But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.
That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 1, 2017
One thing you have to understand about Mr. Zucker. What he does, he does for show. For ratings. If he could get away with claiming Trump met with Putin on the dark side of the moon to concoct a way to beat Hillary Clinton, he would run with it. If he could get away with claiming Arnold Schwarzenegger was the love child of Joseph Stalin and Greta Garbo, he would lead the evening newscast with it. He keeps selling the CNN Trump-Russia “investigation” because he’s (barely) getting away with it and he thinks it’ll keep drawing an audience.
In April, CNN boss Jeff Zucker told the New York Times, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.” The “it” was certainly the 2016 presidential campaign.
Zucker always has understood politics in this corrupt way—and in the process, he helped elect a US president and a California governor.
Who is Trump’s most consistent media enemy now? CNN is right up there.
But Jeff Zucker, CNN’s boss, was the man who launched The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, at NBC, in 2004.
In other words, Zucker happened to play a major role in electing Donald Trump. There is no getting around it.
Washington Post, October 2, 2016: “Looking for someone specific to hold responsible for the improbable rise of Donald Trump?”
“Although there are many options, you could do worse than to take a hard look at Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide.”
“It was Zucker, after all, who as the new head of NBC Entertainment gave Trump his start in reality TV with ‘The Apprentice’ and then milked the real estate developer’s uncanny knack for success for all it was worth in ratings and profits.”
“And it succeeded wildly — boosting the network’s ratings, as well as Zucker’s [and Trump’s] meteoric career. In turn, under Zucker, the show gave rise to ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ another Trump extravaganza. And, in turn, Zucker became the head of NBC overall.”
“The show [The Apprentice] was built as a virtually nonstop advertisement for the Trump empire and lifestyle,” according to the book ‘Trump Revealed,’ by Washington Post journalists Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish.”
“The executive [Jeff Zucker] rode the Trump steed hard. When the reality-TV star was preparing to marry Melania Knauss in 2005, Zucker wanted to broadcast the wedding live. (Trump, uncharacteristically, declined.)”
“But make no mistake: There would be no Trump-the-politician without Trump-the-TV-star. One begot the other.”
POLITICS IS TELEVISION, AND TELEVISION IS POLITICS.
If you’re looking for a person who embodies that fake version of reality most purely, you need look no further than Jeff Zucker.
Despite his network’s present hatred of Trump, Zucker would give Trump his own show right now if he wanted one.
For ratings and ad revenues.
Let’s go back in time and consider another event, one which I’ve analyzed in great detail. It took place on NBC in 2004, when Zucker was the head of the network’s entertainment division. Keep in mind that The Tonight Show, with Jeno Leno, was a prime piece of the entertainment division then. What Leno pulled off in 2004 had to have the OK from Zucker, because it was a highly unusual move, a distinctly unethical move.
What happened when an actor wanted to launch a political career and become a governor? The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.
This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.
I obtained a copy of show, watched it many times, transcribed the dialogue, and noted the audience reactions.
Breaking down the segments revealed what happens when news and entertainment and PR and political advocacy all blur together in a single wave.
The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.
The public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC entertainment, was all in.
Turning over network news to network entertainment was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That didn’t register with the national media.
If Arnold decided to run for governor, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a stale press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from The Snoozer, LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.
Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their studio audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm.
And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby blowing an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.
On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to The Arnold.
Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called The California Recall Election.
Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run for governor or he would decline.
Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.
This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.
As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. Ha-ha. (At one point, there were 135 gubernatorial candidates.)
Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s look at] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”
Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.
Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”
Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”
The sound cuts off, and the TV screen displays an old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. A mechanical tone plays for several seconds.
The audience laughs. There is applause, too.
Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.
Jay, going along—as if Arnold had spilled the beans during a momentary technical malfunction—shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!”
Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”
Once more, he gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and Jay knows it.
Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.
“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”
Laughter, applause, whistles.
The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.
“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed-shirt on us.”
Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech.
He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.
However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.
“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.”
Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.
Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.
And there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a Valley mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they’ll play a huge role in every audience outburst.
Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.
They’re working hard.
Paying their taxes.
Raising their families.
But the politicians are not doing their job.
Now he executes a blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is [Governor] Gray Davis!”
The crowd goes wild. The girls scream as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.
And now the audience is suddenly on edge.
They can handle the juice. The longed-for result.
Arnold senses it.
He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, he, Arnold is…
GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.
Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.
The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking walls of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.
Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes.
The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.
Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.
Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”
It seems Jay’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.
The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.
The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.
The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.
Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.
After the commercials, in the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.
High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.
No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, the bitter satire on news as entertainment.
Is it remotely possible Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its newsman, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive by delivering a delirious populist message on air, and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?
Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gave its news division to its entertainment division—exactly what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?
High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.
High three: After telling the crowd they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.
High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Huge roar.
High five: Arnold plays a final pun card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.
The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.
It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.
The Tonight Show provided the moment for a globally famous actor to decide to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capital of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.
And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—was very, very ready to go. All along.
Imagine an advance man pre-selling this kind of PR stunt:
“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”
“Oh yeah? How big a crowd?”
“Only a thousand or two. But they’re instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”
“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”
“Too good to be true.”
“Wrong. And let me point out what I’m saving you from. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm.”
“And the contagion factor?”
“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. My boy, what stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. The home audience is terrified of being left out. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”
“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”
That is how it happened. That is how Arnold Schwarzenegger obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.
Governor Gray Davis was left out in the cold.
The announcement of Arnold’s candidacy was the end of the election.
In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of NBC’s ethics in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.
The Tonight Show was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”
Something out of nothing.
GE (then the owner of NBC): “We bring good things to life.”
An election campaign message was passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television studio audience to every voter-district in California, and out to the whole world.
When people show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon understand the game. They’re not just there as happy onlookers. They’re drawn into the process. They’re offered a trade-off.
If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they’ll become part of the story. They’ll attain new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause, at those moments when a guest segment or a joke is falling flat, will provide key segue and filler and affirmation and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.
Who cares—except when a fading movie action hero suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California?
In the television studio, and in millions of homes, the audience roared and helped Arnold go for his coronation. They experienced a reasonable facsimile of emotional torque and busted a move that showered sparks around Arnold’s head and pushed him through a porthole into an ozone that just might have been the closest thing they’d ever find to immortality.
On October 10, three days after Arnold scored number one in the recall vote count, The NY Times ran a piece by Bill Carter headlined, “NBC Supports the Politically Partisan Leno.”
But Carter’s story was merely about Jay, on the night of October 7, taking the stage in Los Angeles to introduce Arnold as the recall election winner.
THIS was the issue? This was the barrier that Leno had crossed? Carter mentioned nothing about those 12 minutes on August 6th, on The Tonight Show, when Arnold announced he was running and thereby sewed up the election.
Jeff Zucker, then the head of entertainment at NBC (NOW THE BOSS AT CNN), told Carter he was aware Jay was going to introduce Arnold at the victory celebration. “I did not and do not have a problem with it,” he said.
Zucker noted that Jay was a private citizen with all the accruing rights of same.
Not a word from Zucker either, about the propriety of Leno hosting Arnold’s campaign launch on August 6, on The Tonight Show.
The Studio Audience, on the night of August 6, 2003, fingered and chose and elected a governor of California.
Jay Leno has gone on to thousands of other jokes.
But he’ll never forget that one.
And neither will Zucker.
He helped elect Arnold. And he made Trump a global star of the first magnitude on The Apprentice, and thereby helped him win the presidency.
If you like interesting coincidences, both the Leno Moment and launch of The Apprentice happened in 2004. And when Donald Trump left The Apprentice in 2015, who took over as the host?
Arnold Schwarzenegger, of course.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here
Source: CorbettReport | MediaMonarchy
June 16, 2017
Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:
Story #1: Amanpour Challenged To Interview “Aleppo Boy” She Exploited For War Propaganda http://bit.ly/2t4pqQN
MintPress Meets The Father Of Iconic Aleppo Boy, Who Says Media Lied About His Son http://bit.ly/2skcKaz
Wikipedia: Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2ryniio
Complete 9/11 Timeline: Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2ru8eqL
Wikipedia: James P. Rubin http://bit.ly/2toWqCJ
Hillary Clinton Email Archive: Secretary Clinton’s Interview With Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2suRY94
Story #2: Young People Hit Tokyo’s Streets To Protest “Anti-Conspiracy Bill” http://bit.ly/2sdl9us
Update: Japan Enacts Broad Anti-Conspiracy Law http://s.nikkei.com/2ryJrwJ
Expert Disputes Japan Government Claim That Conspiracy Bill Needed To Ratify U.N. Treaty Related To 2020 Olympics http://bit.ly/2rtXPeA
Conspiracy Theory Becomes Frightening Reality For Japan http://bit.ly/2ru2cGH
Story #3: “We’re Not Monsters” – Ontario Township Defends Shuttering Girl’s Lemonade Stand 🍋💰 http://bit.ly/2ryk6Ds
6 Illicit Lemonade Stands Towns Had to Shut Down http://bit.ly/2rj6U60
NWNW Update: Chimpanzees Aren’t People, Don’t Have Right For Habeas Corpus http://bit.ly/2s3MYqH
NWNW Update: Germany’s Merkel Says Digital World Needs Global Rules http://bit.ly/2ryeg4W
January 18, 2017
Telecommunications giant AT&T intends an $85billion merger with Time Warner. Some are speculating that AT&T will ditch CNN after the deal in order to curry favor with the Trump administration, despite AT&T’s denial of such rumors. Legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel Media joins RT America’s Simone Del Rosario to discuss the implications of the merger in light of Trump’s presidency after his fierce criticism of CNN.
January 7, 2017
Moments ago, Wikileaks tweeted that as a result of a segment airing on CNN, the whiste-blowing organization announced it has “issued instructions to sue CNN for defamation.”
Wikileaks was referring to a segment in which CNN had the ex-Deputy-Director of the CIA “falsely calling Assange a ‘pedophile.’
Phil Mudd on Hannity’s Assange interview: “They skirted the bottom line” https://t.co/hTPJLLexss https://t.co/l5nCy98fBH
— New Day (@NewDay) January 4, 2017
As indication of the “plot line”, Wikileaks provides a link to the following McClatchy article, which lays out “the strange tale of a dating site’s attacks on WikiLeaks founder Assange” which writes the following:
For an online dating site, toddandclare.com seems really good at cloak-and-dagger stuff. Disconnected phones. Mystery websites. Actions that ricochet around the globe.
But the attention grabber is the Houston-based company’s target: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, whose steady dumps of leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have given supporters of Donald Trump the only cheering news of the last few weeks.
In some ways, toddandclare.com’s campaign against Assange is as revelatory as the leaked emails themselves, illustrating the powerful, sometimes unseen, forces that oppose WikiLeaks.
Whoever is behind the dating site has marshaled significant resources to target Assange, enough to gain entry into a United Nations body, operate in countries in Europe, North America and the Caribbean, conduct surveillance on Assange’s lawyer in London, obtain the fax number of Canada’s prime minister and seek to prod a police inquiry in the Bahamas.
And they’ve done it at a time when WikiLeaks has become a routine target of Democratic politicians who portray Assange as a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his reported efforts to disrupt the U.S. election.
One part of toddandclare’s two-pronged campaign put a megaphone to unproven charges that Assange made contact with a young Canadian girl in the Bahamas through the internet with the intention of molesting her. The second part sought to entangle him in a plan to receive $1 million from the Russian government.
WikiLeaks claims the dating site is “a highly suspicious and likely fabricated” company. In turn, the company lashed out at Assange on Thursday and “his despicable activities against American national security,” and warned journalists to “check with your libel lawyers first before printing anything that could impact or endanger innocent people’s lives.”
So why are the parties to the melee coming out with both barrels blazing? That remains a mystery of the kind that might take a WikiLeaks-style document dump to suss out.
What is beyond dispute, though, is that the attacks on WikiLeaks rose as the group released a first batch of leaked Democratic National Committee emails in July, days before the party’s national convention, and again this month, as WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of emails from the account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.
The online company paints itself as all-American. Online material says its founders, Todd and Clare Hammond, “are an average American couple from Michigan, who met in the eighth grade.” In 2011, the company says, the Christian couple started an email dating service, and “have married 3,000 couples to date.” Their online network began in 2015, and a statement it filed to a U.N. body says it has “100,000+ female singles” in six countries.
The company’s operating address is a warehouse loading dock in Houston. Its mail goes to a Houston drop box. Its phone numbers no longer work. WikiLeaks says Texas officials tell it the entity is not registered there either under toddandclare.com or a parent company, T&C Network Solutions.
The person who responds to email sent to the company declined to identify himself or herself or answer further questions.
“We are not required to confirm the information you are requesting to anyone other than our government and tax authorities. So many people (and companies) have now been unfairly libeled by the wikileaks troll machine, we are being advised not to comment,” an unsigned email from the company to a McClatchy reporter said Thursday morning.
The people behind toddandclare.com persuaded a U.N. body known as the Global Compact to give it status as a participant in May, and it submitted an eight-page report to the U.N. group Oct. 4 carefully laying out its allegations against Assange. The firm was delisted by the U.N. body eight days later amid controversy over its claims.
An Australian lawyer, Melinda Taylor, said the report’s precise language raised additional suspicions at WikiLeaks, where she assists Assange in human rights litigation.
“This is not a report that’s been drafted by a dating agency. It’s highly legalistic and very structured. It’s the language of someone who has drafted complex legal submissions,” she said.
Under Todd Hammond’s name, the report alleged that Assange’s Swedish lawyer had reached out in June to offer Assange’s services on a campaign against rape in exchange for an undisclosed amount of bitcoin. It said the two sides held two videoconferences.
Then came the bombshell: It said the company had ended ties with Assange following “pedophile crimes” he had committed in the Bahamas in late September. It charged that the victim was the 8-year-old daughter of a Canadian couple on a monthlong yachting vacation. The father went to police in Nassau on Sept. 28, the report claimed, charging that his family held video and chat logs showing Assange “internet grooming” the child and “propositioning the 8-year-old juvenile ‘to perform oral and anal sex acts.’ ”
It said Assange, who has been in refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London since 2012, made a connection to the child’s 22-year-old sister, who was a client of the online dating site, gaining access
to the young girl.
An assistant commissioner for the Royal Bahamas Police Force, Stephen Dean, said “there is no investigation” into any such incident and that the police have received no evidence that such an incident occurred.
Continue reading on McClathy.
Well, if WikiLeaks wasn’t the most hated outlet by the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, it has just cemented this status should it indeed proceed with the lawsuit. It will be interesting tp see what internal CNN emails the discovery process reveals, should the lawsuit actually get to that stage.
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 29, 2016
This may be a case of you tell me, and indeed I’d be interested in seeing people’s reaction to this bit of legislation that was quietly signed into law during the past few days’ holiday season:
Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law
The heart of the concerns is reflected in these paragraphs:
Recall that as we reported in early June, “a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”
Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.
“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”
Long before the “fake news” meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.
In short, long before “fake news” became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label “fake news.”
And so, with the likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate “Russian Propaganda” with “fake news” (despite admitting after the fact their own report was essentially “fake“), while the US media has indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also “fake news” and thus falls under the “Russian propaganda” umbrella, the scene is now set for the US government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be “foreign propaganda.”
Just like that, the US Ministry of Truth is officially born.
Now I don’t know about you, but all sorts of images and thoughts are running through my mind. Not the least of these is Josef Goebbels, the Third Reich’s Propaganda Minister. Goebbels was nothing if not cunning. Goebbels knew that outright lies would never work. For propaganda to be effective, it had to contain enough truth to sell the lie, which is the purpose of propaganda: sell the lie. How to do it? Wrap it in truth. Thus, the old Deutsche Wochenschau newsreels would show the decimation of the German cities as Allied and Soviet bombers were pummeling them into rubble. That was the truth part. It would not have done to say the bombing effort was unreal, or ineffective, since millions of Germans could easily see otherwise. The lie was contained in the pledges of “final victory”, in the rumors of secret weapons, strategies, reserve armies, and so on. The technique, at its most basic, is a human one: tell (or show) the truth, inculcate trust, then sell the lie.
To reinforce the lie when even it could no longer be sold, it was reinforced with summary executions if a German even questioned the propaganda, and this is the problem with all propaganda ministries and “departments of truth.” And I submit that it is also a problem inherent with this bill.
But I strongly suspect the real dangers already lie elsewhere, and it’s an epistemological problem the corporate controlled media and any government propaganda organ now faces: their moral capital is already so low that no one trusts them any more, even if they should suddenly tell the truth, not just as the occasional matter, but as a consistent agenda. Think of the boy who cried wolf, once too often, until the wolf actually appeared, and no one believed him any more. Our corporate controlled media have been lying to us to drive political agendas for so long that no one believes them, from the USS Maine sinking, to the magic bullet, to Waco and “we did it for the children,” to the whole 9/11 narrative, to dodging Darth Hillary’s health issues and the constant drumbeat of a Hillary victory, and now, to the whole (largely collapsed) Russia hacked our elections meme. (No one seems to recall those Russian allegations years ago of US attempts to steal their elections from Mr. Putin).
Countering their own deplorable fake news record will be difficult, and the way that they will do so will be not through direct confrontation, but via already tried and tested means: planting false stories, having “fake commenters” commenting on websites, and particularly foreign ones, such as PressTV (the Iranian site), Al Jazeera, RT, and of course on various free and independent media sites. And these attacks will come in the form of exhibiting or displaying “more thorough research”… after all, the government has lots of money, and can hire researchers to nitpick anything to death, to find…
Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
November 22, 2016
It was instant legend.
Trump met yesterday with the rancid cream of media in his golden tower. They were there thinking it was all about creating a structure for access to the next president. Little did they know.
Charlie Rose was there. Wolf Blitzer. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN. Martha “I weep for Hillary” Raddatz. Gayle King. Lester “the weasel-king of interrupters” Holt. Chuck Todd. George “property of the Clintons” Stephanopoulos.
Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake.
The whole gang.
“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.
“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.
“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.
“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.
“…he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who [also] hosted a [presidential] debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”
So…You can hate Trump, but if you can’t find joy in this story, you’re in need of a blood transfusion.
Way back at the beginning of the presidential campaign, I said that if Trump does nothing but run against the media he’ll be doing the country a great service, because they’re all snakes and cover-up artists and liars and they’ve been hypnotizing the population for as long as they’ve been around. Trump went on to exceed my expectations in that regard.
If you can’t stand Trump, you can fantasize about some other theoretical president who might have carried off his attacks on fake news as well, and with the same effect, but this is the man who did it. And yesterday was a landmark event in history.
Understand that these grifters—because that’s what they are—believe they own the news and the truth, even as they’re making it up by the ton. They and their masters—six companies that control 90% of big media—dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now…
They’re lost inside their own bubble. They’ve never felt this kind of fury from a president. They don’t know what to do.
They’ve got money, they’ve got arrogance, and they’ve got the airwaves, and it’s not enough.
Of course they’re outraged, and of course they’ll continue doing whatever they can to undermine Trump, but they know he couldn’t care less that they’re deeply, deeply offended. Their little trick—“how dare you insult us”—won’t work. In fact, it’ll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public’s trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century.
These media honkers can stand in front of their mirrors and keep combing their hair and they can bring in new make-up people, and adjust the studio lighting and build new desks, and they can laugh and smile at cocktail parties and pretend they’re still in the ascendance, but they’re rapidly turning into laughingstocks, and the derision keeps building. If you feel sorry for them, your sympathy is grossly misplaced.
The final straw here is Steve Bannon, Trump’s new chief strategist and special counselor. The editor of Breitbart, Bannon recently stated in an interview: “The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country. It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what’s going on. If…
Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.