Filthy American Capitalists Holding Journalist Stitched Up by FBI Prisoner

CORRUPT AMERICAN CAPITALIST STATE FRAMES JOURNALIST Filthy American Capitalists Holding Journalist Stitched Up by FBI Prisoner https://wikileaks.org/Assange-statement-on-the.html Assange: "The son of a bitch is me" - statement on the sentencing hearing of US journalist Barrett Brown Wednesday December 17, 15:00 GMT 17 December 2014     “How corrupt can we be? Let us take Barrett Brown campaigning against Fox’s calls to assassinate Julian Assange, and flip that to say he’s campaigning for the assassination of FBI agents and use that to put him away for a decade. And then, if he tries to talk about this abuse in order to re-establish the true context, we’ll gag him!” Nothing so well describes the surreal universe that has enveloped the United States as yesterday’s sentencing hearing of Barrett Brown. Barrett has been jailed without trial for over two years now. He faces eight and a half more years. His next sentencing hearing is due in January 2015. The situation also involves me personally and the work of WikiLeaks. Barrett Brown’s Hunter S Thompson style, his public lampooning of the US security state and his defence of WikiLeaks and Anonymous did not win him friends in the US administration and soon enough the FBI was looking for any excuse to take him down. The case against Barrett Brown can be broken down into two parts. Two charges against him occur as a direct result of his journalistic work on our Stratfor materials (anonymizing his sources and discussing, with others, the material they provided to him). These charges are at odds with national and international protections for the press and freedom of expression. The third charge concerns his speech acts after the FBI threatened to charge his mother unless he handed over his source material. There are no other charges. The FBI showed up at his mother’s home on March 6, 2012. His mother hid Barrett’s journalistic notebooks among her pots and pans; an action any son could be proud of. Barrett didn’t co-operate and so the FBI made good on its threat. His mother was charged, convicted and eventually placed on six months probation—for obstructing the course of justice. “My better judgement was clouded by my maternal instinct” she wryly told the judge. Barrett reacted to this injustice inflicted on his mother like any son would. He became ill-tempered. But, being an American from generation Y, his anger was expressed on social media. Barrett, a journalist as well as a son, said he was going to “ruin” the FBI officer concerned by investigating his connections—including those of his adult children. Not a complete fool, he stated, in the same sentence, that this was not a threat of violence, but rather the equalisation of a double standard: doing what the Bank of America did against WikiLeaks when it asked US intelligence contractor Aaron Barr to map out WikiLeaks’ relationships, including, specifically, with the journalist Glenn Greenwald. Barrett’s angry comments to his friends was at odds with the times. Twitter is a police interview that never ends. Facebook has all your friends wearing a wire. Youtube has you in the dock talking to the judge. Every social media user creates a vast library of statements that may be taken out of context by vengeful or ambitious officials. Users should be displayed their Miranda rights each time they log on. The most serious claim against Barrett Brown is that six months after the March 6, 2012 FBI raid on his mother’s address he tweeted “illegally shoot the son of a bitch”. It sounds bad. It is a clear incitement to murder. The FBI claim that the “son of a bitch” Barrett was referring to was one of their agents. That is false. The “son of a bitch” is me—and the person who called for my assassination was not Barrett Brown. Barrett’s full retweet was “dead men can’t leak stuff… illegally shoot the son of a bitch”. The quote is from Fox news host Bob Beckel, who called for my assassination—an injustice that Barrett was trying to draw attention to. Here is the video proof. The FBI took no action against Bob Beckel or the numerous other senior figures calling for my assassination. A bill was put before Congress to declare WikiLeaks staff “enemy combatants” in order to make our assassination legal. It did not pass, but the FBI still refused to act. Two days after Barrett retweeted the Bob Beckel statement, the FBI arrested not Bob Beckel, but Barrett Brown. He has been in jail ever since. The Barrett Brown case is such an obvious injustice that a public campaign by his lawyers to place the Beckel statement back into its proper context would be an obvious step for his defence team. Indeed, after being publicly monstered by the FBI’s decontextualisation effort, Barrett Brown and his lawyers fought to place the quote back into its proper context. As a result he and his legal team were gagged. “Brown has shown his intent to continue to manipulate the public through press and social media comments,” the government claimed to the court on August 8, 2013. Public commentary “made by or condoned by the defense will ‘undermine a fair trial.’” As a result, the court ruled it was necessary“ to restrain Counsel and Defendant from making prejudicial statements to the press and media.” How fine, how noble, how egalitarian. Fair trial rights for the government as well as the defence! Neither the defence nor the government can state their case to the public while Barrett Brown rots in jail awaiting his sentence—except to repeat the formal charges made by the government. Neither the greatest King nor the most destitute beggar may sleep in a box on the street. Fair’s fair! https://wikileaks.org/Assange-statement-on-the.html COMMENT Read about this before but the ins and outs of it didn't sink in properly ... and I've sort of forgotten Barrett Brown in the meantime.  Oops, sorry, Barrett Brown.   Maybe I'm going senile, but I thought I'd read he was coming out soon.  Nope, it doesn't look like it (and, yep, I'm losing my mind): In January 2015, Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison. He was also ordered to pay $890,250 in fines and restitution.  [wikipedia] This is unbelievable.  A journalist has been stitched up by the FBI and slung in prison, and he is not permitted to defend himself.  The capitalist state political police have charged his mother, who was convicted ... AND they demand an obscene amount of money from Barrett Brown - which is extortion.    The capitalist government is criminal. The rule by American capitalist oligarchy is truly f*cked. Uh-oh, I might be f*cked as well.  I keep asking Putin to nuke the capitalists, on Blogger. The request appears fully justified, Comrade Putin.  Please nuke the corrupt filthy capitalists.    Support Barrett Brown https://freebarrettbrown.org/ PS ... I did see a release mentioned somewhere, which means I'm not losing the plot (but maybe I can't count) .... LOL Release date confirmed: 29th November 2016. Barrett Brown ought to move to Russia when he's out of the clutches of the American oligarchy's political detention. https://justice4assange.com/

The Kitchen - Beef Burgundy

Planet Tokyo The Kitchen Planet Tokyo Beef Burgundy Boeuf Bourguignon Using this recipe as a guide.  Slight variation, but pretty much along the lines of this.  Used a Cabernet Sauvignon.  Tasted nice, but I couldn't drink more than a couple of sips.  More than I would have spent on something for cooking (I'm not the shopper here, which is kind of cool ... don't miss it one bit), but it tastes nice and the sauce tastes nice, too. Stove top browned and prepared, then tipped into slow cooker. Cooked on a high temperature to get it done in time, but it's something that can be set to slow maybe in the late morning or even done overnight and reheated when needed. It smells so good. Tastes good, too. Dipped bread in, while I was stirring.  :)  Didn't need stirring ... I just couldn't help fiddling and tasting. Will serve with mashed potato and crusty bread. I like a thickened sauce, so my meat cubes were covered with flour before browning and then I made a flour roux before I deglazed the pan with red wine, and adding stock and tomato paste, ahead of throwing the meat into that (together with the chopped mushrooms) and pouring all of that into the slow cooker (containing several quartered and browned onions, browned halved cloves of garlic, and browned carrots, sliced capsicum (which I wanted to get rid of) and herbs (fresh thyme from the garden and dried bay leaves). Seemed like there might not have been enough liquid at first, so I poured in another cup of beef stock on top. A little more liquid than I anticipated (which is what happens when things cook down), but it's no problem.  Plan to pour in a cornflour slurry, to thicken my liquid over the next hour or so, although it's quite acceptable as it is now.  I just like it thicker. The shopping instructions I gave were for gravy beef, or for some cheap cut of beef roast or beef cheek (which I've never tried, but it's a budget meat).  We wound up with a blade roast that was on special, and we trimmed and cubed that. Braised Beef Cheeks in Red Wine sounds much like a Beef Burgundy. Cinnamon is the variant.  Served on mushed peas.  Next on my plan is Stroganoff, using pork loin, which I've not done before.  We usually have Beef Strog. Wow, the Beef Burgundy was really nice. Ate too much. Got really lazy sitting in front of TV for a change. Somehow got hooked on renovation and real estate shows selling the capitalist dream. Watched one after the other, interrupted by annoying ads selling more of the same ... and fantasy cosmopolitan 'intellectual' eye-wear ... LOL) , often skipping the local/national spin altogether. Who are these ads for, a PR (propaganda) fantasy 'multicultural' capitalist consumer 'cosmopolitan'? Got me thinking about the pointlessness of our existence and the pursuit of all manner glittering things, and then you die. Bored with myself. Been meaning to change my eyebrows. Did that after my long session of vegetating in front of the TV I normally don't watch. Now I have myself a new pair of eyebrows and a new me. LOL Kitchen is a disaster area. I don't know what I used all those pots for. Might crash out after a microwave warmed coffee and a cigarette out the back. I like this every now and then ...  Brand New Key https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FPn5noN_qs

Indoctrination - Inconsistent with Democratic Society

Noam Chomsky Manufacture of Consent in a Democratic Society INDOCTRINATION Inconsistent with Democratic Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKUh2_n23ik VIEW 1 - Rhetoric press/media societal purpose of First Amendment (freedom of press) enabling public to assert political control over political process information opinion access opportunity to act VIEW 2 - Historic & Present contrary view = dominant view re modern democracy traced to 17th Century English Revolution civil war / king supporter v. parliament supporters plus:  big popular movement - populist radical democratic movement defeated 1660 lost:  question whose slaves the poor shall be, king or parliament John Locke lower classes must be told what to believe Clement Walker deep concern of liberal elements (agitators) were revealing mysteries of govt - that lower classes will be too arrogant to submit to civil rule Reinhold Niebuhr moralist, political thinker rationality belongs to the cool observers stupidity of average man he follows not reason but faith and the naive faith of the proletarian requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have to be provided by myth-makers to keep the ordinary person on the right course Walter Lippman 'dean of American journalists' wrote about what he called the 'manufacture of consent' - has become a self-conscious art - and a regular organ of popular govt in a revolution of the practice of democracy - thought it appropriate b/c common interests allude public opinion entirely - and can be managed only by a specialised class - whose personal interests reach beyond the locality - post WWI - like Niebuhr's 'cool observers' WWI timing important During WWI John Dewey's circle of intellectuals were extremely impressed with having imposed their will on a reluctant and indifferent majority with the aid of propaganda fabrications about 'Hun atrocities' and jingoistic over-simplifications / as usual, the population was pacifistic and did not want to go to war Woodrow Wilson, in fact, won the 1916 election on the slogan peace without victory - a mandate which he predictably interpreted as meaning victory without peace very quickly - with the aid of the intellectuals, they felt that they had whipped the population into a war fever - historians also joined enthusiastically in the cause - formed the National Board for Historical Service - founder of it said what was needed was what he called 'historical engineering' - method to serve the state by 'explaining' the issues of the war to that the Americans might better win it - Wilson administration established the first government official propaganda agency in the US - called the Creel Commission (Committee on Public Information, CPI - aka Creel Committee) - a straight propaganda agency to try to turn reluctant and indifferent majority - into a willingness to fight the war and succumb to jingoistic fanaticism - a predecessor of a much more ambitious program developed during Reagan Administration - Reagan's Office of Latin American Public Diplomacy - theoretically under State Dept. - but actually under National Security Council - Congressional General Accounting Office later concluded this was an illegal operation - an illegal operation which had intent of intimidating critics - & controlling debate and discussion re Central America - goal:  demonize Sandanistas & build up support for the US client state / US terrorist states in region - exposed during Iran-Contra hearings - officials described propaganda efforts to Miami Herald journalist as spectacular success - "the kind of operation that you would carry out in enemy territory" - expresses attitude of Reaganite political leaders and fact of state leaders generally towards their own populations - ie. that own population is the 'enemy' - the domestic 'enemy' that you must control & marginalise - and you want to ensure that they do not become so arrogant as not to find humility enough to submit to civil rule - Out of Creel Commission, but going back to WWI, a number of consequences - one of members of Creel Commission went on to become leading figure & patron saint of modern PR industry - Edward Bernays, who later went on to write about the 'engineering of consent' - 'engineering of consent', the essence of democracy, in Bernay's view - PR industry devoted to controlling the 'public mind' - educating the American ppl about the economic facts of life, to ensure favourable climate for business and - a proper understanding of the common interests - the public mind is the only serious danger facing the company (ATT exec) - it's got to be controlled - Edward Bernays went on to demonizing the democratic govt of Guatemala - working for the United Fruit Company when the US was planning to overthrow Guatemala govt - as it did in 1954, turning country into a [???] which it has remained since - a major theme in academic social sciences for decades - Harold Lasswell, US political scientist & communications theorist, academic - wrote article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (1933) - says we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests - they are not.  According to him, the best judges are the elites.  The smart guys.  The cool observers. - He says we must be ensured the means to impose our will, for the common good - said this would require a whole technique of control, largely by propaganda, b/c ignorance & superstition of masses - same theme all the way through, comments Chomsky - basic problem:  if you have a society in which the voice of the ppl is heard - YOU HAVE GOT TO ENSURE THAT VOICE SAYS THE RIGHT THING - in totalitarian societies - threat of physical force - so in that society it does not matter so much what they think - what matters is what they do, and that you control by force - AS CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO CONTROL BY FORCE ERODES - it is necessary to control what ppl think - as society becomes more free, there is more sophisticated concern for thought control - eg. public relations, academia, journalism - state has limited resources to control the public by force - US undoubtedly most sophisticated in the reliance on techniques of indoctrination and control (public relations) - PR industry an American creation - close similarity to Leninist ideology - to Bolshevism - which also assumes that the radical intellectuals are the specialised class, the vanguard, and they've got to lead the - stupid and ignorant masses to a better society - Chomsky says the two conceptions are very much alike - one of the reasons why there has been such an easy transition from to another - move from being Leninist enthusiast to a passionate supporter of state capitalism - and working for American [capitalist] aims; Chomsky remarks "that takes place overnight" - it's been going on for years:  it's called 'the god that failed transition' (?) - in early stages had some authenticity - examples Ignazio Silone - Ignazio Silone - long-term informer for Mussolini’s regime—the Italian Orwell as a fascist spy - in recent years just a farce; a technique of opportunism - transition is easy b/c not much of a difference in ideological change; just a matter of where you think power lies - eg. if you think there's going to be popular revolution - & you can ride revolution to state power & hold whip over masses - equals:  Leninist enthusiast - if, on the other hand, you don't see that happening - but see power lying in state institutions which you must serve as an ideological manager, - you do that - in last century or so since there has been an identifiable secular intelligentsia - intelligentsia fall typically into one or other of these two categories - associate themselves with one or other system of power & hierarchy & subordination - it is only if you submit to those systems that you are counted as a 'respectable' intellectual - for obvious reasons - post WWII - deep concern again over need to control & deceive the public / to control the public mind - presidential historian Thomas Bailey, wrote 1948, when setting off on 'Cold War' - wrote: "because the masses are notoriously short-sighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. Deception of the people may in fact become increasingly necessary, unless we are willing to give our leaders in Washington a freer hand." - 1981, as US was launching a new crusade for 'freedom' - Professor Samuel Huntington, Harvard, said in private (but published) discussion: "you may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has done ever since the Truman Doctrine" - giving insight into nature of the 'Cold War' and the nature of the war against Nicaragua - concerns re controlling the public mind - rise to surface esp. after wars and turmoil - eg. 17th Century Revolution, England - eg. like WWI when Woodrow Wilson launched the 'Red Scare' - major example in all of American history of state repression - large-scale and effective in destroying unions and - destroying independent politics and eliminating independent thought - same thing after WWII - phenomenon mislabled 'McCarthyism' - actually initiated by the Liberal Democrats in late 1940s / McCarthy just at tail end & vulgarised it - reason:  periods of war & turmoil tend to arouse ppl from apathy - making them think, organise / so you have repression - eg. Red Scare etc. - same thing happened after Vietnam War - elites concerned re what they called 'crisis of democracy' - book:  The Crisis of Democracy, published by Trilateral Commission, put together by David Rockefeller 1973 - representing the liberal internationalists from three major centres of modern capitalism - USA, Western Europe and Japan (hence 'trilateral') - this is the liberals - eg. Jimmy Carter - 'Crisis of Democracy' - during 1960s large groups of ppl normally passive & apathetic - began to try to enter political arena to press demands / that is 'crisis' to be overcome - naive might call that 'democracy' - but the sophisticated / the elites / understand that as a 'crisis of democracy' - American spox, Samuel Huntington, wrote in his report Harry Truman had been able to govern country - with cooperation of relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers & bankers - but in 1960s, turmoil - youth, women, labour etc - began to get involved - same crisis that arose in 1700s and same crisis that repeatedly arises when ppl begin to take advantage of - formal opportunities that exist - problems:  VALUE ORIENTED INTELLECTUALS - concerned with 'truth', 'justice' nonsense - delegitimising the institutions that are responsible for the indoctrination of the young - eg. schools, universities - opposed to the 'good guys', the technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals / the commissars - their proposal: more 'moderation' in democracy to mitigate the 'excess' of democracy to over come the 'crisis' - plain terms:  public has to be reduced to their proper state of apathy & obedience - & public must be driven from the public arena, if democracy is to survive - with the specialised class, the cool observers, smart guys, technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals - doing job in interests of the ppl - that's the liberal side - not going into what reactionary side says STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - View 1.  Rhetorical View - view of Justice Powell - the view he expressed: - view that the public ought to assert meaningful control over the political process CONTRARY VIEW - View 2.  View Actually Held - the public is a dangerous enemy and has to be controlled, for own good, like you control children - Evident that View 2 is the actual held view, can be seen when a 'crisis of democracy' arises - and unwashed masses begin to enter into political arena & have to be somehow REPRESSED - said force and mentioned Red Scare (but isn't that propaganda ?) or other means - media play a big role in this - STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - same Justice Powell discussion - claims it is the crucial role of the media to effect the societal purpose of First Amendment - ie allow the public to assert control over the political process - STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - also expressed by Judge Gurfein - permitting the New York Times to publish The Pentagon Papers said: "We have a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, and it must be suffered by those in authority, in order to preserve the even greater values of the freedom of expression and the right of the people to know" That's the standard view. THE DEBATE - given that standard view, we have debate:  whether the media has gone too far in defiance of authority - right wing claims they've gone too far & they are overcome by liberal bias; must do something - the liberals - as in the Trilateral Commission [capitalist] - AGREE - THEY SAY THAT THE MEDIA THREATENS GOVT AUTHORITY - by their adversarial stance and they've got to be curbed - if they can't curb themselves; the govt is going to have to move in to curb them - Executive Director of 'Freedom House' Leonard Sussman - asked:  must free institutions be overthrown by the very freedom they sustain - rhetorical:  meaning we need to do something re excess freedom that press is using to attack govt - Sussman was writing re Freedom House study of the  Vietnam War's 1968 Tet Offensive - (two-volume study accusing the press of virtually losing the war) - a classic showing that the press allegedly lost the war by unfair criticism of USG during Tet Offensive - study a total fraud; falsified data & when analysed PRESS WAS SUPPORTIVE OF USG POLICY - and PRESS WAS WORKING WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF GOVT PROPAGANDA - nevertheless they claimed press was too 'pessimistic' - by which standard?  - obvious standard is internal US intelligence assessments - which we have, thanks to the Pentagon Papers - TURNS OUT THE PRESS WAS MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN USG INTEL - b/c press believed public statements and did not know re private USG intel statements - so FREEDOM HOUSE complaint reduces to the fact that the press - though totally supportive of the USG propaganda, DID NOT DO IT IN UPBEAT ENOUGH FASHION - it would not have surprised George Orwell that that should be criticism of the press - by an organisation called 'Freedom House' - but that has become the benchmark since, that 'proves' that the press was too 'adversarial' - THAT'S THE DEBATE - then the DEFENDERS OF THE PRESS say maybe we're too adversarial but you have to tolerate us - even though we're cantankerous etc - OUTSIDE OF THAT DEBATE - which debate constitutes virtually the entire mainstream discussion - outside debate, there is another position:  it challenges the factual assumption that's taken for granted - according to this alternative view, the MEDIA do indeed fulfil a societal purpose - ie. TO INCULCATE AND DEFEND THE ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL & POLITICAL AGENDA - OF THE PRIVILEGED GROUPS THAT DOMINATE THE DOMESTIC SOCIETY - by selection of topics; by distribution of concern; by frame of issues; by filtering of info; by emphasis & tone; - by simple fabrication, sometimes; CRUCIALLY, BY THE BOUNDING OF DEBATE - to ensure that debate does not go outside of certain limits - binding in both news columns and in opinion columns - because news columns embody all sorts of assumptions and ideological presuppositions - to the extent that there is, a liberal bias, - it serves primarily to bound thinkable thought (according to this outside view) - ie. to INSTIL THE UNCHALLENGEABLE ASSUMPTIONS which reflect narrow elite consensus - LIBERAL BIAS PERFORMS A REAL FUNCTION:  SAYS 'THUS FAR' AND NO MORE - but as far as the liberal bias goes, it is still accepting the presuppositions as unchallengeable - within those bounds, there's ample controversy - it reflects the tactical divisions among elites how to achieve generally shared aims - BUT THESE LIMITS ARE VERY RARELY TRANSCENDED - so Western media functions in accordance with the:  PROPAGANDA MODEL PROPAGANDA MODEL - propaganda model has a prediction about how the press is going to behave - Propaganda Model has a further prediction - ie. no matter how well confirmed the Propaganda Model, it cannot be taken seriously - and therefore must be effectively excluded from mainstream discussion - that follows from the model itself - THE MODEL REJECTS CERTAIN PRINCIPLES THAT ARE SERVICEABLE TO POWER - Propaganda Model of press falls out of the spectrum that is defined by the presupposition - that the media are adversarial and cantankerous, perhaps excessively so - THAT PRESUPPOSITION IS A SERVICEABLE ONE, to the established institutions - to believe that what you are reading is actually criticism if it's in fact support - it's a SOPHISTICATED TECHNIQUE OF INDOCTRINATION - of course, the presupposition / technique of indoctrination is serviceable to media themselves - nice to pride yourself on being a 'courageous' and 'independent' adversary of power - since those assumptions are serviceable, they're going to be upheld according to the propaganda model - NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE WILL BE PERMITTED - that prediction is very readily confirmed - the Propaganda Model is never taken seriously:  it cannot be considered - Propaganda Model has disconcerting feature to it:  - as a matter of logic, it is either VALID or INVALID - if it's invalid, you can dismiss it - if it's valid, you MUST dismiss it (because it is saying the wrong thing) - ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, PROPAGANDA MODEL MUST BE DISMISSED - truth is no defence - very much like traditional of the doctrine of seditions libel - ie it is a crime to criticise state authorities because that undermines power - doctrine runs up to modern times - truth was never a defence against seditious libel - truth heightened the enormity of the crime of calling authority into disrepute - same is true here (re Propaganda Model) FACTUAL QUESTION - are the standard presumptions correct? - ie - is it true that the press is independent, cantankerous, adversarial & maybe excessively so? - OR are the assumptions of the Propaganda Model correct? - Propaganda Model has certain prior plausibility to it PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 1 - ie. if you simply accept controversial free market assumptions - about how society works - you are led almost automatically to the propaganda model - you can see that pretty simply - Ask yourself what the media are. - ie. THE AGENDA SETTING MEDIA - media that sets the frame that others adapt to - ie. NYT, WaPo, and 3 TV channels, + couple others - not much else - those set framework that everyone else pretty well adapts to - agenda setting media:  what are they? - AGENDA SETTING MEDIA = VERY LARGE CORPORATIONS that are INTEGRATED WITH or often OWNED by EVEN LARGER CONGLOMERATES - like other businesses, they have product that they sell to market - MARKET = advertisers / other businesses - PRODUCT = audiences - MEDIA do not finance themselves on audiences - audience is usually a loss - AGENDA SETTING MEDIA makes money from ADVERTISERS - advertising rates go up if you have the right kind of audience - only a relatively privileged audience raises advertising rates - SO WHAT MEDIA ARE AS AN INSTITUTION is major corporations selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses - what would you expect to come out of such a system - you expect to come out something that reflects interests of the:     - sellers     - buyers     - product - it would be amazing if it were not true - many other things apart from that press in the same direction - centres of power in society (state, corporate sector, & others) - can impose punishments when things go wrong (or rewards) - therefore GAIN when adapting to CENTRES OF POWER - gains:  less costly - top managerial positions - editors, columnists etc - if you make it into those positions you are PART of the privileged elite - at the very top / that's where your associations are / perceptions / friends - it would not be surprising if PERSONNEL reflected the SAME INTERESTS - many other pressures, leading immediately to the assumption that Propaganda Model is highly plausible - even without any evidence  /  it has prior plausibility & would be surprising if it were not true PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 2 - Media has a lot of elite advocacy - represents position intellectual elites thought the media OUGHT to serve - and the whole system of education and so on ought to serve - that is the position since the 17th Century / the dominant position - it is the position necessary to manufacture consent for the general good because of the stupidity of the average man - and we have to put aside these democratic dogmatisms THUS we have a position of (1) PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY & (2) ELITE ADVOCACY and (3) PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE - it is very striking that the debate over the media is determined by the intellectuals - AND THEY'RE THE MOST INDOCTRINATED SECTOR OF SOCIETY - for them the ONLY debate is whether the media are too adversarial or not - public, on the other hand, generally think the media are too conformist & too subordinate to power - they automatically accept something like the propaganda model - these 3 factors do not prove that Propaganda Model is valid, but do suggest that Propaganda Model - ought to be part of the 'debate' / discussion - IT IS NOT A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, EXACTLY AS THE MODEL PREDICTS - thousands of pages of detailed, close documentation on the Propaganda Model - tested in just about every conceivable way - Propaganda Model is by now one of the best confirmed thesis of the social sciences - if there is any serious challenge to it, Chomsky has not seen it:  it is generally just ignored - or caricatured - what you have is very well confirmed thesis (not proven) & no serious challenge to it - it has (1) prior plausibility (2) is advocated by elites (3) is generally supported by the public - but it's not part of the discussion, exactly in accord with its predictions NEXT TASK IS TO LOOK AT ACTUAL DETAILS - any set of examples will be misleading because its predictions are essentially universally confirmed - with only statistical error, so giving examples is misleading because you might argue that the examples are not properly selected - that's why you have to look at a range of tests to make sure that they are properly selected - let ppl who think the media are adversarial pick their own grounds - that's the harshest test that the model can face, so let them pick the grounds - well they have picked their grounds:  things like Tet Offensive - it turns out everything you go to, Tet Offensive, Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings - you take them and they show precisely the subservience of the press to established power - compare coverage of historical atrocities committed by clients and enemies - compare good deeds, like elections, carried out by clients and enemies - look at comparative coverage - tests conclude, PROPAGANDA MODEL is VALID as a first approximation to way media functions - eg 'freedom of press'     more NYT coverage re Nicaragua than in rest of world combined re freedom of press Nicaragua June 1986 - World Court condemned USA re unlawful use of force & US violation of treaties World Court:  called to desist Congress responded to this by:  voting $100-million in aide to increase/accelerate the unlawful use of force Reagan Admin announced that this is for real and that this is a 'real war' there was enthusiastic media coverage of that the World Court decision was simply dismissed as an annoying bit of nonsense; either ignored or falsified media presented the World Court as criminal, not the United States in response to this virtual declaration of war, as the Reagan Admin described it, the Nicaragua govt suspended La Prensa and that led to virtual hysteria in the US: the Neimann Fellows, the journalism fellows at Harvard immediately gave the owner of La Prensa, Violeta Chamorro, an award; WaPo immediately wrote an editorial that she deserves ten awards; New York Review 'Newspaper Headline' liberal left columnist, issued plea for funds for La Prensa to keep its equipment going (that those funds could be added to the rather substantial CIA subvention to La Prensa, ever since 1979); and on and on. WHAT IS:  La Prensa La Prensa is probably unique in history - it is often believed that La Prensa opposed the Somoza dictatorship - if you read the press that's what you'd believe In 1980, right after the Sandinista revolution, the owners of La Prensa fired the editor and 80% of the staff left with him because the edtor and the staff refused to support their pro Contra policy / the editor and staff formed another newspaper - and if a newspaper is constituted of its editor and its staff, that's the old La Prensa /  if a newspaper is constituted of the money that's behind it, is it the new La Prensa WHAT IS A NEWSPAPER - is it the staff and the editor - is it the owners & equipment NEW LA PRENSA supports the overthrow of the government by a foreign power and it does it quite openly, and it's funded by the foreign power that is trying to overthrow the government Chomsky cannot think of a parallel in the history of Western democracies eg.  during WWII, England did not permit Nazi Germany to fund and run a major newspaper in London and the United States did not permit Japan to invest in and run a major newspaper coming out of New York in fact, England and United States imposed harsh censorship and they wouldn't even let tiny little dissident newspapers go through the mail or appear and so on There's no remote parallel in Western history. This is never mentioned in media commentary. Nevertheless, a true civil libertarian will defend La Prensa from harassment, even though this is unique in human history, because if you're a real civil libertarian you think that US should have allowed Japan and Germany to dominate the American media during WWII. WE NOW ASK WHETHER THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL HYSTERIA OVER LA PRENSA REFLECTS THEIR LIBERTARIAN PASSIONS or because they're serving power as the Propaganda Model predicts. / obvious test.  test we apply all the time when we look at our enemies. look at WORLD PEACE COUNCIL Communist Front Organisation read their publicity and you will see that they have a lot of criticisms of USA often very valid criticisms in fact, their critical discussion of the repression in USA and US dependencies not only is often valid but it's OFTEN THE KIND OF THING THAT IS NOT REPORTED IN USA / do we honour them for that? / we regard them with contempt [UNCLEAR TO ME] / and the reasons is we apply a very simple and obvious test =  we ask what they say for the repression and atrocities for which they are responsible El Salvadore there were 2 small independent papers / independent / not particularly left-wing / run by businessmen / challenged distribution of power (eg. land reform or something like that) not around any more govt that US arms, funds, trains and supports sent its security forces to destroy them One newspaper eliminated: editor and photo-journalist taken outside of restaurant and hacked with machetes by security forces & left in ditch / owner fled Other newspaper eliminated: took several bombings three assassination attempts on editor machine gun attack that killed newsboy  / editor fled finally army surrounded premises with tanks and then smashed place and destroyed it THIS HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE WORD OF MENTION IN THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS COLUMNS, IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE EDITORIAL MENTION IN ALL OF THESE YEARS THE SAME IS TRUE OF OTHER MEDIA IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER:  THESE ARE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY OUR CLIENTS, THE GUYS WE PAY AND TRAIN TO DO THAT SORT OF THING, SO SUDDENLY OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS' DISAPPEARS Let's take another major US client, ISRAEL, which receives by far the major US aid and is again not a small country under attack by a superpower. At exactly the same time that Nicaragua suspended La Prensa after the virtual declaration of war, in violation of the World Court proceedings, ISRAEL CLOSED DOWN PERMANENTLY TWO JERUSALEM ARAB NEWSPAPERS, on the charge that security claimed that they were supported by a terrorist/hostile group. Supported by Supreme Court of Israel on basis that no state, no matter how legitimate the business, will permit a business that is supported by hostile elements and that freedom of speech does not extend to activities that may threaten the security of the state. How much coverage did that get?  One mention in US press: ie in letter by Noam Chomsky in Boston Globe, commenting on the hypocrisy of the Nieman Fellows - they did not give a prize to these editors and, in fact, it was never reported. After the Central American Peace Accords, La Prensa was opened, and right at that time, Israel closed a Nazareth newspaper on grounds, again, that it was supported by hostile elements. Editor pleaded that everything that appeared in newspaper passed through censorship; but that was disregarded by Israel Supreme Court, on the grounds that if the state says it's supported by hostile elements, that's all that's required. YOU NEVER NEED ANY EVIDENCE WHEN THE STATE COMES ALONG AND SAYS 'SECURITY REASONS', THE COURTS JUST ACCEPT IT. Israel also closed a news office in Nablis - editor was already in prison without charge on the claim that he had contact with hostile elements. How much coverage did that get in the US press?  Answer, as far as Chomsky could find:  zero. Guatamala early 1980s, US enthusiastically supported outbreak of terror and violence Reaganites positively passionate enthusiasm for this maybe 100,000 ppl slaughtered after sufficient massacre had been carried out had 'democratic election and there's supposed to be a 'democracy' in Guatamala; that's what they tell us during period of US-backed slaughter, they did not have any censorship the problems of the press were taken care of simply by murdering journalists 50 journalists were murdered, including TV journalists right in the middle of broadcasts "for some reason, you didn't need any censorship when that was going on" Chomsky:  that was never discussed; you will find bare mention of it in the press After the return of 'democracy' on which we pride ourselves one of the editors who had fled and was living in Mexico decided to return and he opened a small newspaper, called 'La Epoca' it wasn't calling for overthrow of govt; it wasn't supported by a foreign power it was just kind of a small left-liberal journal immediately death threats from death squads, adjuncts of the security forces warning him that you're going to be killed or flee he nonetheless went ahead and published a couple of issues 15 armed men broke into the offices fire-bombed office kidnapped night-watchman destroyed the premises editor held press conference next day - no attendees, except European press said that there is no freedom of expression received another death threat warning him to get out of country taken to airport by European ambassador to ensure he could get out alive fled to Mexico How much coverage did that get in America?  Answer:  zero. Nothing in The New York Times and nothing in Washington Post in the last year. It's not that they didn't know about it.  It was on international wires. But we also know that they themselves referred to it obliquely 1 month later. ------------------------- Office of Public Diplomacy officially known as the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean part of a White House ordered propaganda plan in the 1980s to provide cover for the secret CIA war in Nicaragua CIA director William J. Casey initiated the propaganda campaign on advice of private sector PR men: Walter Raymond, Jr., a CIA propaganda expert, transferred to National Security Council to get program running Raymond picked Otto Reich to run the new OPD housed in the State Department a covert, illegal, inter-agency propaganda campaign aimed at US citizens and Congress never received full public scrutiny http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Public_Diplomacy Thomas A. Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zbooks/www/chomsky/ni/ni-c01-s06.html The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto) The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971 http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ Murray Irwin Gurfein, federal judge The Pentagon Papers During his first week as a judge, Gurfein was assigned the Pentagon Papers case and gained national prominence when he refused the government's initial prior restraint motion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gurfein ----------------------------------------- Walter Lippman  'dean of American journalists' coined term 'Cold War' in book of same name {responsible for coining other terms also} Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning.   [wikipedia] Walter Lippman:   associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, social engineering of the masses, funded by US-Anglo capitalists. Edward Bernays Also associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London. No time to focus on the notes I did, to make sense of them.

The New York Times Ruling Capitalist Propaganda Hit on WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks Media-Military-Industrial-Complex  The New York Times Ruling Capitalist Propaganda Hit on WikiLeaks WIKILEAKS RESPONSE  to New York Times propaganda hit via @WikiLeaks  NYT Capitalist Propaganda | direct link The Young Turks Julian Assange Hit Piece In New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_npSb-tyGQ RT News - Aaron Swartz Major Media Trying to Cut Out WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H1zLZ-xS0w TRANSCRIPT [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA In the wake of WikiLeaks one-upping every news organisation on the planet, with a large trove of classified information they received, the major newspapers are trying to cut them out of the picture. As we've told you before on this show, The New York Times and The Guardian have been working on creating their own leaking sites, and yesterday, the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal, launched their own leaking website called 'Safe House'. But, is this going to be enough to cut out WikiLeaks, to inspire whistleblowers to come to their site instead? It doesn't seem so, if you look at the fine print. In The Wall Street Journal's terms and conditions, those leakers who choose to remain anonymous, must first enter into a Confidentiality Agreement that states that any of the information sent to the journal can be used in any purpose. As in, they hold the right to disclose any information about the leaker, to law enforcement authorities without notice, in order to 'comply' with laws. AND 'Safe House' leakers have to agree not to use the service for any unlawful purpose. So does this just destroy the basic principles of anonymity aligned with leaking, and does it serve as a vindication for WikiLeaks? Joining me to discuss this is Aaron Swartz, Executive Director of DemandProgress.org. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Aaron, thanks again for coming back on the show. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Thanks for having me. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Do you think that WikiLeaks has really changed the playing field over the last year? We're seeing this journalism 'arm's race' as to who can set up their own leaking site, or I guess alternative, faster. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Clearly.  I mean, this is a huge vindication for WikiLeaks.  We've gone from everybody saying they should be locked up in prison, to the point where every newspaper and news outlet wants to have their own WikiLeaks site. I mean, we've got to a point where if they want to lock up Julian Assange, they're going to have to lock up every editor of every major newspaper in this country. It's just ridiculous. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, it's interesting, too, because The Wall Street Journal didn't get any of the document dumps from WikiLeaks, so I'm wondering maybe there's a little bit of bitterness involved there, too. I mean, why would Rupert Murdoch want to do this? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah.  I mean, we've seen incredible sets of sour grapes from some of WikiLeaks' critics. For example, after The New York Times was cut out of one of the WikiLeaks scoops, their editor went around calling Julian Assange a crazy bag lady. I mean, the pettiness of these journalists is just incredible. So, I think what we're seeing is some of the more right-wing papers like The Wall Street Journal, which have had biased coverage and sort of right-wing slants on all their news, now they're trying to provide a competitor to WikiLeaks to get stories for themselves, so they can slant it instead of letting WikiLeaks control the story. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Let's talk about all the ways in which this Wall Street Journal experiment fails. First of all, not only do they not guarantee you any type of anonymity and say they might hand you over to the authorities, or at least your information, if they have to, I also hear that there are a lot of technical loopholes here. Can you tell us about some of those? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah, that's exactly right.  They recommend that you use a secure anonymity service called Tor; which is a great idea.  Everyone should be using Tor to submit documents anonymously. But, unfortunately, they never tested it with Tor.  So if you did try to use it, it just didn't work. Similarly, the encryption system they use had serious flaws that allowed the government to decrypt some of the encrypted communications, under certain scenarios, and there were other multiple vulnerabilities in it. It just seems like they hadn't thought it through. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA But the fact that they also say it has to be lawful and that we might hand over your information to the authorities if they ask for it; I mean, that seems to go against the basic principles of what it is to be a whistleblower, what it is to be an anonymous source of some kind of documents. So do you think this just proves that all the news organisations are now scared. Now, all of a sudden, leaking isn't what it used to be and now they feel like they have to comply with the law no matter what and do what the government puts pressure on them to do? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah.  I mean, I'm sure the lawyers got in here and said, look, we've got to have the free right to put everyone, you know, out to dry if we want to. The good news is that fewer Wall Street Journal journalists will go to jail. The bad news is that all the sources will go to jail.  The people who don't have the resources of a newspaper to protect them.  They're going to be hung out to dry and they're going to be the people most at risk, the people who are doing the hard work of actually leaking these documents. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA But at the same time, you know, I bet you that if WikiLeaks were to have another major document dump, even if that was to be obtained illegally, which I think is still obviously up for debate right now, I still think that The Wall Street Journal would go ahead and print it.  What about you? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Oh, definitely. There's a great study in The Atlantic today, that found The New York Times, which has been somewhat critical of WikiLeaks, like I've mentioned:  half of every paper issued by The New York Times this year - half of all of them - had WikiLeaks based stories in them. So on the one hand they criticise it, but on the other hand they put it into almost every newspaper they print. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA So what's your prediction, then, for The Wall Street Journal 'Safe House'? Do you think it's going to be a success?  Do you think that whistleblowers are actually going to go towards it, because they're so afraid with the example that the government has made out of WikiLeaks, out of Julian Assange, out of Bradley Manning, or does it really kind of put a dimmed light on all whistleblowing? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA You know, I think people who don't trust WikiLeaks aren't going to trust Rupert Murdoch any more. You know, what I think what we're going to see is this continued proliferation of leaking sites all across the internet. Because the internet is fundamentally designed to share documents. It's not something that you can shut down by just shutting down one website. And, so, what I'm hoping is that an open community will develop.  We will learn these best practices - these security things, like the ones Jake Appelbaum has pointed out today, about how to ensure that your site is safely encrypted, as well as operational security things about how to keep yourself anonymous and how to share documents securely, so that instead of relying on one single point of failure or one right-wing newspaper company, documents will be spread all over the net by everybody. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, you know, I think you wrote up a good point before, when you mentioned The Wall Street Journal and, obviously, how some of their coverage might be a little bit biased. Do you think that it would be the type of scenario, where unlike WikiLeaks who puts it all out there no matter what it is that you send, that they would even censor?  They might not even, you know, print stories about the leaks you send, especially if it might be a corporation with which Rupert Murdoch is associated with? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA I think that's very clear. I mean, one of the fascinating innovations of WikiLeaks is this thing they call 'scientific journalism'. You know, they don't just write stories about the documents and quote them out of context, like The New York Times will do. They put the full documents online so that you can read them for yourselves without the spin; you know, without putting it in certain context. You can read the raw facts and make your own decisions. It's really hard to imagine Rupert Murdoch doing that. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, I think we'll have to wait and see whether this is successful at all. Wait and see whether The New York Times and The Guardian come up with their own versions. Al-Jazeera already has, you know, a certain unit that they've dedicated to that, too. But, somehow, I just don't really see this working out all that well. I think it's a bad, bad imitation of WikiLeaks. Aaron, I want to thank you, for joining us, very much. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Thanks for having me.  [Nods] ... Assange proffered a vision of America as superbully: a nation that has achieved imperial power by proclaiming allegiance to principles of human rights while deploying its military-intelligence apparatus in “pincer” formation to “push” countries into doing its bidding, and punishing people like him who dare to speak the truth. [NYT] Media-Military-Industrial-Complex  [Michael Hastings] Michael Hastings: Army Deploys Psychological Operations on U.S. Senators in Afghanistan War Effort DemocracyNow.org - "Federal law prohibits the military from using propaganda and psychological tactics on U.S. citizens, but that is exactly what may have happened in Afghanistan according to reporter Michael Hastings, who was interviewed by Democracy Now! about his recent expose for Rolling Stone magazine is called, "Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-ops on U.S. senators." In the article, Hastings writes that Lt. General William Caldwell, the commander of NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan, illegally employed psychological operations to manipulate visiting U.S. senators into providing more troops and funding for the war effort. "It show how far-off the rails the entire operation has gone," Hasting says. "The most important battlefield isn't in Afghanistan, it is in Washington."" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGi6FHi2zOE Discussing Afghanistan with Michael Hastings Published on 14 Jun 2012 "In 2010, Michael Hastings wrote a controversial piece for Rolling Stone that potentially ruined the reputation of US army general Stanley McChrystal, then commander of NATO's internal security assistance force in the war in Afghanistan. The article, which detailed McChrystal's disapproval of President Obama, caused McChrystal to resign his position. We got in touch with Hastings and he gave us the opportunity to discuss counter insurgency in Afghanistan, criticisms of President Obama and the ongoing tension between the Pentagon and the White House." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZwTATnSsvA Michael Hastings on 'The Operators' Uploaded on 11 Jan 2012 "Michael Hastings the Rolling Stone reporter whose profile of Stanley McChrystal ended the General's career has now expanded his experiences with troops, his thoughts on COIN, the rise and fall of McChrystal, and the toxic reaction from other journalists into book form. He joins the show to discuss his new book, "The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan"." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMzMs67cj38 DEAD. The Young Turks More Details Emerge on the Death of Michael Hastings "Our friend and colleague Michael Hastings died early Tuesday morning in a one-car crash in Los Angeles. Wikileaks' Twitter account is now reporting that hours before his death, Hastings contacted Wikileaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson saying he was being investigated by the FBI. Some establishment media outlets have taken care to try and assault Hasting's character and achievements as a journalist. Cenk Uygur breaks it down." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoyuXzM059Q DEAD. 'Aaron was killed by the government' - Robert Swartz on his son's death "On Tuesday, the funeral services of Aaron Swartz took place outside of Chicago, Illinois. Swartz reportedly committed suicide on Friday, and his family says the US government is to blame for the legal action taken against the 26 year old for allegedly hacking into secured computers. RT web producer Andrew Blake brings us more from Highland Park, Illinois." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yKkk-cUk6c IN DANGER U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange Published on 27 Nov 2012 "High-level U.S. government officials, including Clinton and Biden, demand for the assassination of Assange and to list WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization." http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQW0US2sJw