WikiLeaks - Sony Archive & Public Interest

WikiLeaks Release: US Recruits Hollywood to Boost 'Anti-Russian Messaging' 23:06 17.04.2015(updated 04:09 18.04.2015) Get short URL The latest documents released by Wikileaks reveal some uncomfortable – yet unsurprising – truths about the relationship between Hollywood and the US Government. In its propaganda efforts against Russia, the US State Department may have pressured Sony – and some of the biggest stars – into cooperating. The latest Wikileaks release includes thousands of documents which reveal ties between the White House and Sony pictures. It’s taking journalists a long time to comb through the weeds, but some troubling details are emerging. As Wikileaks notes, Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton is also on the board of trustees for the RAND Corporation, a research arm of the US military. According to emails, the State Department may have taken advantage of Lynton’s dual positions to further its own propaganda aims. "As you could see, we have plenty of challenges in countering ISIL narratives in the Middle East and Russian narratives in central and eastern Europe," an email to Lynton from Richard Stengel, US State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, reads. "Following up on our conversation, I’d love to convene a group of media executives who can help us think about better ways to respond to both of these large challenges." "This is a conversation about ideas, about content and production, about commercial possibilities," Stengel adds. "I promise you it will be interesting, fun, and rewarding." "Who are folks I can or should see in NY re anti-Russian messaging — and also anti-ISIL messaging?" he asks Lynton in another email. While comparing a sovereign nation to a terrorist group may be nothing new for US officials, such blatant evidence of Washington’s propaganda war is newsworthy. In response, Lynton provided a list full of other Hollywood executives who would presumably also be cooperative. This included senior level management from Turner Broadcasting and Walt Disney International. Other emails suggest that Lynton was also asked to pressure Hollywood celebrities into promoting foreign policy objectives of the Obama administration. "We have already started to think through ways your superstars could potentially help amplify some of the great work US Embassy Paris is doing," wrote a staffer on behalf of the US ambassador to France. "We’d love to include Sony names in events here, either as guests or performers, and would love the opportunity to leverage their popularity to promote the President’s priorities and agenda overseas." Celebrities suggested by Lynton include George Clooney, Kerry Washington, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, as well as major filmmakers like David Fincher and Steven Spielberg. "Would also include Natalie Portman as she has just done a movie in Israel and is very involved there," one email read. But Sony’s ties with the government extend even beyond the State Department emails. Documents reveal that Lynton also had contact with the president, having dinner with the Obamas. Wikileaks also revealed an email from Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, which detailed his concerns with a perceived Russian threat. "Putin is little more than a schoolyard bully, so if he refuses to back down, we must bring Europe in as part of an aggressive solution," Schumer wrote to Amy Pascal, a senior executive with Sony. "Sanctions have already hurt him, and the threats of expelling Russia from the World Trade Organization and forbidding it from hosting the next World Cup give us a strong hand." Of course, the knowledge of close coordination between Hollywood and the US government is nothing new. As David Sirota points out in his book, Back to Our Future, a conflict of interest has existed for years. "The Pentagon – and it’s very open about this – the Pentagon will line edit screenwriters scripts that are about the military if those screenwriters and the studios want to have access to be able to photograph planes, or tanks, or aircraft carriers," Sirota said during an interview with RT. Giving the example of 1986’s Top Gun, Sirota notes that the "filmmakers of that movie submitted their script to Pentagon editors, for the Pentagon to line edit it to make sure it was perfectly mimicking what the Pentagon wanted it to say." War correspondent Keith Harmon Snow echoed these sentiments in relation to the film Act of Valor. "We have at it as a psychological operation against the American public," Snow told RT. "That means this is not Hollywood, it’s total propaganda by and for the Pentagon using Hollywood as the face…" Still, during a State Department briefing on Friday, spokesperson Marie Harf noted that Sony Pictures is only the tip of the iceberg. "We have a dialogue with companies, with social media companies, about the challenges as we see them and what we are doing to counter that kind of propaganda," she said. "We are having this conversation not just with social media companies, but other people who have public platforms, and that could be entertainment organizations." http://sputniknews.com/us/20150417/1021045330.html?utm_source=t.co%2Fp0b8RkEe22&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=efG&utm_campaign=URL_shortening COMMENT This pretty much sums up why the WikiLeaks Sony archive is (and should be) in the public domain. The article demonstrates how Hollywood collaborates with the US government to feed the public Orwellian propaganda, to sell the US corporate & military agenda.  WIKILEAKS MSM DETRACTOR    MURDOCH PRESS WikiLeaks detractors such as the Murdoch press (above) presumably stand by and defend Hollywood (& media) collaboration with the US government, in a USG orchestrated Hollywood propaganda merger, that's probably spent decade upon decade deviously manipulating an unsuspecting and receptive public, in pursuit of shaping public attitudes and, thereby, manufacturing public 'consent' to their puppet masters' agenda. PS  ... What's the point of a 'free press' if the 'free press' just supports the status quo?

Hollywood & CIA - Zero Dark Thirty; WikiLeaks - The Sony Archives; WikiLeaks - TPP - Investor Chapter

Exclusive: New Documents in Zero Dark Thirty Affair Raise Questions of White House-Sanctioned Intelligence Leak and Inspector General Coverup April 16, 2015 | By: Adam Zagorin By Adam Zagorin Critics have assailed the movie Zero Dark Thirty, charging that it fictionalized key elements of the ten-year hunt for Osama bin Laden and falsely credited the use of torture as being essential to locating the terrorist. But the factual liberties filmmakers took are only part of the story. Now, a document newly obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) reveals more about the high-level government access Hollywood filmmakers had during their research—and what happened at the top of the CIA, including the Agency’s use of White House-approved talking points to brief the filmmakers specifically about intelligence used to locate the al Qaeda leader. That intelligence, according to the CIA and as portrayed in the film, was extracted using coercive techniques including waterboarding, an assertion that has emerged as a major point of contention between the CIA and Members of Congress from both parties. Indeed, leading U.S. Senators have blasted as false the movie’s depiction of torture as key to tracking down bin Laden. Many details are unknown, but the possibility that White House-approved talking points may have been a prime source for the portrayal of how he was located puts Zero Dark Thirty’s inaccuracies in a troubling light. ...there was “[r]emoval of CIA information” from the report on the same day that another document indicates she met with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and discussed the report. A little-noticed email citing White House-approved talking points surfaced in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch in 2012, as did what is apparently another White House account of the raid. But it appears the document obtained by POGO references a different White House-approved narrative. The material uncovered by Judicial Watch does not refer specifically to intelligence that led to bin Laden’s location; the document obtained by POGO does. The additional information appears in a never-issued 15-page draft version of a report prepared by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) and marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” The report was requested by then-Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King (R-NY) shortly after bin Laden’s killing in May 2011 to determine whether filmmakers received “top-level access to the most classified mission in history.”  Trouble in a Timeline Especially disturbing are the lengths to which DoD’s then-Acting Inspector General Lynne Halbrooks went to suppress details of the collaboration between Hollywood and the CIA. POGO also obtained an official timeline of the investigation. It shows  Official Photo of Lynne Halbrooks there was “[r]emoval of CIA information” from the report on the same day that another document indicates she met with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and discussed the report. Panetta was CIA Director during the bin Laden raid, and the highest-ranking subject of Halbrooks’ probe. Halbrooks ultimately issued a sanitized account of what happened and withheld the embarrassing material from Congress and the public. That material, uncovered during months of research, led to the conclusion that Leon Panetta, as CIA Director, and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers had conveyed ultra-sensitive, legally protected information to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty. After six years in the DoD IG’s Office, Halbrooks last week announced her resignation effective April 17. Shortly afterward, current IG Jon Rymer sent an email to DoD IG staff hailing her as his “closest advisor.” Rymer has appeared as disinterested as Halbrooks in telling the full story of what happened. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/new-documents-in-zero-dark-thirty-affair-raise-questions.html COMMENT This stood out as interesting, but I'm not sure why.  LOL The collaboration between Hollywood & the CIA, as well as the falsely credited torture (ie pro torture propaganda) and the cover-up (to hide information from the public) probably sums up the whole Hollywood and CIA / USG collaboration ... which is a propaganda instrument, like something out of Nazi Germany. In other news: WikiLeaks Publish The Sony Archives in searchable format ties to White House / TPP LINK https://wikileaks.org/sony/press/ WikiLeaks also recently published an additional chapter (Investor Chapter) of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership  Agreement ('TPP'): TPP US free trade treaty: Latest WikiLeaks Release TPP - Investor Chapter https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/ I'm a bit slow to catch on.  Didn't realise until several days after the release how important the WikiLeaks TPP release really is, seeing politicians/governments are actively keeping their 'slave' populations ignorant of matters that impact on them hugely. Secret negotiations have spanned years, and the free trade agreement is earmarked for secrecy for several years (even after it is adopted).  At the same time, this agreement affects 40% of the world's economy, grants corporations sweeping rights, affects national sovereignty / policy making capacity of government at all levels, and impacts detrimentally on matters of public interest in numerous ways; but this has been kept secret while governments prepare to sign away rights to big business and adopt crippling obligations affecting taxpayers. The TPP free trade agreement only focuses 5 chapters of 29 on trade:  the rest of its focus is on corporate protectionism. Hollywood Swinging Hard for Trans-Pacific Partnership Hollywood moguls and the vast majority of leftist entertainers have joined forces in a last-ditch effort to bully wavering Democratic lawmakers into backing President Obama’s fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the centerpiece of what he calls his “pro-trade agenda.” TPP is so controversial that the Administration has refused to show anyone the document. But what it does do is “trade” the right for U.S. entertainment interests to gain lucrative enhanced-copyright protections with 12 nations, in exchange for the elimination of all tariffs that punish unfair business practices. EXTRACT http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/04/09/hollywood-swinging-hard-for-trans-pacific-partnership/

DAILY MAIL & George Clooney (actor, humanitarian, civil rights activist, US Democrats supporter & UN messenger of peace)

George Clooney rejects Daily Mail’s apology for ‘fabricated’ article he claimed ‘incited violence’ towards fiancée’s family in second column
Friday 11 July 2014

George Clooney has refused to accept the Daily Mail’s written apology for publishing a ‘fabricated’ article claiming that the actor's mother-in-law was opposed to his forthcoming marriage to Amal Alamuddin on religious grounds.

Clooney claimed that the article “incited violence” and addressed a number of “inaccuracies” in a column he wrote for USA Today.

The MailOnline, the website of the Daily Mail which ran the story, issued a written statement in response to Clooney’s piece, in which they apologised and vowed to launch an investigation into the incident.

Clooney has since written a second column for USA Today, in which he rejected the MailOnline’s statement and accused them of “lying” by denying the piece was “fabricated”.

“There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong,” he began. “The cover-up is always worse.   ...


FULL article - Indpendent
 -------------------------------

Exclusive: Clooney responds to 'Daily Mail' report

George Clooney, Special for USA TODAY 10:14 a.m. EDT July 9, 2014

 ...

First of all, none of the story is factually true. ...

But this lie involves larger issues. The irresponsibility, in this day and age, to exploit religious differences where none exist, is at the very least negligent and more appropriately dangerous. We have family members all over the world, and the idea that someone would inflame any part of that world for the sole reason of selling papers should be criminal.

I'm the son of a newsman; I accept the idea that freedom of speech can be an inconvenience to my private life from time to time, but this story, like so many others, is picked up by hundreds of other outlets citing the Daily Mail as their source, including Boston.com, New York Daily News, Gulf News, Emirates 24/7 and so on.

The Daily Mail, more than any other organization that calls itself news, has proved time and time again that facts make no difference in the articles they make up. And when they put my family and my friends in harm's way, they cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting violence. ...

EXTRACT ONLY -- FULL - USA Today - here.

 --------------------------------

George Clooney: A correction and an apology

PUBLISHED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014 | UPDATED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014
DAILY MAIL

On Monday MailOnline carried an article which alleged that the mother of George Clooney’s fiancée Amal Alamuddin would prefer her daughter to be married to a member of the Druze religious group.

Yesterday Mr Clooney said the story was 'completely fabricated' and exploited 'religious differences where none exist.'

In a statement MailOnline said: 'The story was not a fabrication but supplied in good faith by a reputable and trusted freelance journalist.

'She based her story on conversations with a long standing contact who has strong connections with senior members of the Lebanese community in the UK and the Druze in Beirut.

'We only became aware of Mr Clooney’s concerns this morning and have launched a full investigation.

'However, we accept Mr Clooney’s assurance that the story is inaccurate and we apologise to him, Miss Amal Alamuddin and her mother, Baria, for any distress caused.

'We have removed the article from our website and will be contacting Mr Clooney’s representatives to discuss giving him the opportunity to set the record straight.'

Source:  DAILY MAIL

-------------------------------- 

Exclusive: George Clooney rejects 'Mail' apology

George Clooney, Special for USA TODAY 12:04 a.m. EDT July 11, 2014

There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong. The coverup is always worse.

In this case, the Daily Mail has printed an apology for insinuating religious tensions where there are none. In the apology, managing editor Charles Garside claims that the article was "not a fabrication," but "based the story on conversations with senior members of the Lebanese community."

The problem is that none of that is true. The original story never cites that source, but instead goes out of its way to insist on four different occasions that "a family friend" spoke directly to the Mail. A "family friend" was the source. So either they were lying originally or they're lying now.

Furthermore, they knew ahead of time that they were lying. In an article dated April 28, 2014, reporter Richard Spillett writes in the Mail that "Ramzi, (Amal's father), married outside the Druze faith," and a family friend said that "Baria, (Amal's mom), is not Druze." The Mail knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway.
...
What separates this from all of the ridiculous things the Mail makes up is that now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie.

So I thank the Mail for its apology. Not that I would ever accept it, but because in doing so they've exposed themselves as the worst kind of tabloid.

One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers and to all the publications that blindly reprint them.

— George Clooney

Source:  USA Today - here.

--------------------------------

COMMENT

The story caught my attention for a couple of reasons.

The antennae went up because it seems a press issue that may conceivably impact in some way on UK press freedoms, in a climate where there is a push from some quarters for restricting press freedoms (in the aftermath of the News of the World hacking scandal).

The story also happens to involve a Hollywood entertainer, and appointed UN messenger of peace, who has been active in broader humanitarian causes as well as domestic civil rights causes; a celebrity who may well also be described as a 'political activist' (or at least 'politically active'), by virtue of (1) the cross-over between the humanitarian and political arenas; (2) the cross-over between documentary and political message making (Clooney has been involved in documentary film making on humanitarian/political causes/issues (narration, production involvement & appearance/s in such films); and (3) by virtue of the actor's support of:

"Barack Obama's campaign in the 2008 presidential election and in the 2012 presidential election." [wikipedia]

Judging by the Daily Mail published apology (above), Daily Mail asserted therein that their story was published in good faith.

Is 'good faith' in sources of stories a good enough standard in journalism?  Unfortunately, I don't answer that question, as I'm not familiar with the common standards journalists abide by.

Clooney rejected Daily Mail's apology and:

1. Implied (as I read it), that the Daily Mail was involved in a cover up;
2. Stated the original story does not cite the source;
3. Asserted that Daily Mail "knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway";
4. And, finally, stated that:"now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie".

Clooney then rebuked Daily Mail for exposing themselves "as the worst kind of tabloid".

Well, Daily Mail certainly received a very public flogging.
It remains to be seen if any action ensues.

[Apologies for the inclusion of a string of articles.  Find it very difficult not to have the subject articles before me as I type.  Even then, it gets confusing with a string of stories to keep straight while gathering thoughts.  LOL]