HOSTILE RULING CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA INSTRUMENT NEW YORK TIMES - ATTACK ON ASSANGE

CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED THE NEW YORK TIMES VOICE  OF USG AS AGENT OF CAPITALISM HOSTILE RULING CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA INSTRUMENT ATTACK ON ASSANGE PAVING WAY TO ELIMINATION OF JOURNALIST ASSANGE BY RULING CAPITALISTS Bill Van Auken Article, WSWS http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/02/wiki-s02.html http://archive.is/whyJ2 New York Times launches McCarthyite witch-hunt against Julian Assange By Bill Van Auken 2 September 2016   The New York Times Thursday published an article entitled “How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets.” The 5,000-word piece, covering three columns of the top half of its front page, boasts three bylines. Presented as a major investigative news article, it is a piece of pro-government propaganda, whose style and outright character assassination against the WikiLeaks founder seems to have been cribbed from the vilest McCarthyite smear jobs of the 1950s.  [comment:  'cribbed' = plagiarised ] Stringing together half-truths, innuendos, totally unsubstantiated assertions presented as facts and vicious ad hominem attacks on a man who has been persecuted and is effectively imprisoned because of his exposures of the crimes of US imperialism, the article has essentially three related purposes. The first is to brand Assange as a “dupe” if not outright agent of the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The second is to discredit in advance any forthcoming information from WikiLeaks exposing the sordid and potentially indictable activities of the favored presidential candidate of both the Times and the US military and intelligence complex, Democrat Hillary Clinton. And the third and most essential is to advance the relentless propaganda campaign mounted by the New York Times to prepare public opinion for military confrontation with Russia and intimidate and undermine the broad popular opposition of the American people to war. This anti-Russian campaign was sharply escalated following the WikiLeaks release last month of Democratic National Committee emails exposing the collaboration of the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp in the attempt to sabotage the campaign of her rival, Bernie Sanders. The response of Clinton and her supporters was to suppress any discussion about the content of the emails by waging a hysterical campaign indicting the release of material as a national security crisis deliberately provoked by the Kremlin in an attempt to subvert the US elections. This led to the open suggestion that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is Putin’s pawn, a theme that has been promoted as part of Clinton’s bid to rally the Republican national security establishment behind her campaign on a platform of aggressive war. The Times piece repeats this type of unfounded allegation, stating, “United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government.” Who are these “United States officials?” What is the basis of their “high degree of confidence?” What, if any, evidence exists to substantiate this allegation? The lengthy Times piece includes not a word in answer to any of these questions. Nonetheless, using this unsubstantiated allegation as its foundation, the article advances its agenda with the kind of innuendo that the anti-communist witch-hunters of the House Un-American Activities Committee would have instantly recognized: “Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by the Russians. And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin’s Kremlin?” To bolster its political indictment, the Times asserts, “Whether by conviction or coincidence, WikiLeaks document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West.” Among these “statements,” the Times paraphrases Assange’s comments in a televised interview last September, asserting that the US “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 biding.” It cites his charge that the 2014 coup in Ukraine was the result of Washington “trying to draw Ukraine into the Western orbit.” It also accuses him of being critical of NATO, an organization that “Putin would like nothing more than to defang or dismantle.”  [comment:  NATO is a criminal capitalist mercenary force that is a global aggressor and is known to have sent Serbian children graffiti bombs, while conducting illegal bombing of their nation ... and that's just Serbia. ] It accuses WikiLeaks of publishing damning “leaks of material from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are United States allies.” The article further adds that the leaks “came during times of heightened tensions between those countries and Russia.” It even attributes its publication of documents exposing secret talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a US-sponsored trade and investment deal devised as an economic arm of the US “pivot” to Asia and the military buildup against China, to the hidden hand of the Kremlin, because Russia was also excluded from the pact. Given these criteria, one can only conclude that anyone who opposes US imperialist interventions, or, indeed, employs their critical faculties in relation to any aspect of US foreign policy, stands in danger of being indicted by the Times as an “agent” or “dupe” of the Kremlin. Further “evidence” uncovered by the sleuths of the Times that Assange is a Kremlin asset, is that he appeared in a short-lived television series broadcast in 2012 by Russia Today (RT), a television network partially funded by the Russian government. The article suggests that the show was a hidden means for the Putin government to keep WikiLeaks afloat. “How much he or WikiLeaks was paid for the 12 episodes remains unclear,” it comments.  [comment:  ...  and the Israelis could have sent bitcoins in covert support.  ] Assange, however, was not employed by RT, but rather the network (like a dozen other broadcasters) paid a fee to air the program. Under similar arrangements, RT regularly broadcasts a series featuring Larry King, the 25-year veteran interviewer of CNN’s “Larry King Live.” So far he has not been named by the Times as a suspect. In the course of its report, the Times quotes Gavin MacFadyen, a WikiLeaks supporter and director of the University of London-based Centre for Investigative Journalism, as noting that “intelligence services had a long history of using news organizations to plant stories, and that Western news outlets published ‘material that comes from the C.I.A. uncritically.’” [comment:  The New York Times history shows CIA ties. ] Of course the premier example of this practice is to be found in the record of the New York Times itself, most infamously in placing both its news and editorial pages at the service of the Bush administration’s preparation of a war of aggression against Iraq, promoting and embellishing upon the phony intelligence about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction.” Two of the three bylines on the Times hit piece against Julian Assange bear closer examination. One is that of Eric Schmitt, the newspaper’s national security correspondent, who serves as a regular conduit for the CIA and the Pentagon. Among his services rendered was a 2002 feature article, published at the height of the CIA’s waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Sarcastically headlined “There are ways to make you talk,” the article was based entirely on the lying assurances of US officials that the interrogation methods being employed by the American military and CIA were all in strict compliance with the Geneva Conventions and that “torture is not an option.” Schmitt was also heavily involved in the Times’ handling of the major document leaks by WikiLeaks, which exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as US conspiracies around the globe, in the “Cablegate” release of State Department documents. He was one of the Times reporters who was sent to the White House in 2010 to brief Obama administration officials on the contents of the material obtained by WikiLeaks and to consult on how the newspaper should handle it. The newspaper’s then-Editor Bill Keller commented that the US government had praised the Times for “handling the documents with care.” In describing the paper’s treatment of the WikiLeaks revelations, Keller said that “in consultation with government officials,” the newspaper censored any information that “could harm the national interest.” [comment:  'national interests' is CAPITALIST INTERESTS, which usually does not coincide with the interests of the masses that are the nations that these capitalists deceive, control and exploit. ] [edit:  Eric Schmitt] ... went on to enunciate an Orwellian vision for the role of the media: “We agree wholeheartedly that transparency is not an absolute good. Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity.” In early 2011, Schmitt was cited as the source for a vicious personal attack on Assange, penned by Keller in defending his role as a gatekeeper for the US security services in the WikiLeaks affair. Schmitt is quoted as describing Assange as looking “like a bag lady walking in off the street,” and having “smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.” In relation to Assange, who is under constant surveillance by the US intelligence agencies, has been described as a “terrorist” by US officials, and whose assassination has been regularly demanded by elements of the right, this kind of language has a definite purpose. It is designed to invoke the hostility and distaste of the newspaper’s upper middle class readers and thereby make it easier for the state to either jail the WikiLeaks founder or kill him. The other noteworthy byline is that of Steven Erlanger, the newspaper’s London bureau chief and a 30-year veteran of the Times. In addition to his reporting duties, Erlanger serves as a governor of the Ditchley Foundation, which organizes Bilderberg-style, closed-door conferences of top state officials and big business figures to discuss strategic issues of concern to US and British imperialism. Other governors include the former head of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, various bank chiefs and the senior director of Goldman Sachs. Honorary governors include former Tory prime ministers David Cameron and John Major. The chairman of the group is Lord (George Islay MacNeill) Robertson, a senior advisor to BP and former secretary general of NATO. In the kind of secret talks held by the Ditchley Foundation, the subject of how best to dispose of Julian Assange would certainly not be out of place. That such “journalists” should sit in judgment of Assange, after indicting him, based on no evidence, as an asset of the Kremlin, is an obscenity. Their entire article stands as a devastating self-exposure of an American media that functions as a quasi-official state propaganda organ, mobilized in the buildup to war and in which outright intelligence agents play a decisive role.  [comment:  Wow, I wish I could send this article & the capitalist NYT hit piece to Noam Chomsky, especially after watching his 1989 video about the media and manufacturing consent.  ] http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/02/wiki-s02.html http://archive.is/whyJ2 Bill Van Auken b. 1950 politician and activist Socialist Equality Party presidential candidate in U.S. presidential election of 2004 VP nominee:   U.S. presidential election of 2008 full-time reporter for the World Socialist Web Site resides in New York City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Van_Auken Imperialism and War "The SEP asserts that capitalism leads inevitably to war, as imperialist states seek geo-political dominance, spheres of influence, markets, control of vital resources, and access to cheap labor.  Therefore, the SEP encourages and supports the widest mass protests against US militarism and its plans for war. The War on Terror is viewed as an assertion of imperial aggression on behalf of corporate interests, and the SEP calls for an end to the conflicts in the Middle East." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Equality_Party_%28United_States%29 NATO | Serbia  [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] COMMENT That was a very good article. I like Bill Van Auken. He's telling the truth and he's able to articulate what we, the great unwashed, already know to some degree if we've been following how this is shaping up.  Auken also fills us in on missing pieces we may not be aware of, completing the picture of capitalist controlled media acting with and in support of capitalist-serving government (as official agent of controlling capitalists and not agent whatsoever of the controlled masses, despite the rhetoric); thus both capitalist media (the fake 'Fourth Estate') and capitalist government acting as agents/tools for advancing the interests of Western capitalist ruling elites, often at the expense of the information denied, indoctrinated, misled, exploited and controlled masses. This fits in nicely with Noam Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model' of Western media ... and then the entire thing locks in with overlapping corporate and media and government positions, capitalist established and funded NGOs serving capitalist interests, the capitalist business and government revolving door and overlap, completing the picture of the fraud of Western capitalist 'democracy', which is rule by the iron grip of arm's length, faceless,  unaccountable, mobile, capitalist elites who serve up lies as 'news', who suppress truth and deny information; who lead us into wars of aggression; who give away our European nations and heritage from under us; who put our physical safety at risk; who put the ongoing existence of our own kind, in what are our illegitimately usurped and misappropriated nations, in jeopardy; and lying, exploiting capitalists and their agents, who act in together to persecute, imprison or assassinate truth-tellers, refusing to be held to account for fraud, corruption and crime committed in the name of capitalism, while capitalist crimes are perversely defended to the man on the street as matters of 'national security' (the same man in the street that is denied a nation and robbed of a nation by capitalists as policy and deprived of the safety that ought to be borne of what they refer to as 'national security' (but is merely a shield for pursuing hostile capitalist interests with impunity, and by unified hostile Western capitalist policy), granting the criminal agents of the criminal capitalists (ie Western capitalist fraud that is known as 'democratic' government(s)) the licence to illegitimately control, exploit and violate nations, peoples, and individuals with impunity. It is these capitalist criminals and their capitalist criminal agent governments, which are acting in cooperation with one another (as their capitalist interests and their capitalist crimes are mutual & their agenda for global hegemony is the same), that are responsible  for the undemocratic 6-year without charge imprisonment and political persecution of Australian journalist Julian Assange, who has unlawfully been denied political asylum granted by Ecuador in 2012. ASSANGE & KITTY CAPITALIST STATE UNDEMOCRATIC IMPRISONMENT OF JOURNALIST EMBASSY SIEGE  via @EmbassyCat

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.

Butter Chicken ... Again

Planet Tokyo Preparing just over 2kg of chicken, per the last Butter Chicken recipe amalgam I used (lazy browned chicken method, as opposed to marinade in advance). For something different, I'm using a Chinese wok method of smoking the browned chicken pieces before throwing them into my ready pot of 'gravy'. The first attempt at smoking the chicken pieces was a disaster.  Poured the chicken pieces from bowl to metal colander positioned in wok using tea leaves (instead of wood chips, thinking that ought to be the shot).  But I didn't anticipate juices from the chicken, which got all over my tea leaves. I was getting help with foil tent making (I'm not patient enough in that department), so we then had an argument about what I should have done.  LOL Proceed, I insisted, it will dry off and smoke eventually.  Nope.  Sort of cooking and steaming.  Not the effect I was after.  I upset the domestic harmony and team work by being snappy, as I was convinced that I was right, approaching it on a just-do-it basis (like I usually do).  My way is always best way.  LOL While I waited for this non-smoking smoker to do its thing, I found this Chinese sugar and tea leaf smoking technique, which looked good. Basically, it is: foil sugar flour grains of rice tea I didn't check for exact amounts.  Emptied my layer of sodden tea leaves from the wok, put in a fresh layer of foil (burnt my fingers), and put in the sugar, flour, rice and tea (cut open some tea bags). It worked.  It didn't take long for it to smoke.  The sugar melts and burns.  Make sure the bottom of the wok is very well protected, because melted sugar is a mess. Think I gave the whole thing about 5 mins before throwing in the chicken pieces into the Butter Chicken gravy. Simmering while I work up to cleaning the bomb site kitchen disaster area and putting on some steamed rice. It's a horrible job chopping all that raw chicken and it's a boring pain frying the chicken in batches, but once this is done we're good for frozen meals and I don't have to be stuck in the kitchen, until my next big cook up of something. Might look up another curry that I can maybe try.  Curries are so easy. No photos with this one.  Camera batteries have died.  *Dish is more fibrous than I intended this time around, as I threw in my cardamom pods into the food processor as I was whipping up other things.  We argued about whether to strain it or not.  First he wanted to and I didn't.  Then I did and he didn't. On the plus side, I've got no dish washing to do. Dirty dishes have been loaded into dishwasher for me. Normally, I just hand-wash. Could not be bothered loading a dishwasher. It annoys me stacking it and then having to unpack it all. Plus, I can't seem to pack as much into as he does. Now we've had a spat about the tea towels. I don't want my tea towels rinsed in the laundry trough.  That's disgusting.  I've washed my dog in that trough.  Pick off the chicken bits off the tea towel and give the tea towels a hot machine wash. He says it's like living in a war prison with rules and I'm the warder.  Same could be said of him, when he demands "Why is the washing machine set on hot?"  LOL Result:  heavy handed with the spices ... & it could have done without the brief wok smoking, that added more to the cleaning than it did to the taste (that I could discern).

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