Anyone who reads my journals knows that I believe that Karl Rove and Bush-Cheney bought the corporate media in 2000 with promises of media mergers (that they have never delivered). They punish critical press and reward propaganda through the FCC. Right now, they are using the MSM to rig the 2008 election.
The press (and that includes the journalists on TV) is a big fat liar ---and this is nothing new.
Karl Rove learned to use the American News Media to conduct dirty election tricks when he was working on the 1972 Nixon re-election campaign with people like Lee Atawater. For those who think that the theories I have put forward in recent journals are far fetched, here is what the media whores have done in the past for the RNC.
Carl Bernstein wrote for the
Rolling Stone in 1977 (the New York Times later confirmed)
http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20Media.htm The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.
He ends the article by writing that the CIAs official policy of having the press write domestic disinformation stopped in 1973 after Watergate, but new CIA director George Bush started a covert policy of domestic disinformation. All for stopping the Reds, of course.
Dick Nixon used CIA operatives within the press like Seymour Freidin to spy on Democratic candidates campaigns in 1972, paying him $10,000 according to columnist Jack Anderson.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8425/CIAPRESS.HTMLucianne Golderg, of Linda Tripp/Monica Lewinsky fame was also a paid spy for Nixon.
http://www.umsl.edu/~thomaskp/plwordr.htm Goldberg was exposed in 1973 as "a spy for Nixon while she traveled with the press corps" covering McGovern's 1972 campaign. It was at this time that she said she worked for NANA (North American Newspaper Alliance), and supplied an address for NANA which "is the same as her current residence" in Manhattan. Watergate investigators "said the Nixon campaign paid her $1,000 a week."
Not mentioned in today's story is the relevant fact in 1972, as today, Lucianne Goldberg was snooping for sex. She told the late Anthony Lukas (Nightmare, p. 161) that the Nixon people "were looking for really dirty stuff...who was sleeping with whom, what the Secret Servicem men were doing with the stewardesses, who was smoking pot on the plane -- that sort of thing."
And then there were reporters who dished up biased stories or downright lies about the Democratic candidates. Like Bob Novak.
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/01/08media.html ERIC ALTERMAN
The flip side of these wet kisses was a neo-McCarthyite rampage that Novak undertook against liberals of all stripes. In 1972, readers were treated to Novak's description of SNCC as an organization "substantially infiltrated by beatniks, left-wing revolutionaries and -- worst of all -- by Communists." The New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, he wrote, "is studded with past and present Communist Party members." A McGovern rally was attended by "McGovern zealots with long hair, bizarre costumes and peace signs." In one of the most influential political columns of all time, Novak quoted a Democratic senate colleague of McGovern's labeling his politics those of "acid, amnesty and abortion." The label stuck and it helped sink McGovern. Richard Dougherty, a former McGovern aide, insists the quote was fabricated. McGovern told me he believed the same thing. The authors later conceded that McGovern's position on pot was "ambiguous" and admitted that he "opposed marijuana whenever asked." By way of explanation, Novak said, "We are not under any compunction to give a balanced report." Was Novak inventing this famous quote? There's no way to know for certain.
Many of the CREEPS dirty tricks would not have worked if the corporate media had not been there to publicize them, as Time Magazine did in this front page article from May, 1972.
The right wing media has been attempting to portray Obama as some kind of left wing radical in campaign season. He was dubbed the most liberal senator, recently (he is not) and this "fact" has been all over talk radio and Fox. His church has been the talk of the right wing since last year, too, and there have been rumors of alliances with Cuba, Iran and other radical groups, as well as repeated charges that he is unAmerican. And we are not even into the general election yet. Oh, and the Washington Post first brought up the issue of drugs over a year ago.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879073,00.html Humphrey's camp fostered an impression that McGovern was too radical to be taken seriously for the nomination.
No one accused Humphrey of organizing a smear campaign, but he did set the theme: "The McGovern record speaks for itself. A candidate can't be quoted two ways." A more specific formulation: McGovern is pro-marijuana, pro-abortion and pro-amnesty for draft resisters. "This is the McGovern record," said an advertisement in the Roman Catholic archdiocesan newspaper in Omaha. The ad was placed by the Citizens Concerned for Preservation of Life. At the same time, McGovern's promise to cut the defense budget by $32 billion alarmed residents around the Offutt Air Force Base, headquarters of the Strategic Air Command.
McGovern understood the significance of the attack. He repeatedly and specifically explained himself. In doing so, he did not alter the substance of his previous stands, although he may have shifted his emphasis to placate more conservative Democrats. Previously McGovern had said that "abortion is a private matter which should be decided by a pregnant woman and her own doctor. Once the decision is made, I do not feel that the law should stand in the way of its implementation." But on a Nebraska television program he said that there should be some restrictions: "You can't let just anybody walk in and " request an abortion."
Recognize the dirty trick and the media smear? Humphrey says that McGovern is trying to trianglate. That is a pretty benign charge. Times rewrites that as Humphrey calls McGovern a radical. And then Times implies that Humphrey paid for the billboard---though more likely than not it was paid for my Nixon's illegal campaign money.
This is the kind of stuff that the RNC and the MSM are doing to the Democratic Primary this season.Here is a list of some of the dirty tricks played on the Muskie campaign to drive him out of the election early, since Nixon wanted to run against the more liberal McGovern.
http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.htmlNote that the list includes having Republican operatives infiltrate Democratic candidate’s campaigns to steal info and conduct dirty tricks, having others steal info, spreading lies about the candidate, spreading smears about
other Democrats which are attributed to the Democrat you are really trying to target (to make him look a dirty campaigner). The Nixon campaign went so far as to give Muskie drugs, the effects of which Thompson describes in his book
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72. Accuse the candidate of making racially or ethnically charged slurs.
Here is the actual playbook that Pat Buchanan (now a commentator on MSNBC who often is called upon to discuss the Democratic Primary) drew up for Nixon in 1972 outlining the dirty trick strategy for CREEP to use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm "They should be able to help put demonstrations together, get leaflets out, start rumors, and generally foul up scheduled events -- and add to the considerable confusion and chaos that will inevitably exist."
It continued:
"The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another -- and 'endorsements' of one Democrat by another, which has to be repudiated, are examples of what can be done. Nothing should be done here, incidentally, which can seriously backfire and anything done should be cleared by the highest campaign authority. The Secret Service, it should be noted, will be all over Miami; and any activity will have to take into consideration their capabilities.
"We should guard here against a) anything which enables the Democrats to blame us for the mess which takes place in Miami Beach; b) anything which can be traced back to us and c) anything which is so horrendous as to damage us, if the hand is discovered."
snip
With funds supplied by Nixon's personal lawyer, Segretti crisscrossed the country under assumed names, planting spies, disrupting rallies and creating divisiveness among the Democrats with false press releases, bogus letters and fake ads. After plea bargaining, he drew a six-month prison term for fabricating literature in the Florida primary. One was a letter on the campaign stationery of Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) accusing Sens. Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.) and Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.) of sexual misconduct.
Minor Republican rivals such as then-Rep. Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.) were also fair game in Buchanan's view. His White House papers include a Dec. 15, 1971, memo to Haldeman and Mitchell outlining "an anti-McCloskey campaign in New Hampshire." One idea, Buchanan said, would be to find a way of getting a gay rights group or the Black Panthers or the radical Students for a Democratic Society at Dartmouth "to contribute a grand or so to the McCloskey campaign" and then alert the highly conservative Manchester Union Leader about the donation.
The bad endorsement was played on Obama, when a minister who was formally allied with Bush became allied with Obama, endorsed him--then revealed that ran an anti-gay program. This was designed to embarass Obama within the Democratic community. Keep in mind that some of those who have made comments that have embarrassed the candidates may have had reasons to do so---like blackmail from the SEC or DOJ.
Note that all of the corporate media outlets that were involved in 1972 and several of the journalists---Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak—are involved in this year’s election, as is Karl Rove. In addition, there is now FOX News, the Drudge Report, the whole Moonie news empire, and a vast right wing internet network to aid the corporate media in its work.
Using the American News Media to control public opinion during a Democratic primary and general election has never been easier.I will skip through more recent history, just remind everyone that Ted Koppel and
Nightline held the nation hostage night after night to enable Reagan to take office (thanks to help of some cash from David Rockefeller and a hostages for votes deal brokered by Bush Sr.) When the exiled president of Iran revealed the conspiracy a couple of years later, only NPR reported the story. The news media dutifully covered Willie Horton as news. It went after Whitewater and Monica. It called Al Gore a liar and Kerry a waffler and the Swiftboat Vets “truthful”. It told the nation “move along here, there is nothing to see” in Ohio, 2004.
And now we are being asked to believe them when they tell us that our two Democratic nominees, who seemed so stellar last fall, are a
1. scheming, money grubbing war mongering bitch queen from hell who secretly keeps Black slaves in her basement and
2. a scary coke snorting Black Muslim separatist who would be scarier if he actually had the ability to do anything besides talk. Yes, this is what the corporate media is saying. If you do not believe me, go spend twenty hours reading Media Matters. Or spend an hour reading my recent journals about the news media’s lies regarding the two remaining candidates. And while you are at it, read “The Press v. John Edwards” about the way that the MSM drove the “Muskie” from the race early, because Rove was afraid that the Republicans could not beat him.
Bob Novak’s role in the current election cycle is a special one. He
is the guy who keeps writing---and then appearing on FOX News—to announce that Hillary is about to unleash a smear on Obama. As if anyone associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign would talk to this old drunken traitor except to tell him “Get lost!” A few days later, the Moonie Times or Drudge or the Washington Post has a story culled from Obama’s autobiography or gossip or lies claiming that Obama is a Muslim who attended a radical terrorist training school.
I present this as proof that Bob Novak is working hand in hand with the Karl Rove 2008 FEAR---Force to Elect Any Republican (my name). Drudge, Rev. Moon, Fox News and some reporters such as Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, George Will, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer are almost certainly in on the plan. If they are not aware of the whole scope of the operation, they are taking orders from FEAR.
I have had people here cite a NYT article which said that Hillary and Drudge are in bed together. The article claims as “proof” the fact that Drudge had Hillary’s campaign finance statements 20 minutes before the rest of the press once.
Review the link about the dirty tricks played on Muskie. You will see at least two ways in 1972 that secret campaign information could have been obtained---through the mole working within the Democrat’s campaign or via the chauffeur paid to copy documents. Nowadays, it is even easier, since a computer virus would allow a computer system to be hacked. Or the secret room at AT&T could get the info and forward it to Drudge. Or there could be a spy among the Secret Service as there was among Ted Kennedy’s people in 1972 according to this link
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-54879237.htmlThere is no reason why Hillary would profit from giving her numbers to Drudge 20 minutes before the rest of the press, but if the RNC could steal the numbers and give them to Drudge, it would add credence to the lies when Drudge does stuff like publishing stories about Obama's Muslim ties---along with claims that "Hillary the bitch queen held a gun to our head and made us do it."
I have read posters at DU claim that Hillary has the power to force the MSM to say and print whatever she wants. This is silly. She is wealthy but so is Obama. She is not mega-rich like the Bushes or like the telecom giants, and she has no power over the telecoms.
Bush--and Karl Rove--- have the power to tell the news media what to do or say through the FCC.How exactly did Nixon force publications like Time and networks to say that McGovern was dangerously out of touch or that Humphrey was doing dirty tricks? The same way that Karl Rove forces them to do his bidding now. He threatened their pocket books. From the above link.
Following his epochal Silent Majority speech on Nov. 3, 1969, Nixon took umbrage when some commentators on network follow-up roundtables were unimpressed with his address. Because of their disdain for his proclamation of Vietnam successes, he decided to declare war on the media, sending out Vice Pres. Spiro T. Agnew to assail the "nattering nabobs of negativism" from New York who were considered essentially un-American. More importantly, the President dispatched Colson to read the riot act to network presidents, threatening them implicitly with license-renewal difficulties unless they treated Nixon more fairly. They did buckle under to Colson's demands, at least for a little while, with CBS, for example, agreeing with his contention that Americans did not need "instant analysis" from journalists to tell them what their president had just said.
In addition, Colson was able to convince CBS chairman William Paley to shorten a potentially damaging series on Watergate in the fall of 1972. As for the Washington Post, which almost singlehandedly kept the story alive that autumn, Nixon told his aides, the newspaper was "going to have problems.... They have a television station ... and they're going to have to get it renewed." In January, 1973, of the four stations challenged for license renewal, three were owned by the Post.
This is how Rove got the idea before the 2000 election to court the telecom bosses by promising them unlimited media mergers…if they showed bias towards W. That is how “Gore is a liar” was born. That is how he got them to Swiftboat Kerry and hide the Ohio 2004 exit polls. That is how he hopes to keep them on the side of John McCain---and man who never met a telecom lobbyist he could not love.
Right now, the boards of Democratic Underground are filled with Republican plants, people who wallow in the anonymity that an internet message board provides. Some of them bash Obama. Some of them bash Hillary. Meanwhile, the corporate media refuses to let either candidate address the issues, presenting to the nation one manufactured sensation after another. Drudge edits Sen. Clinton’s words about a question she should never have been asked----Obama’s religion is his business---and the press has a new smear. FOX buys a minister's sermons and airs them outside the church---and the press goes at it again. There is no favoritism here. The news media is attacking the Democratic Party, not either candidate. Their goal is exactly the same as it was in 1972. An angry, divide Democratic Convention. A crippled nominee, who will leave with half of the party convinced that he or she does not represent them.
For those who think that this is far fetched, remember two things.
One, Karl Rove’s biggest weakness is his lack of creativity. If something works once, he will repeat it again and again. It is his predictability that makes him so easy to defeat---if you know how to anticipate him. I knew that this was coming last fall.
Two, the press did this for Dick Nixon back in 1972, when the telecommunications industries were not the mega-conglomerates that they are today. If there was money to be made from FCC favors then, image how much more money---and how much more greed---must be working behind the scenes now.
Democrats must stop their infighting.
We are like a bunch of gladiators who have been thrown into the ring by the imperial masters who have enslaved us and told us to fight. If we join forces and turn our combined outrage on the news media, it will have to back down, because it sells an artistic product, and art needs two to exist. Without a buyer/patron, it can not flourish, and Democrats make up over half of this country. If we call bullshit on them and their lies and their deceptions and their baiting, it becomes Pravda. At that point, the individual men and women who work for them---who have reputations to think about and egos which bruise---will refuse to pander anymore to the FEAR machine. That was what happened with Watergate. The men and women of the press corp turned on the system which owned them--and they became heroes instead of pawns. Exulting in their newly won freedom, for almost fives years afterwards, they functioned in a state of semi-autonomy.
Even the corporate media can not function without its journalists. Just look at the artistic quality of the work that comes out of FOX. The people there are semi-illiterate, second rate. No journalist wants to be reduced to that. No one wants to become the next John Solomon, so tainted by his own tainted stories that he has to become an editor for the Washington Times.
The way to attack the news media is to let the individual journalists who are turning out the propaganda know that it is propaganda. That includes writers on the left who are crafting splitter, divisive bullshit like “John Edwards is a loser”. Refer to them by name. They put their name on their work, because they want to get recognized. They want acclaim. If Charles Krauthammer wants to promote Big Lies about all three Democratic nominees, then he should be recognized for it. If Howard Fineman calls Hillary “Nixonian” after Drudge has edited her comments to distort them, Fineman needs to have people tell him what Nixonian is all about. If Tweety does a whole show about Obama and cocaine as a way to express phony outrage over some comments that Shaheen made to a reporter, he needs to be asked how his behavior is better than Shaheens?
Forget Craig Crawford. Attack the messengers, before the messengers destroys our Democratic Party and democracy. We can not attack the telecoms economically. Their news operations are too small a part of their total revenue generating potential. And sponsor boycott will not help for the same reason.
The corporate media's Achilles' heel is its journalists. Most have an artistic temperament and a fierce desire to be recognized as stellar reporters. Few like the thought of ending up like Bob Novak. It is time to stop denouncing the MSM as a package deal and start dishing out the praise and criticism where they are due---to the individual men and women who put their names on the columns and who tell the stories. With a little work and a lot of integrity, they can follow in the path of Sy Hersch---but they have to be nudged in that direction by us, the consumer.