Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How do you rate America's news media in regards to reporting on Political Power in America?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:27 PM
Original message
Poll question: How do you rate America's news media in regards to reporting on Political Power in America?
The constitution of the United States mentions only one business by name -- the press.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Founders believed that an informed citizenry was the only way our democratic republic could work. A free press was vital for the exchange news, information and ideas between members of society. Frank Capra, the famed movie maker, said it well: "A free press means a free people."

The belief in the importance of a free press holds true today. Yet, the press has changed a lot in 220 years. I'd like to gauge how DUers think about today's media.

What kind of job do you think the nation's press is doing in regards to telling the truth about political power in the United States?

Please choose one answer from the following. Feel free to elaborate on it. Or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe "Too Many Words" should've been an option...
The thing is, I really want to know DUers' thoughts on this question.

Thank you to all who have voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. You only have to look at the corporate interests of today's media parents.
That's why we have to listen to people like that loud mouthed blonde on CNN harp about the latest missing blonde college girl. They want to deflect attention from the real issues, because it's to their benefit financially to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The Media Monopoly
You got it, AndyA. The scales fell from my eyes when, as a very young man, I learned that the modern press was interested in making a buck over telling the truth.

Regarding Corporate McPravda, Ben Bagdikian wrote a blockbuster that was pretty much poo-poo'd by those in charge of today's mass media. Things have only gotten more concentrated since he first noticed in the late '70s.



The New Media Monopoly

The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large — though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world — they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.

These five huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.

These Big Five (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche — greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various "reality" shows).

It is not just national economics that is at stake — though their power has led to the government's somnolence of anti-trust action. Nor is it just the neglect of broadcast media giantism by the government agencies that by law are still required to operate "in the public interest." The public interest is to have the country's largest broadcasting system in the world provide diversity in news, opinion, and commentary that serves all Americans, right, left, and independent, as well as access to their local stations as well as true choices in national programs.

What is at stake is American democracy itself. A country without all the significant news, points of view, and information its citizens need to be informed voters is risking the loss of democratic rights. Voters without genuine choices and without the information they need to choose what meets their own needs and wishes has produced something alarming: on Election Day our voters are forced to vote for what is the narrowest political choices among all industrial democracies of the world.

SOURCE, w/details to book, etc.: http://benbagdikian.net/



Regarding that, eh, interesting on-air personality: She is part of the sideshow created to fill American heads with non-sense, fluff and fear. Her on-air performance also reveals she really doesn't read much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. If people feel this way about the MSM
why do they still watch, read and quote the sources?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Is it because the MSM have nationwide newsgathering capabilities?
It seems people gravitate toward those sources that confirm their own perspectives.

Perpahs conservatives who watch Fox feel it really is "fair and balanced." Likewise, centrists may be more likely to believe CNN is "fair and balanced."

Where do Liberals go? NPR? Democracy Now!? While they are, IMFO, good sources for truly "fair and balanced" reporting, they only are heard by a very small fraction of the population.

My own belief is that if there were more alternatives, We the People would go elsewhere for news and information. There is a need for a not-for-profit, nationwide, free news service -- one not tied to any political party or corporation for funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not really based in facts - it's all about spin, controlled by whoever owns the
outlet in question. I used to see some very fine news reporting on TV about 40 years ago, but it seemed to really die our after the Nixon era, was pretty feeble by Reagan, moribund by George I (Read My Lips, Where's The Beef, other notable slogans that replaced intelligent speech in that era). Became a real joke in the Clinton era and totally forgotten under George II.

The "reporters" now are a very confused bunch - have no direction,no moral base and little personal character. But the have great hair, teeth and makeup.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh
William Casey got mad that the CIA got lousy press before Iran-Contra was blown, so he went on a tear and his "old company," Capital Cities, decided to buy their own network, ABC.



ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh

The following brief history of ABC offers a perfect snapshot of everything that has gone wrong with the media. This remarkable story includes ABC's takeover by a conservative parent corporation, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, the rightward shift of the evening news, the rise of conservative talk radio, and the cozy relationship between a state and a press that are supposed to be separate.

In 1985, ABC was taken over by Capital Cities, a conservative, Roman Catholic media organization with extensive ties to the CIA.

(If you think we're making this up, you should know that the Capital Cities takeover of ABC is one of the most analyzed in history, and the subject of many books by Wall Street experts and scholars. Especially recommended is Networks of Power, by Emmy Award-winner Dennis Mazzocco.) (1)

Capital Cities was born in 1954, and rapidly prospered. Many of its founders had previously worked in the U.S. intelligence community and had a great amount of wealth, social contacts and influence in government. Yet they opted to keep the company's actions out of the public eye -- they did not flaunt their wealth with private planes and lavish offices the way so many successful companies do. Just exactly how well-connected Capital Cities was to the CIA is unknown, but it is clear that the CIA concerned itself with the company at various times. The fact that the CIA has often used private businessmen, journalists and even entire companies as fronts for covert operations is not only well-known by historians, but legendary. (Recall Howard Hughes and Trans-World Airlines...)

One of Capital City's early founders was William Casey, who would later become Ronald Reagan's Director of the CIA. At the time of Casey's nomination, the press expressed surprise that Reagan would hire a businessman whose last-known intelligence experience was limited to OSS operations in World War II. The fact is, however, that Casey had never left intelligence. Throughout the Cold War he kept a foot in both worlds, in private business as well as the CIA. A history of Casey's business dealings reveals that he was an aggressive player who saw nothing wrong with bending the law to further his own conservative agenda. When he became implicated as a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, many Washington insiders considered it a predictable continuation of a very shady career.

Another Capital Cities founder, Lowell Thomas, was a close friend and business contact with Allen Dulles, Eisenhower's CIA Director, and John Dulles, the Secretary of State. Thomas always denied being a spy, but he was frequently seen at events involving intelligence operations. Another founder was Thomas Dewey, whom the CIA had given millions to create other front companies for covert operations.

Capital Cities prospered from the start; its specialty was to buy media organizations that were in trouble. Upon acquisition, it would improve management and eliminate waste until the company started turning a profit. This no-nonsense, no-frills approach, as well as its refusal to become side-tracked with other ventures, made it one of the most successful media conglomerates of the 60s and 70s. Of course, the journalistic slant of its companies was decidedly conservative and anticommunist. To anyone who believes that the government should not control the press, the possibility that the CIA created a media company to dispense conservative and Cold War propaganda should be alarming. Rush Limbaugh himself calls freedom of the press "the sweetest -- and most American -- words you will ever find." (2) Apparently, he is unaware of the history of his own employers.

By the 1980s, Capital Cities had grown powerful enough that it was now poised to hunt truly big game: a major television network. A vulnerable target appeared in the form of ABC, whose poor management in the early 80s was driving both its profits and stocks into oblivion. Back then, ABC's journalistic slant was indeed liberal; its criticism of the Reagan Administration had drawn the wrath of conservatives everywhere, from Wall Street to Washington. This was in marked contrast to the rest of the White House press corps, which was, in Bagdikian's words, "stunningly uncritical" of Reagan. Behind the scenes, Reagan was deregulating the FCC and eliminating anti-monopoly laws for the media, a fact the media appreciated and rewarded. The only exception was ABC. Sam Donaldson's penetrating questions during press conferences were so embarrassing to Reagan that his handlers scheduled the fewest Presidential press conferences in modern history.

CONTINUED...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm



Excellent memory and description of modern day reporters, Mark-san. Remember the Tet Offensive and the moment when Walter Cronkite came out and said Vietnam was unwinnable? That was the turning point for Mr and Mrs Joe Sixpack. Fast forward to Iran-Contra and Ollie North blaming the loss ov Vietnam on the news showing casualties on the tee vee. It's easy to see why the Pentagon has done all it can to control coverage of all the wars since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I'm 62, and have CRS - Can't Remember Shit. Sadly, I seem to be
able to remember all that bad shit quite well.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You're not missing anything. Life today is like Fahrenheit 451.
Ray Bradbury had firemen come to people's houses to burn books.
People who could remember history and think for themselves,
like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, were enemies of the state.



Fortunately for humanity, the great homeless masses
included people who had memorized entire books.
Because they were intelligent, they were kind.
Thus, they were losing the struggle.

PS: Count me with the crowd on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. I remember the book very well -
I suppose my memory's not so bad after all. I always liked Bradbury. October Country was just great.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
42. Funes, el Memorioso
From Jorge Luis Borges, a fictional story about remembering and truth:



Funes, the Memorious

By Jorge Luis Borges

I remember him (I scarcely have the right to use this ghostly verb; only one man on earth deserved the right, and he is dead), I remember him with a dark passionflower in his hand, looking at it as no one has ever looked at such a flower, though they might look from the twilight of day until the twilight of night, for a whole life long. I remember him, his face immobile and Indian-like, and singularly remote, behind his cigarette. I remember (I believe) the strong delicate fingers of the plainsman who can braid leather. I remember, near those hands, a vessel in which to make maté tea, bearing the arms of the Banda Oriental; I remember, in the window of the house, a yellow rush mat, and beyond, a vague marshy landscape. I remember clearly his voice, the deliberate, resentful nasal voice of the old Eastern Shore man, without the Italianate syllables of today. I did not see him more than three times; the last time, in 1887. . . .

That all those who knew him should write something about him seems to me a very felicitous idea; my testimony may perhaps be the briefest and without doubt the poorest, and it will not be the least impartial. The deplorable fact of my being an Argentinian will hinder me from falling into a dithyramb - an obligatory form in the Uruguay, when the theme is an Uruguayan.

Littérateur, slicker, Buenos Airean: Funes did not use these insulting phrases, but I am sufficiently aware that for him I represented these unfortunate categories. Pedro Leandro Ipuche has written that Funes was a precursor of the superman, "an untamed and vernacular Zarathustra"; I do not doubt it, but one must not forget, either, that he was a countryman from the town of Fray Bentos, with certain incurable limitations.

My first recollection of Funes is quite clear: I see him at dusk, sometime in March or February of the year '84. That year, my father had taken me to spend the summer at Fray Bentos. I was on my way back from the farm at San Francisco with my cousin Bernardo Haedo. We came back singing, on horseback; and this last fact was not the only reason for my joy. After a sultry day, an enormous slate-grey-storm had obscured the sky. It was driven on by a wind from the south; the trees were already tossing like madmen; and I had the apprehension (the secret hope) that the elemental downpour would catch us out in the open. We were running a kind of race with the tempest. We rode into a narrow lane which wound down between two enormously high brick footpaths. It had grown black of a sudden; I now heard rapid almost secret steps above; I raised my eyes and saw a boy running along the narrow, cracked path as if he were running along a narrow, broken wall. I remember the loose trousers, tight at the bottom, the hemp sandals; I remember the cigarette in the hard visage, standing out against the by now limitless darkness. Bernardo unexpectedly yelled to him: "What's the time, Ireneo?" Without looking up, without stopping, Ireneo replied: "In ten minutes it will be eight o'clock, child Bernardo Juan Francisco." The voice was sharp, mocking.

I am so absentminded that the dialogue which I have just cited would not have penetrated my attention if it had not been repeated by my cousin, who was stimulated, I think, by a certain local pride and by a desire to show himself indifferent to the other's three-sided reply.

He told me that the boy above us in the pass was a certain Ireneo Funes, renowned for a number of eccentricities, such as that of having nothing to do with people and of always knowing the time, like a watch. He added that Ireneo was the son of Maria Clementina Funes, an ironing woman in the town, and that his father, some people said, was an "Englishman" named O'Connor, a doctor in the salting fields, though some said the father was a horse-breaker, or scout, from the province of El Salto. Ireneo lived with his mother, at the edge of the country house of the Laurels.

In the years '85 and '86 we spent the summer in the city of Montevideo. We returned to Fray Bentos in '87. As was natural, I inquired after all my acquaintances, and finally, about "the chronometer Funes." I was told that he had been thrown by a wild horse at the San Francisco ranch, and that he had been hopelessly crippled. I remember the impression of uneasy magic which the news provoked in me: the only time I had seen him we were on horseback, coming from San Francisco, and he was in a high place; from the lips of my cousin Bernardo the affair sounded like a dream elaborated with elements out of the past. They told me that Ireneo did not move now from his cot, but remained with his eyes fixed on the backyard fig tree, or on a cobweb. At sunset he allowed himself to be brought to the window. He carried pride to the extreme of pretending that the blow which had befallen him was a good thing. . . . Twice I saw him behind the iron grate which sternly delineated his eternal imprisonment: unmoving, once, his eyes closed; unmoving also, another time, absorbed in the contemplation of a sweet-smelling sprig of lavender cotton.

At the time I had begun, not without some ostentation, the methodical study of Latin. My valise contained the De viris illustribus of Lhomond, the Thesaurus of Quicherat, Caesar's Commentaries, and an odd-numbered volume of the Historia Naturalis of Pliny, which exceeded (and still exceeds) my modest talents as a Latinist. Everything is noised around in a small town; Ireneo, at his small farm on the outskirts, was not long in learning of the arrival of these anomalous books. He sent me a flowery, ceremonious letter, in which he recalled our encounter, unfortunately brief, "on the seventh day of February of the year '84," and alluded to the glorious services which Don Gregorio Haedo, my uncle, dead the same year, "had rendered to the Two Fatherlands in the glorious campaign of Ituzaingó," and he solicited the loan of any one of the volumes, to be accompanied by a dictionary "for the better intelligence of the original text, for I do not know Latin as yet." He promised to return them in good condition, almost immediately. The letter was perfect, very nicely constructed; the orthography was of the type sponsored by Andrés Bello: i for y, j for g. At first I naturally suspected a jest. My cousins assured me it was not so, that these were the ways of Ireneo. I did not know whether to attribute to impudence, ignorance, or stupidity the idea that the difficult Latin required no other instrument than a dictionary; in order fully to undeceive him I sent the Gradus ad Parnassum of Quicherat, and the Pliny.

On 14 February, I received a telegram from Buenos Aires telling me to return immediately, for my father was "in no way well." God forgive me, but the prestige of being the recipient of an urgent telegram, the desire to point out to all of Fray Bentos the contradiction between the negative form of the news and the positive adverb, the temptation to dramatize my sorrow as I feigned a virile stoicism, all no doubt distracted me from the possibility of anguish. As I packed my valise, I noticed that I was missing the Gradus and the volume of the Historia Naturalis. The "Saturn" was to weigh anchor on the morning of the next day; that night, after supper, I made my way to the house of Funes. Outside, I was surprised to find the night no less oppressive than the day.

Ireneo's mother received me at the modest ranch.

She told me that Ireneo was in the back room and that I should not be disturbed to find him in the dark, for he knew how to pass the dead hours without lighting the candle. I crossed the cobblestone patio, the small corridor; I came to the second patio. A great vine covered everything, so that the darkness seemed complete. Of a sudden I heard the high-pitched, mocking voice of Ireneo. The voice spoke in Latin; the voice (which came out of the obscurity) was reading, with obvious delight, a treatise or prayer or incantation. The Roman syllables resounded in the earthen patio; my suspicion made them seem undecipherable, interminable; afterwards, in the enormous dialogue of that night, I learned that they made up the first paragraph of the twenty-fourth chapter of the seventh book of the Historia Naturalis. The subject of this chapter is memory; the last words are ujt nihil non iisdem verbis redderetur auditum.

Without the least change in his voice, Ireneo bade me come in. He was lying on the cot, smoking. It seems to me that I did not see his face until dawn; I seem to recall the momentary glow of the cigarette. The room smelled vaguely of dampness. I sat down, and repeated the story of the telegram and my father's illness.

I come now to the most difficult point in my narrative. For the entire story has no other point (the reader might as well know it by now) than this dialogue of almost a half-century ago. I shall not attempt to reproduce his words, now irrecoverable. I prefer truthfully to make a résumé of the many things Ireneo told me. The indirect style is remote and weak; I know that I sacrifice the effectiveness of my narrative; but let my readers imagine the nebulous sentences which coulded that night.

Ireneo began by enumerating, in Latin and Spanish, the cases of prodigious memory cited in the Historia Naturalis: Cyrus, king of the Persians, who could call every soldier in his armies by name; Mithridates Eupator, who administered justice in the twenty-two languages of his empire; Simonides, inventory of mnemotechny; Metrodorus, who practised the art of repeating faithfully what he heard once. With evident good faith Funes marvelled that such things should be considered marvellous. He told me that previous to the rainy afternoon when the blue-tinted horse threw him, he had been - like any Christian - blind, deaf-mute, somnambulistic, memoryless. (I tried to remind him of his precise perception of time, his memory for proper names; he paid no attention to me.) For nineteen years, he said, he had lived like a person in a dream: he looked without seeing, heard without hearing, forgot everything - almost everything. On falling from the horse, he lost consciousness; when he recovered it, the present was almost intolerable it was so rich and bright; the same was true of the most ancient and most trivial memories. A little later he realized that he was crippled. This fact scarcely interested him. He reasoned (or felt) that immobility was a minimum price to pay. And now, his perception and his memory were infallible.

We, in a glance, perceive three wine glasses on the table; Funes saw all the shoots, clusters, and grapes of the vine. He remembered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could compare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of the Quebracho. These recollections were not simple; each visual image was linked to muscular sensations, thermal sensations, etc. He could reconstruct all his dreams, all his fancies. Two or three times he had reconstructed an entire day. He told me: I have more memories in myself alone than all men have had since the world was a world. And again: My dreams are like your vigils. And again, toward dawn: My memory, sir, is like a garbage disposal.

A circumference on a blackboard, a rectangular triangle, a rhomb, are forms which we can fully intuit; the same held true with Ireneo for the tempestuous mane of a stallion, a herd of cattle in a pass, the ever-changing flame or the innumerable ash, the many faces of a dead man during the course of a protracted wake. He could perceive I do not know how many stars in the sky.

These things he told me; neither then nor at any time later did they seem doubtful. In those days neither the cinema nor the phonograph yet existed; nevertheless, it seems strange, almost incredible, that no one should have experimented on Funes. The truth is that we all live by leaving behind; no doubt we all profoundly know that we are immortal and that sooner or later every man will do all things and know everything.

The voice of Funes, out of the darkness, continued. He told me that toward 1886 he had devised a new system of enumeration and that in a very few days he had gone before twenty-four thousand. He had not written it down, for what he once meditated would not be erased. The first stimulus to his work, I believe, had been his discontent with the fact that "thirty-three Uruguayans" required two symbols and three words, rather than a single word and a single symbol. Later he applied his extravagant principle to the other numbers. In place of seven thousand thirteen, he would say (for example) Máximo Perez; in place of seven thousand fourteen, The Train; other numbers were Luis Melián Lafinur, Olimar, Brimstone, Clubs, The Whale, Gas, The Cauldron, Napoleon, Agustín de Vedia. In lieu of five hundred, he would say nine. Each word had a particular sign, a species of mark; the last were very complicated. . . . I attempted to explain that this rhapsody of unconnected terms was precisely the contrary of a system of enumeration. I said that to say three hundred and sixty-five was to say three hundreds, six tens, five units: an analysis which does not exist in such numbers as The Negro Timoteo or The Flesh Blanket. Funes did not understand me, or did not wish to understand me.

Locke, in the seventeenth century, postulated (and rejected) an impossible idiom in which each individual object, each stone, each bird and branch had an individual name; Funes had once projected an analogous idiom, but he had renounced it as being too general, too ambiguous. In effect, Funes not only remembered every leaf on every tree of every wood, but even every one of the times he had perceived or imagined it. He determined to reduce all of his past experience to some seventy thousand recollections, which he would later define numerically. Two considerations dissuaded him: the thought that the task was interminable and the thought that it was useless. He knew that at the hour of his death he would scarcely have finished classifying even all the memories of his childhood.

The two projects I have indicated (an infinite vocabulary for the natural series of numbers, and a usable mental catalogue of all the images of memory) are lacking in sense, but they reveal a certain stammering greatness. They allow us to make out dimly, or to infer, the dizzying world of Funes. He was, let us not forget, almost incapable of general, platonic ideas. It was not only difficult for him to understand that the generic term dog embraced so many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms; he was disturbed by the fact that a dog at three-fourteen (seen in profile) should have the same name as the dog at three-fifteen (seen from the front). His own face in the mirror, his own hands, surprised him on every occasion. Swift writes that the emperor of Lilliput could discern the movement of the minute hand; Funes could continuously make out the tranquil advances of corruption, of caries, of fatigue. He noted the progress of death, of moisture. He was the solitary and lucid spectator of a multiform world which was instantaneously and almost intolerably exact. Babylon, London, and New York have overawed the imagination of men with their ferocious splendour; no one, in those populous towers or upon those surging avenues, has felt the heat and pressure of a reality as indefatigable as that which day and night converged upon the unfortunate Ireneo in his humble South American farmhouse. It was very difficult for him to sleep. To sleep is to be abstracted from the world; Funes, on his back in his cot, in the shadows, imagined every crevice and every moulding of the various houses which surrounded him. (I repeat, the least important of his recollections was more minutely precise and more lively than our perception of a physical pleasure or a physical torment.) Toward the east, in a section which was not yet cut into blocks of homes, there were some new unknown houses. Funes imagined them black, compact, made of a single obscurity; he would turn his face in this direction in order to sleep. He would also imagine himself at the bottom of the river, being rocked and annihilated by the current.

Without effort, he had learned English, French, Portuguese, Latin. I suspect, nevertheless, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes there were nothing but details, almost contiguous details.

The equivocal clarity of dawn penetrated along the earthen patio.

Then it was that I saw the face of the voice which had spoken all through the night. Ireneo was nineteen years old; he had been born in 1868; he seemed as monumental as bronze, more ancient than Egypt, anterior to the prophecies and the pyramids. It occurred to me that each one of my words (each one of my gestures) would live on in his implacable memory; I was benumbed by the fear of multiplying superfluous gestures.

Ireneo Funes died in 1889, of a pulmonary congestion.

Note: The Eastern Shore (of the Uruguay River); now the Orient Republic of Uruguay. (Return to top of page.)

Translated by Anthony Kerrigan

In Ficciones by Jorge Luis Borges, edited by John Sturrock (original publication 1942; English translation, Grove Press, 1962; rpt. by Alfred A. Knopf/Everyman, 1993),
83-91.

SOURCE:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/borges.htm



You got the best kind of memory, old mark. You know truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. The CIA and the wealthy elite are irrevocably intertwined.
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 08:24 PM by scarletwoman
That's because the real business of our government is business, of course.

I never tire of posting the following essay -- with which I know you are already well-acquainted, my dear Octafish -- because it pretty much explains everything:

The Origins of the Overclass

The Origins of the Overclass

By Steve Kangas

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. (my bold, sw) This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface; and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. (my bold, sw) Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America's wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent; the highest level of inequality in the 20th century. (sw: and of course nowadays we've all seen it go even much higher)

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation's elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation's rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"

(anyone not familiar with this essay should go to the link and read the whole piece)


We have been through the looking glass since the 70s, with no reversal in sight. Sociopaths control the fate of the planet.

sw

(edited for some funky html)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. The man who wrote that is dead from gunshot. The people he wrote of will survive.
The wealthy and powerful have purchased estates in Paraguay and likely other relatively remote places. There they will enjoy plenty of fresh water, food and protection from marauding survivors of what looks more each day like certain economic and ecologic collapse.

We have a small chance of avoiding catastrophe, but the same people who can do something about it have shown zero willingness to pay the taxes needed for solutions. Their analysts have likely reported it is in their best economic interests to allow billions to die, rather than to develop the technology needed to save the lives of the unwashed masses.

I'd write that it is the NAZIs, but many these days say that phrase is over-used. It would be the truth, however, as I would just be repeating what Steve Kangas was describing in his remarkable essay: the return of the fascist right through the corruption of the modern national security state by the world's financial elite. Thank you for remembering what the "press" fails to mention, ScarletWoman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. I'm always happy to help one of your incisive and important threads.
The thanks belong to you, for all the hard work you've done over the years to bring the truth out.

:hug:
sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." - Chomsky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. ''The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance...''
From Covert Action Quarterly:

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." --Alex Carey

Deforming Consent PR Industry Secret War on Activists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
41. Thanks for providing the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. We've got an ''outlier.''
And the recs continue to disappear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I saw that and made up for one of the unrecs :)
Do you believe the following statement is correct?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

~ William Colby, CIA Director from Sept. 1973 to Jan. 1976 under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

(Colby was replaced by future President George H.W. Bush on January 30, 1976)

And if you do, since when does the CIA own everyone in the MSM?

Thanks for all you do, Octafish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Thanks a million, Kaleko! The late William Colby was spot-on regarding the Mighty Wurlitzer.
Here's word from one brave journalist, one might say, a victim of management:



THE MIGHTY WURLITZER PLAYS ON

by Gary Webb

Chapter 14 from In the Buzzsaw edited by Kristina Borjesson

Webb was an investigative reporter for nineteen years focusing on government and private sector corruption and winning more than thirty journalism awards. He was one of six reporters at the San Jose Mercury News to win a 1990 Pulitzer Prize for general news reporting for a series of stories on Northern California's 1989 earthquake. He also received the 1997 Media Hero Award from the 2nd Annual Media & Democracy Congress, and in 1996 was named Journalist of the Year by the Bay Area Society of Professional Journalists. In 1994, Webb won the H. L. Mencken Award given by the Free Press Association for a series in the San Jose Mercury News on abuses in the state of California's drug asset forfeiture program. And in 1980, Webb won an Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) Award for a series that he coauthored at the Kentucky Post on organized crime in the coal industry. Prior to 1988, Webb worked as a statehouse correspondent for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and was a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News where the "Dark Alliance" series broke in 1996. Months later, Webb was effectively forced out of his job after the San Jose Mercury News retracted their support for his story. He is now a consultant to the California State Legislature's Joint Audit Committee.

If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me. I'd been working at daily papers for seventeen years at that point, doing no-holds barred investigative reporting for the bulk of that time. As far as I could tell, the beneficial powers the press theoretically exercised in our society weren't theoretical in the least. They worked.

I wrote stories that accused people and institutions of illegal and unethical activities. The papers I worked for printed them, often unflinchingly, and many times gleefully. After these stories appeared, matters would improve. Crooked politicians got voted from office or were forcibly removed. Corrupt firms were exposed and fined. Sweetheart deals were rescinded, grand juries were impaneled, indictments came down, grafters were bundled off to the big house. Taxpayers saved money. The public interest was served.

It all happened exactly as my journalism-school professors had promised. And my expectations were pretty high. I went to journalism school while Watergate was unfolding, a time when people as distantly connected to newspapering as college professors were puffing out their chests and singing hymns to investigative reporting.

Bottom line: If there was ever a true believer, I was one. My first editor mockingly called me "Woodstein," after a pair of Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story. More than once I was accused of neglecting my daily reporting duties because I was off "running around with your trench coat flapping in the breeze." But in the end, all the sub rosa trench coat-flapping paid off. The newspaper published a seventeen-part series on organized crime in the American coal industry and won its first national journalism award in half a century. From then on, my editors at that the subsequent newspapers allowed me to work almost exclusively as an investigative reporter.

I had a grand total of one story spiked during my entire reporting career. That's it. One. (And in retrospect it wasn't a very important story either.) Moreover, I had a complete freedom to pick my own shots, a freedom my editors wholeheartedly encouraged since it relieved them of the burden of coming up with story ideas. I wrote my stories the way I wanted to write them, without anyone looking over my shoulder or steering me in a certain direction. After the lawyers and editors went over them and satisfied themselves that we had enough facts behind us to stay out of trouble, they printed them, usually on the front page of the Sunday edition, when we had our widest readership.

In seventeen years of doing this, nothing bad had happened to me. I was never fired or threatened with dismissal if I kept looking under rocks. I didn't get any death threats that worried me. I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests.

So how could I possibly agree with people like Noam Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian, who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? Hell, the system worked just fine, as far as I could tell. It encouraged enterprise. It rewarded muckraking.

And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job. It turned out to have nothing to do with it. The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress.

In 1996, I wrote a series of stories, entitled Dark Alliance, that began this way:
    For the better part of a decade, a Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods Street Gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found.

    This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the "crack" capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America -- and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.'s gangs to buy automatic weapons.

    It is one of the most bizarre alliances in modern history: the union of a U.S. backed army attempting to overthrow a revolutionary socialist government and the Uzi-toting "gangstas" of Compton and South Central Los Angeles.


CONTINUED...

http://www.whale.to/b/mighty__wurlitzer.html



Of course, seeing how Prescott Bush's connected buddies own most of what there is to own on the planet, most of those who are owned probably do not even know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. That last sentence of yours
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 08:20 PM by Kaleko
should be plastered on every other wall.

I do believe that CIA psy ops have been extremely successful in their mind-fucking efforts on a global scale -

until now. The fact that we have created a virtual community dedicated to raising awareness worldwide is one big Ace up our sleeves. These guys didn't anticipate the rallying power of the internet. So, we'll see who wins this game of chicken in the end. My bet's on the truth, still, after all these years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. I believe everything cable news tells me is true.
Jeebus told me so.



:hi: Oi Octafish!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. love that one...got anything for Glenn Beck yet?
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 08:00 PM by Gabi Hayes
did you see his clip on Olbermann?

how on earth can anyone take that geeb seriously?

truly mindboggling

ever read/see "Wise Blood?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Jawol


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. sehr gut!
found this while looking for more funpix.....not vouching for accuracy, but it the general design works for me

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. dementia praecox cheetosa!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. You better believe it. Or else the thought police will pop you.
Television has been very, very good to Pat Robertson.



¡Hola, Compay Primo! ¿Como handan to's aya?

Muchos pendejitos pixilado andando por estos lados en estos dias. Cuidate bien, Doctor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. "...mentions only one business by name -- the press."
So RELIGION is NOT a business?

But thanks for starting this thread. I'm bookmarking it for all the valuable comments following it. That part about Limbaugh looks very interesting!

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. You are absolutely correct, pnorman. The Calling is Big Business.
A couple of names who don't get mentioned much in regards to the money in the religion biz:

Know your BFEE: Pat Robertson Incorporated a Gold Mine with a Terrorist

Know your BFEE: Forget Rev. Wright! It’s Bush and His Cronies Who Owe an Apology for Rev. Moon!

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Limbaugh's wealth is small potato"e"s compared to what these two have amassed.

Most important: You're welcome, my Friend!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
38. Thanks for those links!
What are the odds? Right this moment, I'm listening to "The God Delusion" (Audible.com), by Richard Dawkins. With close to 8 toes into the grave, I'm not about to disgrace all my previous years with a "Deathbed Conversion". And I sincerely HOPE that some "Ordained Ambulance-Chaser" doesn't try to "fake it" in my behalf!

I'll meet them half-way. I'll accept that the Accumulated Wisdom of any group is contained largely in what they'd refer to as Sacred Writings. I accept that and respect it. It's when they DEMAND the Literal Inerrancy of those documents, that they lose me altogether!

"One Nation Indivisible". That's they way I first learned the Pledge Of Allegiance" in my first year of school in 1936. And that's the way I recite it today (mainly at union meetings). If it was good enough for the writer (who was an ordained Baptist minister), it's good enough for me. (I usually say that phrase twice, to keep in step with the rest). To my occasional critics, I say: "Relax! I'm giving the original; the King James Version, so to speak!" That usually shuts them up.

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. *kick* (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. How the spooks took over the news
Here's an important story I'd forgotten but, thanks to you, I remembered:



How the spooks took over the news

In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale


Independent.co.uk
Monday, Feb. 11, 2008

The letter argued that al-Qa'ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis."

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about The New York Times report: "We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously... It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society." The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake – and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it.

CONTINUED...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html



You always bring out the best in me, ScarletWomen. Thank you infinitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. Project Mockingbird. You bring out the best, period!
Thank you always for being such a tireless advocate for bringing to light the dark world of parapolitics.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
24. They're not doing their job
If they're actually doing their job local television news would be informing residents of what is going on in their community and their government. Instead they're like crime blotters.

If they're actually doing their job, evening newscasts would be doing real news and investigations about the health care debate and would find that single payer is the best solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. America's Matrix, Revisited -- Thanks a lot, Mr. Scaife!
A real journalist analyzes the situation and puts things into memorable terms:



America's Matrix, Revisited

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews.com
April 12, 2006

On June 1, 2003, I wrote an article entitled “America's Matrix,” questioning claims by the Bush administration that the discovery of two specially equipped train cars was proof that Iraq was secretly manufacturing biological warfare agents.

SNIP...

The Matrix's Origin

But a fuller explanation for this American Matrix goes back much farther – and like the Matrix in the movie – we know some but not all the facts.

The American Matrix grew out of Republican anger in the 1970s. That anger followed the leaking of the Pentagon Papers which described the secret the history of the Vietnam War and the revelations about President Richard Nixon’s political abuses known as Watergate. Those two disclosures helped force U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and drove Nixon from office.

For leading Republicans, the trauma was extreme as the party was pummeled in congressional elections in 1974 and lost the White House in 1976. An influential core of wealthy conservatives decided that they needed to assert tighter control over what information reached and influenced the people.

Led by former Treasury Secretary Bill Simon and enlisting the likes of right-wing philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, these Republicans began pouring tens of millions of dollars into building a conservative media infrastructure to challenge the mainstream press, which the conservatives labeled “liberal.”

This political/media strategy gained momentum in the 1980s when President Ronald Reagan’s image-savvy team worked closely with the emerging conservative media, such as Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times which Reagan called his “favorite” newspaper. Meanwhile, a host of conservative attack groups, such as Accuracy in Media, went after journalists who exposed embarrassing facts about Reagan’s secret operations, such as the Iran-Contra scandal and drug-trafficking by the Nicaraguan contras, Reagan's beloved “freedom fighters.”

Conservative activists worked hand-in-glove with Reagan’s “public diplomacy” apparatus, which borrowed psychological operations specialists from the U.S. military to conduct what was termed “perception management.” Their goal was to manage the perceptions of the American people about key foreign-policy issues, such as Central America and the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

“The most critical special operations mission we have … is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us,” explained deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, at a National Defense University conference.

In the 1980s, the Republicans were helped by news executives in mainstream publications who favored Reagan’s hard-line foreign policy, including New York Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal. Some of these executives turned their news organizations away from the tough reporting that was needed to expose the foreign policy abuses that were occurring under Reagan.

That averting of eyes was one of the key reasons major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, largely missed the Iran-Contra scandal and attacked the reporting of other journalists who uncovered foreign-policy crimes such as cocaine trafficking by Nicaraguan contra forces. A false reality was being created that covered up the ugly side of U.S. foreign policy.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041206.html



Them that pays, Corporate McPravda protects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
29. knr - with the majority on this n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Joint Chiefs and Allen Dulles wanted JFK to launch first strike against USSR.
Here's some astonishing news that got missed by the papers and ABCNNBCBSFauxNoiseNutworks (thank Moon for The American Prospect):



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

by James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell

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

TOP SECRET EYES ONLY

Notes on National Security Council Meeting July 20, 1961

General Hickey, Chairman of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee, presented the annual report of his group. General Lemnitzer stated that the assumption of this year's study was a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.

After the presentation by General Hickey and by the various members of the Subcommittee, the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack. General Lemnitzer stated that such studies had been made and that he would bring them over and discuss them personally with the President. In recalling General Hickey's opening statement that these studies have been made since 1957, the President asked for an appraisal of the trend in the effectiveness of the attack. General Lemnitzer replied that he would also discuss this with the President.

Since the basic assumption of this year's presentation was an attack in late 1963, the President asked about probable effects in the winter of 1962. Mr. Dulles observed that the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved. General Lemnitzer added a word of caution about accepting the precise findings of the Committee since these findings were based upon certain assumptions which themselves might not be valid.

The President posed the question as to the period of time necessary for citizens to remain in shelters following an attack. A member of the Subcommittee replied that no specific period of time could be cited due to the variables involved, but generally speaking, a period of two weeks should be expected.

The President directed that no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting.

Declassified: June, 1993


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

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, NUMBER 19, FALL 1994, PP. 88-96. COPYRIGHT (c) 1994 BY NEW PROSPECT, INC. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO COPY AND CIRCULATE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ONLY, PROVIDED THAT THIS NOTICE ACCOMPANIES ALL COPIES MADE.


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

Introduction

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies �� from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" �� worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent effect of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R, based on our growing lead in land-based missiles, And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced above is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others, presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a Presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963



No wonder they worked so hard to pin Dallas on Cuba and the Soviets. The War Party of Dulles and Co wanted a war to end the world of communism once and for all.

Galbraith is an economist at University of Texas. His dad was the economist and Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith.

Thanks for giving a damn, my Friend!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. And this...How the New York Times Lied to the Public in '53, as it does now ...
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iran-coup.htm

Thank you for caring! Question everything :) I'll read more of your link tomorrow, just had the above link open looking for something else, but it does point out the problem with the press.

:hi:

From the right side of the page.

Actual title...

"C.I.A. TRIED, WITH LITTLE SUCCESS, TO USE U.S. PRESS IN COUP

The New York Times, April 16, 2000

COMMENT, by Francisco Gil-White
Here we must stop.

Before I analyze the distortion -- nay, the complete reversal of the truth -- that has already taken place, an important observation: it is well known that most people do not read whole articles but merely glance at an article's headline, and if they go further they will tend to read only the first paragraph or two. So notice what happened here: the headline says,

"C.I.A. TRIED, WITH LITTLE SUCCESS, TO USE U.S. PRESS IN COUP."


...A reader could be forgiven for expecting that this article will give us details on how the CIA tried but failed to get the US press to assist in the covert effort to destabilize Iran. What a shocking surprise, then, for those who read far enough to finish the second paragraph, to find,

1) that Western journalists "prominently mentioned the role of Iran's Communists in street violence leading up to the coup";


...What is the New York Times doing? It appears that the author wrote a straightforward piece and then the editors introduced key sentences in the headline and first two paragraphs to contradict and obfuscate the meaning of the article (because the headline and first paragraph are all that most people read)..."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
32. 77% cannot be wrong.....The Media is Slanted by those who are in charge...the OWNERS
to favor their self interest shit....

We need to clean up this hate Shit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. There's hope for a new news media...
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/public_media/

Check out the white paper. Wow!



TAKEAWAYS

  • Public media 2.0’s core function is to generate publics around problems.

  • Many-to-many digital technologies are fostering participatory user behaviors: choice, conversation, curation, creation, and collaboration.

  • Quality content needs to be matched with effective engagement. Public media projects can happen in any venue, commercial or not.

  • Collaboration among media outlets and allied organizations is key and requires national coordination.

  • Taxpayer funds are crucial both to sustain coordination and to fund media production, curation, and archiving.

  • Shared standards and practices make distributed public media viable.

  • Impact measurements are crucial.


  • SOURCE:

    http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/public_media_2_0_dynamic_engaged_publics/#execsum



    No to war and hate. There's a way. There's always a way.

    PS: How are you and your family? All OK, post-tsunami? How are the good people on Swains Island, north of American Samoa? Any word from them?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 03:55 AM
    Response to Reply #37
    39. We are all fine....not even a ripple. Poor peeps in Samoa....tragic...
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    HappyCynic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:07 PM
    Response to Original message
    33. Cult of celebrity
    There's also been the focus on celebrities, not just existing one but the manufacturing of celebrities (eg. American Idol) that's destroying the news. The more the media (not just the news media) concentrates on celebrities, the more celebrity "news" takes the place of relevant news. (Personal freedoms are being lost and the Constitution is being shredded? No problem... We'll lead tonight's news with Britney's new haircut.)
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 11:17 PM
    Response to Original message
    35. They say anything that manufactures controversy so as to get views for the advertisements.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 04:32 AM
    Response to Original message
    40. Always mass manipulation, misinformation, stir up emotionalism, and a lot of distraction
    Sometimes they just gin up crap for ratings. At other times they use their slight of hand and tricks to mindfuck the population or to get everyone looking one way while the powers that be do their dirt or do nothing towards what they have been trusted to handle.

    Sure, sometimes they tell the truth on accident or to prop up their llost credibility but the main purpose is to bullshit us or have us looking at a shiny bauble while they are stealing our resources.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 03:51 AM
    Response to Original message
    Advertisements [?]
     Top

    Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

    Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
    Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


    Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

    Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

    About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

    Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

    © 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC