Reporter Spills the Beans and Admits All the News is Fake!

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

We all know the media has bias. Governments to some degree or another have made sure some facts never reach the public. I assume the head's of news organizations regularly have contact with the government which wants to steer news one way or another.

In, the US though, just looking at how different CNN and FOX reports news you would think we have a different government coaching each one if all this were true.

I believe the general idea of the OP is true, but not the video used to back it. The man in it doesn't come across as believable. Not many people that ramble on for that long on RT would be. He states that 'German poison gas' was used in Iranians. He doesn't say how he knew it was German. He says the CIA 'supported him', he doesn't say how. He talks about how ashamed he is about writing articles slanted against Russia and on RT..what a surprise.

RT is not a great source to use to show that the news is biased or to some degree, controlled. RT is completely controlled.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Although I do appreciate you're somewhat lengthy response and background info, it doesn't answer the question if you would be able to identify agents if there were any.
I'm not saying you or your father are not doing your jobs correctly, I assume you do of course, however in all the bustle, would it be impossible for any agent to operate in way that would go unnoticed to an untrained eye?
A succesful agent is an agent that operates unnoticed imo.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

Yes, but where would they introduce something? At what stage? Goebbels could get away with it because he had entire national propaganda department under his thumb. In the Vietnam most people could believe MACV because they were producing most of the reports of the fighting - I don't think that the VC had a press officer, although the NVA might have. When Tet happened it blew a lot of the bad reporting away. Seymour Hersh's reports on My Lai were amazing - and horrifying, but no-one hushed that up.
Where can someone insert a thumb on the scale now? I'm not talking about Faux News by the way, which occasionally stumbles over the truth but then runs away from it because Faux is a political arm of the GOP, and has been for some time.
Yes, newsrooms can be loud and confused. But there tends to be enough experience in them to spot a dodgy report at least initially - and afterwards most certainly. Again, where would someone introduce bad information or drive a report? At the wire service level? Too many other things would contradict it. The reporter level? People would notice. The editor level? Again, people would notice. That's the problem. One person would be ineffectual and easily noticed, based on people calling bullcrap. More people... good grief, how many people does the CIA have to spare for this manipulation?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

We all know the media has bias. Governments to some degree or another have made sure some facts never reach the public. I assume the head's of news organizations regularly have contact with the government which wants to steer news one way or another.

In, the US though, just looking at how different CNN and FOX reports news you would think we have a different government coaching each one if all this were true.

I believe the general idea of the OP is true, but not the video used to back it. The man in it doesn't come across as believable. Not many people that ramble on for that long on RT would be. He states that 'German poison gas' was used in Iranians. He doesn't say how he knew it was German. He says the CIA 'supported him', he doesn't say how. He talks about how ashamed he is about writing articles slanted against Russia and on RT..what a surprise.

RT is not a great source to use to show that the news is biased or to some degree, controlled. RT is completely controlled.

I appreciate that RT has an agenda, just like all the West's MSM. With all due respect, could you hold a full on conversation in a language that is not your native tongue, without stumbling over your words?

He probably goes into a lot more detail in his book, so without reading it, how can you possibly come to that conclusion.

I have asked this question a couple of times, but do you seriously believe this guy would be given any airtime on the West's MSM?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

We all know the media has bias. Governments to some degree or another have made sure some facts never reach the public. I assume the head's of news organizations regularly have contact with the government which wants to steer news one way or another.

In, the US though, just looking at how different CNN and FOX reports news you would think we have a different government coaching each one if all this were true.

I believe the general idea of the OP is true, but not the video used to back it. The man in it doesn't come across as believable. Not many people that ramble on for that long on RT would be. He states that 'German poison gas' was used in Iranians. He doesn't say how he knew it was German. He says the CIA 'supported him', he doesn't say how. He talks about how ashamed he is about writing articles slanted against Russia and on RT..what a surprise.

RT is not a great source to use to show that the news is biased or to some degree, controlled. RT is completely controlled.

I appreciate that RT has an agenda, just like all the West's MSM. With all due respect, could you hold a full on conversation in a language that is not your native tongue, without stumbling over your words?

He probably goes not a lot more detail in his book, so without reading it, how can you possibly come to that conclusion.

I have asked this question a couple of times, but do you seriously believe this gut would be given any airtime on the West's MSM?

I did take into account that English is not his first language. I wasn't thinking about repetition or word stumbling. I was thinking he should have followed up statements with how or why not just 'they asked me to be a cover agent.' 'They searched my house 6 times'. Why would they be searching his house if he had been writing fake stories at 'their' behest'?

No, I haven't read his book. He had ample time to go into a little bit of supporting detail.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

We all know the media has bias. Governments to some degree or another have made sure some facts never reach the public. I assume the head's of news organizations regularly have contact with the government which wants to steer news one way or another.

In, the US though, just looking at how different CNN and FOX reports news you would think we have a different government coaching each one if all this were true.

I believe the general idea of the OP is true, but not the video used to back it. The man in it doesn't come across as believable. Not many people that ramble on for that long on RT would be. He states that 'German poison gas' was used in Iranians. He doesn't say how he knew it was German. He says the CIA 'supported him', he doesn't say how. He talks about how ashamed he is about writing articles slanted against Russia and on RT..what a surprise.

RT is not a great source to use to show that the news is biased or to some degree, controlled. RT is completely controlled.

I appreciate that RT has an agenda, just like all the West's MSM. With all due respect, could you hold a full on conversation in a language that is not your native tongue, without stumbling over your words?

He probably goes not a lot more detail in his book, so without reading it, how can you possibly come to that conclusion.

I have asked this question a couple of times, but do you seriously believe this gut would be given any airtime on the West's MSM?

I did take into account that English is not his first language. I wasn't thinking about repetition or word stumbling. I was thinking he should have followed up statements with how or why not just 'they asked me to be a cover agent.' 'They searched my house 6 times'. Why would they be searching his house if he had been writing fake stories at 'their' behest'?

No, I haven't read his book. He had ample time to go into a little bit of supporting detail.

Okay, so you need detail, fair enough.

You still didn't answer my question about airtime on the West's MSM.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

All news is subject to interpretation. No one is completely unbiased and totally objective.

a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.

Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.

Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.

And he do we know that, you being a journalist, you aren't in on it and trying to preserve the status quot? Hmmmm.... quite the catch 22... >.>

Well rounded information.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: DJTeej

Yes indeed and this journalist has confirmed it for sure.

Yes, and this journalist says that it's a load of total and utter honk.

And he do we know that, you being a journalist, you aren't in on it and trying to preserve the status quot? Hmmmm.... quite the catch 22... >.>

I fear that a) you are being either a tad paranoid or a tad provocative and b) that once again the powers of the CIA are being overestimated. I have never been approached by a member of the CIA. If I had I would have laughed a lot at them. Besides, in on what? That would imply payment or some such reward. Sorry, but nope.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

I am a journalist - no quote marks required - and I still say that it's total honk.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

I am a journalist - no quote marks required - and I still say that it's total honk.

No offense, but I think I'll go with the sworn testimony from the CIA.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

I am a journalist - no quote marks required - and I still say that it's total honk.

No offense, but I think I'll go with the sworn testimony from the CIA.

Yeah, from 1975? They may have been trying to pull something back then and then blowing their own trumpet, but frankly my dad never saw it, my uncle never saw it, no-one I've ever worked with saw it and I have never seen it myself. No I'm still going with pointing and hysterical laughter. Still total honk.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Can you prove you're a journalist, for all we know you're some kid in his mothers basement spewing out lines.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Can you prove you're a journalist, for all we know you're some kid in his mothers basement spewing out lines.

(Sigh)
What do you want me say? I'm a British (re)insurance journalist. I just returned this morning from Singapore, where I covered SIRC (the Singapore International Reinsurance Conference) and ran about like a madman. By the way no-one told me what to write about, I just interviewed whoever I could happen to meet there, covered the speeches and panel discussions and was generally stressed the entire time.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

I am a journalist - no quote marks required - and I still say that it's total honk.

No offense, but I think I'll go with the sworn testimony from the CIA.

Yeah, from 1975? They may have been trying to pull something back then and then blowing their own trumpet, but frankly my dad never saw it, my uncle never saw it, no-one I've ever worked with saw it and I have never seen it myself. No I'm still going with pointing and hysterical laughter. Still total honk.

Means nothing to me. I don't know you or your family personally.

My thought is that, in 1975, they realized how effective influencing the news is in serving a hidden agenda, and they have ramped it way, way up since then and have taken full advantage of the internet, too.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
They have been doing it for a very long time...

Here is a clip from CIA testimony before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, in 1975, admitting on record that the CIA influences the news media:

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?”

Answer: “We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.”

Question: “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?”

Answer: “This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I’d like to get into in executive session.”

(later)

Question: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?”

Answer: “Well again, I think we’re getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I’d prefer to handle at executive session.”

EDIT: Can you imagine if this was today and one of the questions was: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to internet forums and blogs?"

This

Yes. It really doesn't matter how many 'journalists' claim it's not true in their experience. It is true.

I am a journalist - no quote marks required - and I still say that it's total honk.

No offense, but I think I'll go with the sworn testimony from the CIA.

Yeah, from 1975? They may have been trying to pull something back then and then blowing their own trumpet, but frankly my dad never saw it, my uncle never saw it, no-one I've ever worked with saw it and I have never seen it myself. No I'm still going with pointing and hysterical laughter. Still total honk.

Means nothing to me. I don't know you or your family personally.

My thought is that, in 1975, they realized how effective influencing the news is in serving a hidden agenda, and they have ramped it way, way up since then and have taken full advantage of the internet, too.

Then answer me this - how? How could they do it? Go on, tell me.