CNN Is A Military Psyop - Goes Back To 2000

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Violater1

I was once in the army.

Now that I work in the private sector, I must still work for the army........

Look, I'm not a CNN fan or anything, but so much of that crap is just an collection of loosely associated facts and a LOT of conjecture, hyperbole, and unfounded accusations.

Have you read your discharge papers Soldier? (fine print at the bottom) I had to have it pointed out to me during the Gulf War before it sunk in.

Thank you for your service!

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Violater1

I was once in the army.

Now that I work in the private sector, I must still work for the army........

Look, I'm not a CNN fan or anything, but so much of that crap is just an collection of loosely associated facts and a LOT of conjecture, hyperbole, and unfounded accusations.

Oh yeah, I agree. No disrespect.
Look at all of the summer military maneuvers. People were saying," Ooohh, our military is going to attack us!"
AND IT NEVER HAPPENED, AND IT NEVER WILL.

a reply to: Tellurian

I was surprised to see the Rothchild's own Reuters - however it seems they sold out to .....

www.molonlabemedia.com...

Reuters was previously owned by the Rothschild banking family. They sold Reuters to the Thompson family in 2008. The new company is called Thompson-Reuters. The Thompson family owns a majority of shares at 53%. Historically, no single individual has been permitted to own more than 15% of Reuters, under the first of the Reuters Principles, which states, “Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction.”

However, that restriction was waived for the purchase by the Thomson family. Pehr Gyllenhammar, chairman of the Reuters Founders Share Company, explained that the Reuters Trust’s First Principle had been waived for the Thomson family because of the poor financial circumstances that Reuters had been in, stating, “The future of Reuters takes precedence over the principles

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ColdWisdom

You have to admit that the MSM, all MSM has been wildly successful in it's manipulation.

It may have started with CNN, but I'm sure they've branched out.

If they were successful Trump would not be president.

Not exactly. They ultimately lost the fight with the election but their blueprint to divide this country and cause civil unrest is alive and well and still about half the country can't see thru it.

Liberals are getting played like a drum.

yes, only the liberals are getting played. that makes sense and is a very reasonable and well-thought stance.
(just kidding, it's really freaking stupid)

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tellurian

I was surprised to see the Rothchild's own Reuters - however it seems they sold out to .....

www.molonlabemedia.com...

Reuters was previously owned by the Rothschild banking family. They sold Reuters to the Thompson family in 2008. The new company is called Thompson-Reuters. The Thompson family owns a majority of shares at 53%. Historically, no single individual has been permitted to own more than 15% of Reuters, under the first of the Reuters Principles, which states, “Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction.”

However, that restriction was waived for the purchase by the Thomson family. Pehr Gyllenhammar, chairman of the Reuters Founders Share Company, explained that the Reuters Trust’s First Principle had been waived for the Thomson family because of the poor financial circumstances that Reuters had been in, stating, “The future of Reuters takes precedence over the principles

interesting. i wonder what favors they did for the rothschild family for that to happen. anyone by chance marry into it? ill have to do some digging i see. well after just a quick search david thomson seems to lead one hell of a life most secret barring his relationships. with women from sothebys head of prints to an actress in hollywood. quite a few children out of wedlock. seems like i have quite the search ahead of me

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: DBCowboy

It may have started with CNN, but I'm sure they've branched out.

Since the inception of TV News, there has been a gradual consolidation of control by the big six.

But this stands to reason - it's human nature.

If you're not taking control then you are relinquishing control.

A perfect equilibrium of trust would be great, but in the real universe things are always changing; growing, shrinking, or exploding. Nothing stays the same and i think that also applies to socio-cultural phenomena.

I'm not defending CNN, just saying that this cynical behaviour is (sadly, perhaps) natural.

a reply to: Justoneman

You and I could talk for hours about this crap.
I like to use this once in a while for laughs.
Demonstrably the american people won't do anything til it effects them
personally.



That's the control mechanism.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: DBCowboy

It may have started with CNN, but I'm sure they've branched out.

Since the inception of TV News, there has been a gradual consolidation of control by the big six.

But this stands to reason - it's human nature.

If you're not taking control then you are relinquishing control.

A perfect equilibrium of trust would be great, but in the real universe things are always changing; growing, shrinking, or exploding. Nothing stays the same and i think that also applies to socio-cultural phenomena.

I'm not defending CNN, just saying that this cynical behaviour is (sadly, perhaps) natural.

Don't quite agree.
Some plant and animal species may gradually expand in a given environment. Some even relatively rapid in the case of some "invasive" species.
But the analogy ends there. There is no conscious desire to take from others, or to obtain control, like corporations do.

Corporations display sociopathic behaviour, and show no concern at all for anything other than their own growth.
The only reason they sometimes display a code of ethics, or pretend to have morals, is in reality just another way of protecting their image, and bottom-line.

In other words: News agencies only care about "the news", insofar as that it is their business, and that's how they make their profit, and support the head corporations interests.

The only thing in nature that is as crass as this, is sometimes the alpha-male, when accompanied with psycho, or sociopathic tendencies.

Obama zombies and the new left will simply declare this fake news--they love CNN and are predisposed to despise all things Fox News. I gave up on all MSM 8 years ago when it was apparent the incompetent and narcissitsic Obama was getting a free pass from all sides--literally dozens of Obama supporters daily and no sign of critics....Today, Trump is swarmed with dozens of critics and very, very few supporters at any media outlet.

We lost our democratic party to a strange breed of hateful, mean-spirited paid liberal agitators...and worse yet, we lost our media to the bad guys.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

This is hardly news.

As far back as 1991, liberal and left newspapers in Europe were complaining that CNN were working hand in glove with military coalition to control reporting on the first Gulf War. Copy could only be sent back through CNN's facilities and US military censors had oversight.

Some newspapers had journalists on the ground and smuggling copy out through Jordan. Thing is, it hit the papers later than the CNN approved copy so did not have the same impact.

It had its risks and, if IIRC, a Spanish journalist was killed doing his own thing.

Of course, we now take for granted that reporters have to be "embedded" with the troops, which means that the military is the gatekeeper for ALL news organisations.

Its not a question of MSM or alternative. Alternative news organisations don't have the resources to put people on the ground out there so they, too, are ultimately dependent on the filtered versions.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Hysterical nonsense!

a reply to: McGinty

Except that nobody is really in control after all, that's just the old delusion in place to legitimize our systems of control with.

I'm not defending anything either, just saying that we don't have the 4th pillar we need to call the oligarchs wet dream a democracy. Which is why we're taking it back - with the so-called alt media and user generated open-source content. That's nature at play right there, innit?
I don't need to trust anybody though. All I need is a tad of integrity, tranparency and media literacy. The Intercept, Media Monarchy, Corbett Report, just to name a few of my fav english sources.

Also, FCK CNN! Thanks.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I think most of us can agree...CNN is the worst. We had coverage of the terror attacks in the U.K. on in our newsroom...Fox and MSNBC were reporting on that...CNN was all over Comey coverage. Give it up. At least for the night. Jeez.