It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Anyone want to perhaps offer suggestions as to what the highlighted material means?
Suggestive....also, could someone perhaps go through this document to the part where Rumsfeld is discussing "Embedding"? I have no idea what that means and would like some help figuring that one out...2007 Rumsfeld Interview
And this is what I am talking about...documented source showing a General advising the media to discuss an out of context conflict (Syria) when referencing the War on Terror in terms of public presentation.
The military and media have lied. Period and end of story. Are we going to let it slide by?
The Department of Defense announced that Eric Ruff assumed the duties of press secretary today in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
Originally posted by citizen truth
This is a very interesting thread my friend!!
I'm in the process of downloading most of the pdf files right now.
If there is a specific thread covering analysis of these files,I'd be happy to take part.
Perhaps certain files can be allocated to those who are interested via U2U.
Starred and flagged!
So the Pentagon would maintain a team of "military analysts" who reliably "carry their water" -- yet who were presented as independent analysts by the television and cable networks. By feeding only those pro-Government sources key information and giving them access -- even before responding to the press -- only those handpicked analysts would be valuable to the networks, and that, in turn, would ensure that only pro-Government sources were heard from. Meanwhile, the "less reliably friendly" ones -- frozen out by the Pentagon -- would be "weeded out" by the networks. The pro-Government military analysts would do what they were told because the Pentagon was "their bread and butter." These Pentagon-controlled analysts were used by the networks not only to comment on military matters -- and to do so almost always unchallenged -- but also even to shape and mold the networks' coverage choices.
Even a casual review of the DoD's documents leaves no doubt that this is exactly how the program worked. The military analysts most commonly used by MSNBC, CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC routinely received instructions about what to say in their appearances from the Pentagon. As but one extreme though illustrative example, Dan Senor -- Fox News analyst and husband of CNN's Campbell Brown -- would literally ask Di Rita before his television appearances what he should say (7900, 7920-21), and submitted articles to him, such as one he wrote for The Weekly Standard about how great the war effort was going, and Di Rita would give him editing directions, which he obediently followed.
Britain's Intelligence Dossier on Iraq was Plagiarized from a Grad Student
The famed dossier presented by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his Parliament was plagiarized from two articles and a September 2002 research paper submitted by a graduate student. Worse, the Iraq described by the graduate student is not the Iraq of 2003 but the Iraq of 1991. So glaring was the theft of intellectual property that the official British document even cut and pasted whole verbatim segments of the research paper, including grammatical errors, and presented the findings as the result of intense work by British intelligence services.
How The Pentagon Propaganda Machine Worked: ‘are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not! ’
The Pentagon document dump on its propaganda program reveals this interesting insight as to how the Defense Department worked with conservative allies to manipulate the media.
In a Feb. 16, 2006 email exchange, Pentagon media staffers discussed coordinating with the Heritage Foundation to identify someone to speak about detainee treatment at Gitmo. An anonymous employee suggested retired Army Sergeant Major Steve Short because “he seems to be on message and very articulate.”
Originally posted by MemoryShock
So here we are...with an oppurtunity to take advantage of the huge member resource we have and just released proof of the DoD actively conspiring on how to best present information to the public in an effort to gain public support, if not just dissuade popular derision.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
What if we were to to start a Thread in the Research Forum?