CIA Admits In Hearing - Using News To Manipulate the USA

reply to post by gladtobehere


It'd seem pointless making plans to manipulate the media back then unless they had control over the main news disseminators of the time. Who were these initial msm forefathers? The BBC would have had to be included among them. Can any of you smart researchers find links between the CIA, Tavistock and the BBC?

reply to post by elouina


@elouina,

Nice thread. It should be noted that Frank Church, the Idahoan Senator in charge of this senate committee, lost his next election thanks to the Anybody But Church Committee, which was funded by the National Conservative Political Action Committee, based in Washington D.C., which was instrumental in the Reagan revolution and the election of many Republicans in the early 80's. In fact, Church was the number one Democratic senator on NCPAC's hit list. This was partly because of his support for the Panama Canal treaty, but was obviously also because of his stance on the activities of the CIA. Remember also that pappy Bush, i.e. Bush I, was a former CIA director in 1976, during the aftermath of the Church hearings, so he likely didn't much care for Church (he was also Reagan's VP of course).

reply to post by NOTurTypical


well if the voting process is so rife with corruption, as we've seen being done against Ron Paul, then we have to come up with some other way of getting the old bastards outta there

Holy Cow!

Imagine if they concocted a story and circulated it that 19 arabs with box cutters had hijacked 4 airliners! What a story that would be!

Yes, for me entire life the US public perception has been shaped and built by government propaganda, and those efforts have been immensely successful.

Add to the OP the CIA's use of the "Mighty Wurlitzer" program, and we have nothing new under the sun. Edward Bernays literally wrote the book on propaganda techniques in his book, "Propaganda".

We're all aware that this technique exists; the question is, what do we do about it?

That's not possible, the CIA is our friend.

Some of you people comment on the practice of influencing the media in the past tense. I am convinced the practice still goes on today on just about everything that's on TV today.

Take for example the Edward Snowden case, the media wouldn't be talking about it unless "they" wanted the media to do so. The eavesdropping practice has been conducted by the US ever since the telephone was invented so what's the news here?? Unless they wanted your regular Joe to talk about it when he doesn't even know how to spell eavesdropping, for what reason?? That's the $64k question..

Two things.
We are ALL stupid sheep.
40 years and we still have done nothing.

40 years and look at america?
is there plan working?

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Well, here in 2013 - it ain't working.

Who believes anything the gov't says anymore? A third of the country? Maybe.

You can bet almost half of the country is really starting to believe that the gov't is the problem.

I think maybe you have spent too much time reading and discussing this issue with like minded groups like ATS. I am willing to bet it's not even close to a third, more like 90%, that believe what they are told. Most people, at least in the USA, don't even go far enough to ask the question. If they even care, they think there is a limited few who abuse their power and lie to us.

That's why you get all those weird looks when you bring up Snowden in public. If they even know who that is. Talking about believing the media, don't even get me started on Zimmerman. What a fiasco.

I am not trying to offend you, I applaud anyone who questions what we are told.

We're discussing this thread on ATS Live! - 10th August 2013

LIttle Daily Show humor, sometimes I love this show. John Oliver's doing a great job as temp imo.



-edit- oops! Wrong thread, I apologize. I'm going to leave the one video though.

I am in my forties and I was a little naïve when it came to our government. I have always looked for the good in organizations, and people. Since I have been reading a lot books lately I have come to the conclusion that the government in whole as been corrupted since its existence, or at least in my life time. I’m talking about the government cover-up of UFO sightings, the JFK assignation, including the numerous witnesses that died before they were going to testify in a congressional hearing. (A recent book I’ve read calculated the odds of all the people that died in relationship to the JFK assignation was 1 in 715 trillion) 911 and I go on and on. So I am not surprised any more of the corruption going on today. From what I have been reading it was a lot worse in the 60’s and 70’s. They used to call NSA, National Security Assassinations. The news media has always been controlled by the government in power. The only difference today is Social media, and thank God for that. Please don’t get me wrong I’m not giving up on our great country (USA) and I believe there are some good people left in this world. There are just a lot less of them.

Also for those people that say they didn’t vote for Obama or Romney you actually are to blame for Obama becoming president. In the last 7 presidential elections that I voted in either a Republican or Democrat won. I feel that most people, if had to choose between the 2 candidates would have voted for Romney because he is the lesser of the 2 evils.

reply to post by GEMINI052165


I may just quit voting all together...waste of my time. I'm choosing between two puppets... the only races i really care about are local..be it mayor or even city council...but i'm not even in the city anymore, so i don't get to vote on that stuff...so next time around, when people are foaming at the mouth over Hillary or Fat guy from Jersey....i'll be at the bar

note: i have voted 3rd party, but with the media ..they have no chance...none. Sorry..buts its the truth.

I really think change will only come when the economy crashes/zombies roam the streets.

Im personally of the opinion that they do 2 timgs all the time:

1) cherry pick stories to reflect the psy-ops disinformation agendas at hand

2) Make complete stories up. This is a little more controversial as I believe that there are quite a few stories that are totally bogus, like Luka Magnotta, Cho the shooter, The school shootings and the Batman shooter. I am very suspicious they were were totally made up to meet a particular agenda. For example, there is no evidence that Cho shot anyone other than a group of people that say they new victims etc. (sensitive area and easily attacked - I DONT BELEIVE IT) and the Luka Magnotta issue - we didnt see any killing. At the same time there was a news story about a van loosing its cargo of corpses on a Chinese motorway - It was like a psy-op announcement that all we saw was a cadavear being cut up - Really, why would Luka have NOT sent the whole video?

I am aware of multiple pieces of evidence, mostly from the same era or even before, that clearly implicate certain groups within the government of the US in the manipulation of the mainstream media for the government's own ends. Basically they use the media, mainly news on television, to manipulate what the public knows and believes. The only reason that we are not getting the same amount of evidence today is that they have become more proficient at hiding this fact. It has probably gotten much easier for them to control what is reported than it was in the past, although it could be the other way around, depending on how you analyze the matter.

People who had a hand in creating the news that we know today, like Rupert Murdoch himself, have admitted the fact that their networks are NOT about reporting the truth. Rather, they are about convincing people of things that are not true in order to sway public opinion. Think about how easy it would be to control the news today. First think of the dozens of whistleblowers who have claimed they were fired for attempting to tell the public the truth. Then consider who decides what gets reported on and what doesn't.

These decisions are made at a higher level within the network itself. There are not all that many people who get to make this decision. So technically all the government or some organization would have to do is coerce the top dog of the company to come to their side, and that person could then tell "report this," or "scrap that." There is personal testimony claiming that important pieces of information were deliberately kept off the air, and out of the citizens' grasp in most instances.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Over and over again I keep mentioning Aljazeera America here at ATS. ("Grand opening" Aug 20th.) I am not 100% certain that they will be unbiased. But I have a gut feeling that they will not be affected by the CIA any. And if the CIA tried it, I think it would be prime time news for Aljazeera. Maybe it is a good thing to have another country reporting the news in the US. Especially such a large company with much capital and clout. Wouldn't it be wonderful to actually hear the real news for a change? Fingers crossed that they hold up to my expectations.

Maybe you will watch these videos this go around.....

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by elouina

 

please watch both these videos....

With media bias today ...."People should get the news from several sources and then cross them by and get their own final conclusion"

edit on 10-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Perhaps when she starts speaking English and the man isn't so boring to listen to? I tried 2 times to listen to his video. Bleh...

Whoops! Triple post, but why waste good space? Here is a commercial break and a video of my cute kitty cat.

Oh yeah baby! A triple post! i keep getting better and better at this! ..