How to Mislead the Public with Propaganda
911 inside job Jim Fetzer on Fox news
Malik Shabazz on Hannity & Colmes
Mainstream Media Silently Screams for New 9/11 Investigation
Why The Media Embraced '911 Truth'
Henry Makow PhD September 9 2006
Last week TIME Magazine and "The Washington Post" ran almost balanced and sympathetic stories about "the 9-11 Truth Movement." These publications define reality for millions of unsuspecting Americans. Why would they legitimize a conspiracy view that implicates their owners, the Illuminati central bankers? Why would they publicize discrepancies that they have been covering up for five years? Imagine you're in a meeting with the central bankers who control the American mass media and government. You're the successor of PR whiz Edward Bernays. "Edward," they say, "the matrix is starting to unravel. A third of Americans believe their government was responsible for 9-11. Damn the Internet! What are we going to do?" If I were Bernays, I would reply: "Depends if you're planning another false flag terrorist event, martial law and an attack on Iran. If so, I would continue to ignore and marginalize this movement. You don't want to give them a huge boost in credibility at this time." "Eddie," they reply, "it's too late for all that nasty stuff. Nobody that counts believes in the terror threat any more. Israel got a bloody nose in Lebanon and can't attack Iran. The military has its hands full in Iraq. The generals are in revolt. Plus the Internet is full of stories blaming the Mossad and Israel. Anti-Semitism is on the rise. " "Don't panic boys,"I tell them. "I have the answer. Listen carefully. What we need is a "Time-Out" to restore everybody's faith in the system. We need a return to the Democratic Party, a return to the sanity of a Carter or a Clinton; a break from those mean ugly corrupt Republicans." "How do we do that?" the bankers ask. "Think Daniel Ellsberg and "The Pentagon Papers." Think Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 911" We need to shift responsibility for 9-11 onto Dubya's shoulders and away from Silverstein and the Mossad, the neo-cons and us. We need to reposition the 9-11 Truth-ers in the mold of the 1960's anti-war movement and focus everyone on hating the 'government.'Then we'll elect Democrats in November and [New Mexico Governor]Bill Richardson, or someone like him, in 2008. It will be a kinder gentler fascism for a while. It'll give us time to plan our next step." "Where do we begin?" "Why not do a TIME cover story on those kids that made the Internet movie "Loose Change"? They don't mention the dancing laughing Mossad agents who were arrested 'documenting the event' with explosives in their van, do they? Portray the kids as participating in the "great American tradition of self reliance and non conformist anti authoritarian dissent. They're fighting the power." [exact words TIME uses] Maybe we could bring Bob Dylan in on this." "Eddie, this is dangerous. That film shows that Larry [Silverstein] ordered the demolition of WTC 7 the same day. Are Americans so stupid to believe that this 47-floor building was wired for demolition, and WTC1 and WTC-2 weren't? Surely they'll figure out that all three were demolished and a plane was supposed to hit WTC-7. We'll all be hung for mass murder." "Guys. Don't worry. The people believe what they're told not common sense or their own eyes. We won't mention WTC-7 in the articles. We'll just focus on a couple of points and have our paid flunkies, I mean 'experts' refute them. The important thing is to emphasize that the 'government' did this. It was an "inside job." Dubya will take the fall in the public's mind." "Is one story enough?" "Put another one in "The Washington Post" focused on David Ray Griffin. Call it something like "The Disbelievers." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/ AR2006090701669_pf.html%20%20 Mention the Mossad a couple of times in passing but not the German Intelligence (BND) Report that says the Mossad organized the whole event (with Bush's foreknowledge.) It'll be our experts and against theirs and the people won't know what to think. They'll blame Dubya and think the media is objective and doing its job." CONCLUSION: At the risk of sounding optimistic, the mainstream coverage of the 9-11 Truth Movement may be a sign that we will not have an Iran attack and another false-flag terrorist event soon. I think the bankers are scared that they are losing control of the American mind. Dubya has been very useful to them but it's time for him to take the rap and go. The only danger is that he and Cheney will do something desperate to hold on to power. Without the cooperation of the media, they can't succeed. Their term ends in two years anyway. I think they'll take their money and exit gracefully. For once, I am making a prediction that I hope will be correct!
Dan Rather: Journalism has 'lost its guts'
CNET March 15, 2007 Daniel Terdiman
AUSTIN, TEXAS--To longtime CBS broadcaster Dan Rather, American journalism in recent years "has in some ways lost its guts." During his hour-long keynote address Monday at South by Southwest Interactive, Rather opined at length on the state of his profession, in which too many journalists have become lapdogs to power, rather than watchdogs.
"I do not exclude myself from this criticism... By and large, so many journalists--there are notable exceptions--have adopted the go-along-to-get-along (attitude)," he said.
So, because of this "access game," journalism has degenerated into a "very perilous state," he said in response to a question from his on-stage interviewer, FireDogLake.com writer Jane Hamsher. (Editors' note: News.com on Tuesday published its full one-on-one interview with Dan Rather.)
Rather left CBS last year in the wake of a scandal surrounding questionable documentation for a story accusing President George Bush of being absent without leave during his military service. Today, Rather works as a journalist for entrepreneur Mark Cuban's HDNet network.
In his speech, he touched on the state of the Internet as a way to get information and news to people.
"The Internet is a tremendous tool for not just news, (because) its potential is unlimited for that," Rather said, but for "illumination and opening things up."
But he spent most of his time on stage talking about why he thinks many people have lost faith in journalists.
One reason, Rather said, is that questioning power, especially at a time of war, can be perceived as unpatriotic or unsupportive of America's fighting troops. That's "a very serious charge in this country," Rather said.
"We've brought it on ourselves," he added, "partly because we've lost the sense that (the) patriotic journalist will be on his or her feet asking the tough questions. My role as a member of the press is to be sometimes a check and balance on power."
Indeed, Rather's ascent to the pinnacles of power in journalism came as a result of his reputation for asking very tough questions and--as Hampshire pointed out--not being afraid to ask follow-up questions, of powerful people like President Richard Nixon, the first President George Bush, current President Bush, Saddam Hussein, and many others.
"In many ways," said Rather to loud applause, "what we in journalism need is a spine transplant."
Rather reiterated his feeling that many journalists today--and he repeated that he has fallen for this trap--are willing to get too cozy with people in positions of power, be it in government or corporate life.
"The nexus between powerful journalists and people in government and corporate power," he said, "has become far too close."
You can get so close to a source that you become part of the problem, he added. "Some people say that these powerful people use journalists, and they do. And they will use them to the fullest extent possible, right up until the point where the journalist says, 'Whoa, that's too far.'" It is incumbent on journalists to be willing to risk their access to power to seek out the truth behind a story, he said. And they shouldn't be willing to water down the truth to protect their access to power.
Rather also said that the consolidation of power in a small number of media companies has hurt the search for the truth in newsrooms across the country. As media conglomerates get bigger, the gap between newsrooms and boardrooms grows, and the goal becomes satisfying shareholders, not citizens, he said.
Therefore, Rather supports increased competition between media companies and between journalists. "So next time someone says, 'I believe in the capitalist system,'" he said, "tell them Dan Rather says 'Amen.'"
Rather reiterated the journalist's role as a watchdog.
"Not as an attack dog...But what does the lapdog do? He just crawls into someone's lap," he said. "A good watchdog barks at everything that's suspicious. I submit to you, the American press' role is to be a watchdog." Hampshire then asked Rather about the state of the Internet and how useful it can be in helping to inform people.
Rather responded that he sees a lot of potential in the Internet, and in the blogosphere in particular, but that he worries about anonymity on a lot of Web sites and blogs.
He said it's very easy to attack someone when you don't have to put your name to your complaints. He's not sure how to strike the right balance between professional and citizen journalism, but he believes the market will eventually provide that solution.
In the end, Rather said, the American people must understand that the news does matter, and that what they see happening on TV or read about on the Internet, is real. War, he said, is real.
"What happens on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul does matter on Main Street."
