"Agenda-free whistleblowing" and the MSM
Mort Zuckerman
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, FalN...@aol.com,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@po.state.ct.us,
randall...@usdoj.gov
Subject: "Agenda-free whistleblowing" and the MSM
Date: Sep 3, 2008 12:16 AM
Uh, the CDC and Kaiser-Permanente have common interests in not
revealing the immune-suppression outcomes of "Lyme Disease" or chronic
Lyme (Plum Island's mycoplasmally-enhanced Relapsing Fever) because
spirochetes are stealth disablers that permanently infect the brain.
http://www.actionlyme.org/JohnDunn_Brookhaven.htm
The mycoplasma are known to be associated with arthritis, so if Lyme
was intended to be an enhanced bioweapon, it as the arthritis that
was the disabling intent, since that's what they were doing with
some of this junk in Unit 731. They were after a lameness-inducing
bioweapon to be used as an anti-personnel agent, at that time.
Plum Island was the likely accidental release point as previously
demonstrated:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIOWEAPONEERS_CORIXA_YALE_TLRS.htm
CDC also has an interest in not revealing that childhood
immunizations
do not completely work in many children and that the kids either
acquire
a subclinical infection or an encephalitis (SSPE) from the drug or
the
carrier, that is not the function of the infection (virus) itself,
but
is rather a CDC-proprietary HLA or MHC restricted response.
Now, we know the powers that be are half-coming around on this
because the Times recently reported genetically-tailored drugs
are on the horizon. Until this recently, we were not allowed to
know about "race specific bioweapons" or these HLA liabilities.
We found out about all of it due to Yale's Lyme crimes, obviously.
We KNEW Steere was lying about the testing for Lyme since it did not
make any sense on its face. How could one be expected to have a
positive ELISA, but then need to have 5 bands on a Western Blot, when
each band is as accurate for diagnosis as its assigned specificity,
and
mostly, Why would ONE test be the criterion to later find as many
as 5 markers in the next?
Thus, there is no agenda-free whistleblowing here. I was an
analytical
chemist before I was a mother of children with congenital Lyme:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Schoen.htm
And having gotten 100% better from 3+ months of intravenous
ceftriaxone and wanting everyone to know about it would hardly
rate as a private "agenda." It was a public agenda.
http://www.actionlyme.org/PHILLIPS_JE_PERVERT.htm
Beyond that, as regards the Lyme crimes and the New York Times
this writer is completely right on in their assessment of the
no-dick major media.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
=======================
http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/
NY Times does it again: More 'Judy Miller' tapdancing (Pt3)
A front page article "In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, a Web of Shadowy
Deals"
in last Monday's New York Times by David Sanger and William Broad
details the
destruction of evidence by the US government in a case involving the
nuclear black
market.
The article highlights again that the New York Times continues to
engage in 'Judy
Miller reporting' by warmongering and acting as a mouthpiece for the
government.
This is the third article in a multi-part series. This article will
focus on the
NY Times' appalling reliance on government-friendly sources, the lack
of any
actual investigative reporting, the lack of supporting evidence, and
the absence
of any dissenting views. (The first piece of the series focused on the
players in
the AQ Khan / BSA Tahir nuclear smuggling ring, the second article
focused on the
countries involved.)
Given the New York Times recent history of being used and abused by
their anonymous
government sources you might think they ought to be a little more
diligent when
reporting a story such as this, but apparently they haven't learnt
their lesson
from the recent debacles such as Iraq/WMD or Anthrax/Hatfill.
David Sanger and William Broad need look no further back than their
early reporting
on this same story to see how badly they are getting spun - although
given their
performance, it appears that they don't even care.
As just one example, that previous article was a transparent attempt
to spin the
story away from the fact that the US government bailed out members of
the AQ Khan
nuclear proliferation network. The article noted that the AQ Khan had
nuclear "blueprints"
which are "rapidly reproducible for creating a weapon that is
relatively small
and easy to hide" which makes these weapons "attractive to
terrorists."
Now Sanger and Broad tell us in their current article that these plans
are "sketchy
and incomplete" which have "little or no value for a terrorist..."
There was no correction, no apology, no remorse or embarrassment, and
apparently
no lessons learned.
Despite this history, Broad and Sanger again spoke to "five current
and former
Bush administration officials" - presumably the same sources as their
previous
article - and gave them the cover of anonymity to again spread
transparent nonsense.
Apparently Sanger and Broad didn't even wonder why a handful of Bush
administration
officials were willing to talk to them about these 'classified'
operations,
and it surely won't occur to them to ask why the Bush administration
hasn't
opened up a leak investigation either.
Corroboration?
Last month, investigative journalist Joe Lauria joked that American
journalists
need five sources for something personally witnessed by the
journalist. This is
true for whistle-blowers, but there is a double-standard when it comes
to official
government sources. This kid-glove treatment of US officials is
remarkable given
the lies that we have been fed, particularly over the past seven
years.
Did Sanger and Broad actually do anything to corroborate the story
apart from speak
to the five Bush officials who were all singing off the same hymn-
sheet? Did they
interview Richard Barlow, expert on Pakistan's nuclear program for his
thoughts?
Did they ask decorated British customs agent Atif Amin whether the
story made any
sense? Or former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds? Of course not.
Perhaps Sanger and Broad could have, for example, asked 'Dr Brian
Jones, a former
defence intelligence WMD specialist,' for his opinion. He was quoted
in the
Guardian on this very story back in June saying that he was
"suspicious that
the disclosure might be politically motivated." But that sort of thing
would
never get published in a US newspaper - unless it was a government
source trying
to undermine a whistle-blower.
Standard of Proof
If a whistle-blower tries to shed some light on government wrongdoing,
then the
Corporate Press in the US demands documents and multiple points of
corroboration,
and even then often don't run the story. They will question his or her
motives,
or they will argue that it is too difficult to establish the
legitimacy of the whistle-blower
case, or simply accept the government's denials.
In many cases, this standard of proof is legitimate, but it is applied
so inconsistently
that it turns the newspapers into organs of the government. The US
corporate media
will publish just about anything the government says, despite the Bush
administration's
documented history of lying to the press and the public. On the other
hand, it is
nearly impossible to get the US press to write about important matters
that are
not government-approved.
Again, take the case of Sibel Edmonds. Despite the fact that senators
from both
major parties reported that the case is credible, despite the fact
that the FBI
confirmed a lot of the case, despite the Justice Department's
Inspector General's
report, despite the State Secrets Privilege, despite the fact that
there has not
been a single substantial denial, despite the corroboration by Phil
Giraldi, a CIA
agent based in Turkey, despite the corroboration from veteran FBI
agents John Cole
and Gilbert Graham, the US media still can't report on the story.
I asked Sibel for a quote on this story, she said:
"You see this over and over again, and I'm not just talking about
my
case. As you know, my organization represents nearly 150 National
Security whistle-blowers,
and dealing with the US mainstream media, both the networks and print,
we have faced
the same double standards and bias consistently. Even if you get a
high-ranking
National Security whistle-blower with an impeccable record and no
agenda, the response
from the US media is "We need at least 2 or 3 more independent
witnesses, as
well as hard documents."
The same media reports the government propaganda & agenda-driven
leaks as
undisputed fact, based on a statement from a spokesperson from one of
the agencies;
no request for documents, no request for independent witnesses...
Another interesting thing with the whistle-blower cases is that
the MSM always
use words such as 'allegations' but when they act as government
mouthpieces,
you rarely see any evidence of doubt or phrases like that."
We've heard from numerous sources that the US government warned
reporters off
writing about Sibel's story earlier this year after the UK's Times
published
their series on the case. The reporters were told that they would be
compromising
a sting operation and harming national security if they published any
information
about this case - and they all fell for it! The same is true of the
alternate media
including the blogosphere to a large extent. Steve Clemons, respected
by many, apparently
spoke to some of his State Dept friends before deciding that Sibel
must have been
only seen the ""raw intel", unprocessed, or coordinated"
communications
of a sting operation - despite the corroboration of the FBI agents
involved in the
operation.
US Press vs Foreign Press
Sibel has another example involving the nuclear black market and the
US press:
"Let me give you one other example, Luke. In 2004 when Josh Meyer
of the
LA Times did a long but incomplete story on the Karni case, it was
reported to him
that one of the most important actors and angles in his article was
that of Zeki
Bilmen & Giza Technology. Bilmen's role and nationality were
conveniently
censored in the article.
Despite my efforts to get Meyer to report the relevance and
significance of
the Bilmen angle, and the FBI's files on him, Meyer bought in to the
government's
protection of Turkey and the Turkish angle. Of course, later, other
outlets (mostly
foreign) picked up Bilmen's significance, but still not a peep or
follow-up
to this day from the LA Times on this important story."
Somehow, in the logic of the US corporate press, it is more legitimate
to print
unsubstantiated claims of a warmongering administration, with a
history of lying
in order to go to war, than the substantiated claims of Sibel Edmonds
who has consistently
demonstrated a clean, agenda-free, non-partisan, track record of
trying to expose
high-level officials whose activities endanger us all.
The foreign press is much better in these matters. The Guardian's
reporting
on the nuclear black market has been way ahead of the pack. Their May
31 article
on the destruction of evidence in the Tinner case was 3 months ahead
of this latest
nonsense from the NY Times (which also calls into question the timing
of this later
Sanger/broad article), they have also reported on the case of Atif
Amin, and shown
appropriate skepticism regarding the leaks and spin on the Tinner
case. Germany's
Der Spiegel has also done great reporting on this nuclear black market
ring.
"Make-Believe Journalism
For this article, I also interviewed Joe Lauria who was co-author of
the UK's
Sunday Times series on Sibel's case. I'll quote him extensively here:
"Obviously I believe that government sources must be held up to
the same
scrutiny as critics of government. Both need supporting evidence to
back up their
claims. When an official says something it might be "official" but
it's
not necessarily true. The role of corporate media as stenographer for
government
has grown in recent years, with Judy Miller's case being the most
prominent.
But I believe the dictates of careerism and the desire to be included
in the "inner
circle", especially in Washington, coupled with a vicarious sense of
power,
leads mainstream journalists to uncritically report the statements of
government
officials...
There was a brief period when American journalism fulfilled its
promised, during
the Watergate scandal. But today the vast majority of corporate
reporters essentially
fulfill the role of a state-owned press. Since we live in a
corporatist state, it's
not far off from the truth. I also think there is an element of
naivete here. Many
journalists really believe that government officials are working in
the people's
interests and not, more often, working for their own interests and
those of their
elite backers...
The result of all this is that American news reporting creates a
“make-believe”,
almost childish view of America’s role in the world. It transmits the
American myth
of the nobility of America’s foreign policy and use of the military to
spread democracy,
or look for weapons of mass destruction, never entertaining that
America could be
the aggressor. The media is still rooted in America’s role in the
Second World War
as liberator, not explaining that that has diametrically changed. The
reason for
this is simple: it is a corporate press providing this “make-believe”
cover for
corporate and government agendas. Behind this media-created buffer or
curtain between
the people and the power is US involvement in the shadows with drug
dealing, nuclear
proliferation and terrorism. Even a suspicion of these dealings never
gets through
the curtain of news and entertainment distraction to reach the
American people.
The leading presidential candidates and the conventions of both
parties of course
uphold these myths, never leveling with the American people. Therefore
they do not
know that there is only so much money to pay for a military empire or
for social
services at home. And the press never explains it in these stark
terms."
Summary
David Sanger & William Broad continue to promote the "make-believe"
view of American foreign policy, hiding anything of significance from
the American
people.
They might serve a useful purpose for their government masters, but
their function
certainly isn't as 'journalists.' Whatever the reason for the Times
to provide the government's preferred spin on this case, David Sanger
and William
Broad have earned their place in the Judy Miller Hall of Fame.