Why CNN is worthless
ForteanC
1. Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
2. The Lapdog Conversion of CNN
[1]
James Patterson
Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
http://www.indystar.com/article.php?ecolpatterson24.html,opinion
August 24, 2002
The Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Dan Burton of
Indiana, was back sniffing around Oklahoma City last week looking for
reasons to believe that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had help.
They found plenty. Committee lawyer Marc Chretien interviewed at least
six people who claimed to have seen McVeigh keeping company with
foreign-looking men in the days, even minutes, before the bombing on
April 19, 1995.
What keeps Burton and others pursuing the theory that Nichols and
McVeigh, who was executed at Terre Haute last summer for his role in
the blast, weren't smart enough to have orchestrated such an
abominable plot all by their lonesome? Three reasons: Jayna Davis,
David Schippers and Larry Johnson, each a fascinating story in his/her
own right.
Davis, an Oklahoma City mother and wife, was at ground zero within
minutes of the 9:02 a.m. explosion. She was working as a top gun for
NBC affiliate KFOR after a stint with KCRA in Sacramento, the
network's No. 3 affiliate, and after graduation from the University of
Texas as a class valedictorian.
If Davis is no lightweight, neither are Schippers and Johnson.
Schippers is a savvy Chicago lawyer who's risking his considerable
reputation and, frankly, place in history by traversing the country to
convince people of what Davis found.
Schippers has taken a huge gamble in lending his name to the
declaration that foreigners -- most prominently an Iraqi national --
conspired with McVeigh, Nichols and "others unknown" (as the federal
indictment proclaimed) to bring down the federal building killing 168.
He is former chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary
Committee in the 1998 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.
Johnson, former deputy director of the State Department's Office of
Counter Terrorism, can't be easily dismissed either. He regularly
appears on Fox news shows telling this story and has deeply placed law
enforcement contacts who have confirmed his suspicions that the
Department of Justice should reopen the case because he believes the
Middle Eastern terrorist cell is still operational.
If it's true that Oklahoma bombing ties run all the way to Saddam
Hussein, that would mean we go to war against Iraq.
So what is this slam dunk evidence that Davis has, over which
high-powered men would wager their lofty careers? And why does our
government, with the exception of a principled few like Burton, keep
ignoring Davis, Schippers, Johnson, hundreds of Oklahomans and others
across the country who are convinced of a broader bombing conspiracy?
Simply put, Justice has refused to pursue evidence that McVeigh and
Nichols conspired with foreign nationals, specifically, a group of
Middle Eastern-born men who had moved to Oklahoma City to work for a
local property management company owned by a Palestinian ex-con in
November 1994.
Here's a sample of Davis' evidence that the congressional committee is
uncovering:
Within 49 days of the bombing, despite the fact the FBI had blamed
it on anti-government radicals McVeigh and Nichols, Davis nailed down
eyewitnesses who had put disgruntled Gulf-War veteran McVeigh in a
tavern drinking beer four days before the blast with a former Gulf War
Iraqi soldier who worked for the property company.
Davis has amassed 26 sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses who
implicate eight Arab men who colluded with McVeigh and Nichols at
various stages of the bombing plot; classified intelligence papers
proving the U.S. suspected Middle Eastern involvement in the plot and
had warned government agencies against a pending attack; as well as
court documents, public records and statements from law enforcement
officers that independently corroborate the eyewitnesses' testimony.
Several of the witnesses directly link eight Middle Eastern men,
most of whom are former Iraqi soldiers, to McVeigh and Nichols.
Seven of those witnesses, through a photo lineup, link one of the
soldiers in particular to McVeigh, the Ryder truck that exploded, the
Murrah Building and a getaway pickup truck that sped away, for which
police were looking moments after the blast.
Why are Burton's people spending time in Oklahoma? Who needs to ask?
( http://www.indystar.com/article.php?ecolpatterson24.html,opinion )
[2]
CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo0823.html
August 23, 2002
"Yes, We Censored News About
Afghanistan"
The Lapdog Conversion of
CNN
by Kurt Nimmo
In an August 15 news item carried by Press
Gazette Online, Rena Golden, the executive
vice-president and general manager of CNN
International, admitted censoring news
regarding the US war in Afghanistan. This
censorship, she explained, "wasn't a matter of
government pressure, but a reluctance to
criticize anything in a war that was obviously
supported by the vast majority of the people."
How exactly the American public are expected
to judge the validity of the US war in
Afghanistan--and, indeed, the entire war on
terrorism--when news organizations refuse to
provide crucial information is not explained. In
essence, Golden admits public opinion is cast
by one source--the government--and the media
has essentially abrogated its responsibility to
provide additional, even contrary information on
these momentous issues.
Additionally, CNN New Delhi chief Satinder
Bindra said many journalists pushed "harder
than they should for a story," thus endangering
the lives of other journalists covering the war
from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bindra did not
comment on how exactly journalists might be
expected to receive information for their
stories, or what precisely constitutes pushing
"harder than they should." Maybe Bindra
expects them to remain ensconced in their
Islamabad hotel rooms and wait patiently for
the news to arrive by courier? Or stay in
Washington and rely on Donald Rumsfeld as
their only source?
While many journalists complained about
military imposed censorship during the Persian
Gulf War a decade ago, it now appears the
corporate media has decided on its own to
censor the news without external limitation
imposed by the Pentagon. In other words, the
corporate media has in essence become a
rather short-sighted and assentive propaganda
organ for the Bush administration. Remarkably,
they attribute this lapdog conversion to a desire
not to offend public opinion, which they
arrogantly assume is entirely monolithic. It
would seem CNN is now the official government
news agency.
As official Bush administration propaganda
mills, CNN and other corporate news networks
have obsequiously agreed to a White House
demand not to broadcast unedited remarks by
Usama bin Laden. The White House wasted no
time in exacting likewise from newspapers in
regard to print transcripts. "In a bizarre and
unprecedented move," Veronica Forwood,
chairwoman of the British branch of Reporters
without Borders, remarked, "the five major
networks--CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News
Channel--have rolled over and acquiesced to the
call for censorship from the US president's
security adviser Condoleeza Rice."
During the Persian Gulf War, however, things
were different--some of the media did not so
easily roll over and play dead like a dog straight
out of obedience school. In 1991, Harper's, The
Village Voice, The Nation, and others sued,
claiming government censorship was a violation
of the First Amendment. Predictably, the major
corporate newspapers and TV networks refused
to join the lawsuit. Instead, as now, they
simply ingratiated themselves with the
Pentagon and dutifully spoon-fed the public
censored and heavily excised information (if not
outright lies and fabrications). The lawsuit was
eventually dismissed by a judge who didn't
want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. It would
seem the media of decades past was made of
brawnier stuff than the media of today.
John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine,
wistfully entertained the idea of suing again,
but he was less than sanguine about the
prospect. "We might sue again, some small
lawsuits, some civil libertarians may do so, but
it's hopeless," he told the German journalist
Gerti Schoen back in September. "This will be
the most censored war in history... It won't just
be censorship, but silence." While we have not
exactly received complete silence, the news
trickling out of Afghanistan is, to say the least,
highly stage managed and tilted for a world of
spin.
So confident is the Pentagon corporate media
resides in its hip pocket that back in December
they dropped a requirement demanding
journalists covering Afghanistan be part of an
exclusive and authorized group, otherwise
known as a "press pool." The press pool concept
was devised in 1983 when the US invaded
Grenada. It was updated in 1991 during the
Persian Gulf War after publishers such as
MacArthur began murmuring about military
censorship. The relaxation of the press pool
rules in December, however, did not prevent the
military from denying journalists access to the
war zone. On December 6, when American
troops were hit by a stray bomb north of
Kandahar, photojournalists were locked in a
warehouse by Marines to make sure they didn't
take pictures of wounded soldiers.
More recently, media access to the Uruzgan
wedding massacre was sharply curtailed. When
journalists in Kabul submitted a request to join
press officers at the Bagram air base--in order
to travel by helicopter to the site--they were
steadfastly denied permission by the military.
Only two journalists traveled with US
investigators to villages near Deh Rawud--one
was a reporter from the US armed forces
newspaper Stars and Stripes and the other was
cameraman from the Associated Press
Television Network. The chief US media officer
at Bagram, Colonel Roger King, told those left
behind they would have no right of access to
the pool reporters' work. King's statement was
a contradiction of the Pentagon's own press
pool guidelines. As a result of this decision, it
took four days for information about the
Uruzgan wedding massacre to be made public.
Allegations were later leveled by United Nations
workers, accusing the military of changing the
press pool rules in order to limit access to the
area and thus destroy evidence, a charge the
Pentagon naturally denied.
But the Pentagon's war against media coverage
in Afghanistan is not limited to reporters and
news crews on the ground. In October, as the
brass busily prepared for war, they used public
money, at the none too shabby tune of $2
million per month, to secure exclusive rights to
all new high-quality commercial spy satellite
images of Afghanistan. During a policy debate
on the release of satellite imagery, the idea
was floated that the Pentagon might shoot
down the commercial satellites if they were not
allowed to control the images. Regardless, in
December the Pentagon decided not to continue
the exclusive contract. Considering CNN's recent
admission of tailoring news in deference to the
sensitivities of the American people, access to
satellite photography is a moot point--chances
are they would not publish them anyway.
It would seem Americans need to be protected
from the harsh realities of war--or, more likely,
as in the case of Vietnam, their visceral
abhorrence to it--when it comes to
documentaries, as well. When Irish director
Jamie Doran released his controversial
documentary--Massacre in Mazar--in Europe, not
one major US newspaper or television network
covered the story, which essentially resulted in
a news black out in the United States. Doran's
film documents the aftermath of the massacre
of hundreds of Taliban fighters at the
Mazar-i-Sharif prison Qala-i-Jangi. In the
documentary, dead prisoners are shown with
hands tied behind their backs. Eyewitnesses
describe the torture and slaughter of some
3,000 prisoners who were subsequently buried
in the desert. While the Pentagon has denied
any complicity in the torture and massacre of
the POWs, many European parliamentary
deputies and human rights advocates have
called for an independent investigation into the
atrocities. The human rights lawyer Andrew
McEntee said it is "clear there is prima facie
evidence of serious war crimes committed not
just under international law, but also under the
laws of the United States itself." Nonetheless,
CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, et al, decided not to run
coverage of the film or announce the possibility
of an investigation. Much later, however, when
the massacre story simply became too high
profile to ignore, it did receive a degree of
limited coverage in the United States.
Fortunately, the press in Britain and Europe has
an excellent track record of covering stories the
US media have consistently (and deliberately)
ignored at the behest of the Pentagon and the
Bush administration. Thanks to the Internet,
these stories can be read by Americans without
access to foreign newspapers. Both the
Guardian and the UK Independent carry
alternative news (available via the Web)--and
also carry reports and editorials by award
winning journalists such as Robert Fisk and
John Pilger. These are news stories and
opinions The NY Times would never touch.
We no longer live in a world of hermetically
sealed information. For those Americans thirsty
for truth--and who do not take kindly to their
news being sanitized and rubber stamped by
the Pentagon and unelected presidents--there
are more than a few sources out there.
Rick Wilson
from CNN, don't hold your breath. Here's the listing of their
current senior editorial staff:
Walter Isaacson - Chairman and CEO, CNN News Group, which includes:
CNN/U.S.; CNN Headline News; CNN International; CNNfn (the financial
news network); CNN Airport Network; CNNRadio; CNN en Español Radio
(formerly Radio Noticias); CNN en Español; three out-of-home,
place-based networks; 12 Web sites; and CNN Newsource, the world's
most extensively syndicated news service.
Sid Bedingfield - Executive Editor, CNN News Group. Working directly
with Chairman and CEO Walter Isaacson on overall editorial vision
across the networks. Bedingfield reports to Isaacson.
Eason Jordan - Chief news executive and newsgathering president for
the CNN News Group. Oversees CNN's worldwide news coverage, the
network's editorial policy and direction, CNN's Satellites and
Circuits department and CNN Newsource's affiliate news-feed service,
which is distributed to approximately 900 broadcasters worldwide.
He also contributes to CNN's strategic planning as a member of the
CNN Executive Committee.
Nan Richards - President, Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) Europe
Ltd. Responsible for the commercial activities of CNN, Turner
Classic Movies, Cartoon Network and Boomerang's television and new
media services.
David Levy - Co-president, Turner Broadcasting System International.
Share responsibilities for overseeing TBS, Inc.'s wide-ranging
interactive and cable network business activities in Asia, Europe
and Latin America, including all sales and marketing, programming
and business development, joint partnerships and business alliances
outside the United Sates.
Andy Bird - Co-president, Turner Broadcasting System International.
Bird alongside Co-president David Levy, jointly oversees TBS Inc.'s
wide-ranging cable network and interactive business activities in
Asia, Europe and Latin America.
Rena Golden - Executive Vice-President and General Manager, CNN
International. She is responsible for six English-language
international CNN networks that reach an audience of more than
160 million viewers in 212 countries and territories.
Richard Davis - Executive Vice-President of CNN News Standards
and Practices. Davis works to ensure that the CNN News Group's
on-air reports and programs are fair, accurate and responsible.
Kira Grishkoff - Senior International Editor. Responsible for the
planning and co-ordination of news out of CNN's 18 bureaus in Europe,
the Middle East and Africa.
Chris Cramer - President, CNN International Networks. Responsible
for the CNN News Group's rapidly expanding news networks and web
sites outside of the United States. Cramer reports to Walter Isaacson,
Chairman and CEO of the CNN News Group.
Kambei Shimada
>TWO ARTICLES:
>1. Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
>2. The Lapdog Conversion of CNN
>
>
>[1]
>
>James Patterson
>
>Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
>http://www.indystar.com/article.php?ecolpatterson24.html,opinion
>August 24, 2002
>
Burton, Schippers, and don't forget - Judicial Watch also thinks there
are foreign co-conspirators.
How come no one other than a nutcase gives credence to this?
Were it true - would the proponents have to be those widely
considered lunatics?
Why not a Senator Lugar?
Someone actually respected for being sane?
Any of those?
No.
So this must be a really flaky story.
Takashi
ForteanC
Faulty reasoning and poor judgement on your part, in my opinion. Can't
you think for yourself? That would require actually looking at the
evidence and thinking about it--and that would be hard.
By the way, what is a flake? Too often, it is a label that allows
people to dismiss what they don't understand.
Kambei Shimada
But Mr Burton has supported so many flaky notions, that his cries of
Wolf are not really worth spending much time on.
There are so many claims in life, that we must pick and choose.
So it helps avoid wasted time to focus more on reliable sources than
on others.
And Mr Schippers? Good grief. He supported a fellow who made the crazy
claim that Mrs Clinton, when she was an aide at the impeachment
hearings for Nixon, found the "real" documents laying down the law on
what is and what is not an impeachible offense and hid them, to get
Nixon, so that no one else has ever seen them.
That is a lunatic notion, and Mr Shippers treated the proponent of
that crack pot idea as a credible person.
Again - if you have someone known to cry Wolf about mice, maybe it is
a waste of time to pay too much attention to them.
We have to use filters - too much info.
A filter - reliable source - makes sense.
>
>By the way, what is a flake? Too often, it is a label that allows
>people to dismiss what they don't understand.
A flake is a type of fish, I think.
Takashi
Ellen Mercer
> TWO ARTICLES:
> 1. Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
> 2. The Lapdog Conversion of CNN
Hate to come in with logic and intelligence here, I know this is no
place for such things. But last time I checked, CNN did not have a
monopoly on "news" in this country. So why is "CNN" alone blamed for
your imaginary lapses? No, don't change the subject, I want THIS
question answered.
Thanks in advance!
ForteanC
> fort...@aol.com (ForteanC) wrote in message news:<721a3ed.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > TWO ARTICLES:
> > 1. Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
> > 2. The Lapdog Conversion of CNN
>
> Hate to come in with logic and intelligence here,
And so you didn't!
I know this is no
> place for such things. But last time I checked, CNN did not have a
> monopoly on "news" in this country. So why is "CNN" alone blamed for
> your imaginary lapses?
CNN is not alone to be blamed. It's NBC and ABC and CBS and the major
newspapers, especially on the East Coast. There is a glimmer of hope
in radio, particularly some netcast programs. The journalistic heroes
of our day are using the Net to spread the news about the elitism and
wickedness in high places in government and industry.
CNN is heard around the world and is truly, I think, the most "owned"
of the American news networks--some of their top people are flagrantly
using the revolving doors to and from the Pentagon and the White
House, for God's sake--the fourth estate is NOT separate, it's part of
the same elitist structure. CNN is touted as the most prestigious news
source operating from the United States, but they are little more than
the White House's propaganda arm.
If you really want news to think about and to learn from, try these
sources. No particlular order of importance intended by the list. Good
luck.
http://counterpunch.org/
http://www.gregpalast.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.citizen.org/ (founded by Nader)
http://emperors-clothes.com/
http://www.rense.com
http://www.hereinreality.com/
http://worldpress.org/ (news from the world's newspapers)
http://newsworldorder.tripod.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
http://www.bushwatch.org/
http://www.freespeech.org/
http://news.openflows.org/
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/
http://www.whtt.org/ (We Hold These
Truths)http://www.propagandamatrix.com/thepropagandamatrix.html
http://www.whale.to/
http://www.gjf.org/NBORDC/
http://sweetliberty.org/ (Council on Domestic Relations)
http://www.konformist.com/ (many more links here)
http://www.copvcia.com/ (From the Wilderness Publications)
http://newsmax.com/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
http://consortiumnews.com/
http://www.realityzone.com/
http://globalissues.org/ ("Censorship is by omission and misuse of
language" )
http://fear.org/ (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation
)
http://www.self-gov.org/
America is its People, not its ruling elite.
God Bless America.
Ellen Mercer
> ellena...@aol.com (Ellen Mercer) wrote in message news:<5535905a.020...@posting.google.com>...
> > fort...@aol.com (ForteanC) wrote in message news:<721a3ed.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > TWO ARTICLES:
> > > 1. Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
> > > 2. The Lapdog Conversion of CNN
> >
> > Hate to come in with logic and intelligence here,
>
> And so you didn't!
>
> I know this is no
> > place for such things. But last time I checked, CNN did not have a
> > monopoly on "news" in this country. So why is "CNN" alone blamed for
> > your imaginary lapses?
>
> CNN is not alone to be blamed. It's NBC and ABC and CBS and the major
> newspapers, especially on the East Coast. There is a glimmer of hope
> in radio, particularly some netcast programs. The journalistic heroes
> of our day are using the Net to spread the news about the elitism and
> wickedness in high places in government and industry.
>
> CNN is heard around the world and is truly, I think, the most "owned"
> of the American news networks--some of their top people are flagrantly
> using the revolving doors to and from the Pentagon and the White
> House, for God's sake--the fourth estate is NOT separate, it's part of
> the same elitist structure. CNN is touted as the most prestigious news
> source operating from the United States, but they are little more than
> the White House's propaganda arm.
Well it is still sad but true that to get the most credible sources it
is often advantageous to ge the people who are actively or recently
making the news themselves, by virtue of having held high governmental
positions. They have the contacts, the info and the wherewithall to
get facts that are otherwise hard to get.
But no one wants to chase the phantoms and shadows of supposedly
"foreign looking" men, given that all Americans except for maybe a few
Indians are "foreign looking" by definition. Hint: we're all
immigrants. I can imagine that some of the militia types really don't
care to deal with the idea that a wingnut terrorist could do such a
thing. Deal with it. Liberally admixed among the modern wingnut
population is a fringe of people who so detest imaginary "liberals",
with their imaginary "black helicopters", who hold that abortion is a
crime of the highest order that should be punishable by vigilante
death squads. Look to Colombia for examples of how these people can
operate if they get out of control.
Deal with it. Facing these things head-on is the first step in dealing
with the existence of this type of creature. Don't look to imaginary
swarthy foreigners to explain all of our problems.