Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Taupe
Dec 11, 2018, 11:58:03 PM12/11/18
to
How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
December 10, 2018 Caitlin Johnstone
HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON
IT.
Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act
just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably
pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so
consistently marginalize any idea that doesn't fit within the extremely
narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who
inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the
losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial
toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the
US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of
the nations within it?
There is no consistency in how mass arrests are depicted in Western media.
If this took place in a "hostile" country, it would be declared
state-sponsored repression by an authoritarian regime
https://t.co/xFmJNwlgBE
- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 9, 2018
The way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the unanimous
consensus in mass media on these issues:
Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all
telling the truth all the time.
OR
Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in
place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false
picture about what's going on in the world.
Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any
mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that
Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC
and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what's really going on in the
world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they're all
describing the same objective reality.
But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media
reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same
power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no
good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive,
uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions
which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the
profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those
institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no
criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate
destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian
surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing
internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all
things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the
mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream
media gave them about what's in their best interests.
Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is
spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which
these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we
should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting
of the status quo. But we don't. We see war crimes ignored, oppression
justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives
smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by
government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable
fact.
But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This part of a 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and the BBC's Andrew Marr
describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in
place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are
there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a
particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo.
Chomsky describes a "filtering system" which ensures that only those loyal
to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr
objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to
account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative
reporters in the United States, I won't mention names, whose attitude
towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the
media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try
to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they'll try to
squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn't make it through. And it's
perfectly true that the majority - I'm sure you're speaking for the majority
of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this
is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very
self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value
judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often
regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think
a very realistic one.
Marr: How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that
journalists are..
Chomsky: I'm not saying you're self censoring. I'm sure you believe
everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed
something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
"If you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're
sitting."
It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the
extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media
is in and of itself a profitable investment, "like having a license to print
your own money" as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So
when it comes to the news media outlets which form people's perceptions of
the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform
anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset
the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly
wouldn't make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like
socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government
agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the
foundation of the plutocrat's dynasty and cause him to lose everything.
Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in
order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their
wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the
course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery
is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein
deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant
and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages
upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer
and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk
upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which
challenge the very governmental system they've worked so hard to manipulate
to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep
everyone supporting the status quo?
How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a
platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be
for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only
establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors
and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All
they're actually tweeting is "Look at me, current or future employer! I will
smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I'll say Corbyn
is an antisemite!" And the MSM bosses pay attention.
- Caitlin Johnstone ? (@caitoz) December 9, 2018
[The damn careerism imperative]
If you've ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate
media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful
and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own
free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite,
attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas
against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence
agency assertions as fact not because there's a CIA officer hovering over
their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because
they're auditioning for a job. They're creating a public record of their
establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when
weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism
schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a
social media presence to "build their brand", i.e. their public resume.
So it's very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not
predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is
artificially built, and now you've got an environment where someone who
stands up and says "Uh, hey, so we still haven't seen any actual hard
evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way" or
whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe
Aaron Maté's interactions with other journalists on social media for a good
example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.
I want to note what a mind-blowing time it is for liberal media culture.
For rejecting a Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, the small # of us leftists
who do so are treated as heretics. Far from being hurt by it, I'm actually
honored that people so credulous are so scornful: https://t.co/siuQwNrZg0
- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) December 10, 2018
Anyone who's ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social
pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who's ever
worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are
in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one's bosses. In any job
with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay
close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do
this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the
approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to
raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end.
You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be
extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.
It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be
consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they're expected
to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters
who've ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they
see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of
editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred
cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And
for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately
filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few
who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his
defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to
the Iraq invasion.
Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the
United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal
rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him.
https://t.co/yUjw97fUb2
- Mail & Guardian (@mailandguardian) December 10, 2018
So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices,
which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace
pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. It's easy to
understand how this by itself can create an environment of consensus which
has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives
favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all
those dynamics aren't the only factors going into making sure a consensus
worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned
earlier who isn't actively leaning over every journalist's shoulder and
dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he's not dictating every word
produced by the mass media machine doesn't mean he's not involved.
Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and
well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It
is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been
intimately involved in America's news media since the 1950s, and it remains
so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was
caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of
the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly
fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the
Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was
almost certainly the result of the outlet's collaboration with one or more
intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry
it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an
evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish
anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos,
who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post
under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback.
Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western
news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don't know
about.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1
and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious
to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of
support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because
there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying
to us and painting a false picture about what's going on in the world.
This doesn't mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the
time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by
omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is
functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling
me "Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real!
That means it's false!" But it doesn't work that way; if the TV tells you a
celebrity has died then it's probably true, and if they say it's about to
rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about
everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their
ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance
evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid
highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident
ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of
governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the
misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there's an opportunity
to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they
have to, and only as much as they need to.
In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people's
narratives about what's happening in their country and their world. This is
the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow
dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is
easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of
the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and
desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to
manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the
public to buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an
all-time low, and it's continuing to plummet. More and more people are
waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because
the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that
there are all these screens in everyone's lives telling them that real
change isn't needed.
The liars are against the ropes, and they're starting to look winded. A
populist information revolution is looking more winnable than ever.
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my
website(http://caitlinjohnstone.com/), which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely
reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it
around, liking me on Facebook(https://www.facebook.com/CaitlinAJohnstone/),
following my antics on Twitter(https://twitter.com/caitoz), throwing some
money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/12/10/how-plutocratic-media-keeps-staff-aligned-with-establishment-agendas/
--
'Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything
else is public relations.' - George Orwell
December 10, 2018 Caitlin Johnstone
HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON
IT.
Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act
just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably
pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so
consistently marginalize any idea that doesn't fit within the extremely
narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who
inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the
losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial
toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the
US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of
the nations within it?
There is no consistency in how mass arrests are depicted in Western media.
If this took place in a "hostile" country, it would be declared
state-sponsored repression by an authoritarian regime
https://t.co/xFmJNwlgBE
- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 9, 2018
The way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the unanimous
consensus in mass media on these issues:
Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all
telling the truth all the time.
OR
Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in
place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false
picture about what's going on in the world.
Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any
mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that
Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC
and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what's really going on in the
world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they're all
describing the same objective reality.
But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media
reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same
power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no
good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive,
uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions
which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the
profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those
institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no
criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate
destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian
surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing
internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all
things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the
mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream
media gave them about what's in their best interests.
Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is
spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which
these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we
should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting
of the status quo. But we don't. We see war crimes ignored, oppression
justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives
smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by
government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable
fact.
But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This part of a 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and the BBC's Andrew Marr
describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in
place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are
there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a
particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo.
Chomsky describes a "filtering system" which ensures that only those loyal
to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr
objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to
account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative
reporters in the United States, I won't mention names, whose attitude
towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the
media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try
to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they'll try to
squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn't make it through. And it's
perfectly true that the majority - I'm sure you're speaking for the majority
of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this
is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very
self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value
judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often
regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think
a very realistic one.
Marr: How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that
journalists are..
Chomsky: I'm not saying you're self censoring. I'm sure you believe
everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed
something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
"If you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're
sitting."
It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the
extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media
is in and of itself a profitable investment, "like having a license to print
your own money" as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So
when it comes to the news media outlets which form people's perceptions of
the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform
anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset
the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly
wouldn't make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like
socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government
agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the
foundation of the plutocrat's dynasty and cause him to lose everything.
Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in
order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their
wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the
course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery
is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein
deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant
and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages
upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer
and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk
upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which
challenge the very governmental system they've worked so hard to manipulate
to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep
everyone supporting the status quo?
How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a
platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be
for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only
establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors
and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All
they're actually tweeting is "Look at me, current or future employer! I will
smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I'll say Corbyn
is an antisemite!" And the MSM bosses pay attention.
- Caitlin Johnstone ? (@caitoz) December 9, 2018
[The damn careerism imperative]
If you've ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate
media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful
and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own
free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite,
attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas
against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence
agency assertions as fact not because there's a CIA officer hovering over
their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because
they're auditioning for a job. They're creating a public record of their
establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when
weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism
schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a
social media presence to "build their brand", i.e. their public resume.
So it's very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not
predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is
artificially built, and now you've got an environment where someone who
stands up and says "Uh, hey, so we still haven't seen any actual hard
evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way" or
whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe
Aaron Maté's interactions with other journalists on social media for a good
example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.
I want to note what a mind-blowing time it is for liberal media culture.
For rejecting a Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, the small # of us leftists
who do so are treated as heretics. Far from being hurt by it, I'm actually
honored that people so credulous are so scornful: https://t.co/siuQwNrZg0
- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) December 10, 2018
Anyone who's ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social
pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who's ever
worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are
in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one's bosses. In any job
with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay
close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do
this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the
approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to
raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end.
You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be
extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.
It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be
consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they're expected
to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters
who've ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they
see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of
editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred
cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And
for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately
filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few
who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his
defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to
the Iraq invasion.
Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the
United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal
rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him.
https://t.co/yUjw97fUb2
- Mail & Guardian (@mailandguardian) December 10, 2018
So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices,
which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace
pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. It's easy to
understand how this by itself can create an environment of consensus which
has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives
favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all
those dynamics aren't the only factors going into making sure a consensus
worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned
earlier who isn't actively leaning over every journalist's shoulder and
dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he's not dictating every word
produced by the mass media machine doesn't mean he's not involved.
Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and
well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It
is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been
intimately involved in America's news media since the 1950s, and it remains
so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was
caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of
the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly
fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the
Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was
almost certainly the result of the outlet's collaboration with one or more
intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry
it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an
evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish
anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos,
who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post
under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback.
Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western
news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don't know
about.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1
and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious
to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of
support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because
there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying
to us and painting a false picture about what's going on in the world.
This doesn't mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the
time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by
omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is
functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling
me "Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real!
That means it's false!" But it doesn't work that way; if the TV tells you a
celebrity has died then it's probably true, and if they say it's about to
rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about
everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their
ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance
evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid
highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident
ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of
governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the
misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there's an opportunity
to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they
have to, and only as much as they need to.
In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people's
narratives about what's happening in their country and their world. This is
the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow
dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is
easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of
the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and
desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to
manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the
public to buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an
all-time low, and it's continuing to plummet. More and more people are
waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because
the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that
there are all these screens in everyone's lives telling them that real
change isn't needed.
The liars are against the ropes, and they're starting to look winded. A
populist information revolution is looking more winnable than ever.
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my
website(http://caitlinjohnstone.com/), which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely
reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it
around, liking me on Facebook(https://www.facebook.com/CaitlinAJohnstone/),
following my antics on Twitter(https://twitter.com/caitoz), throwing some
money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/12/10/how-plutocratic-media-keeps-staff-aligned-with-establishment-agendas/
--
'Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything
else is public relations.' - George Orwell
dolf
Dec 12, 2018, 12:45:24 AM12/12/18
to
-- CATHOLIC NARCISSISTIC IMBECILE FORTUNE COOKIE QUOTES: NATURE IS NOT A
WHORE / DE NATUUR IS GEEN HOER
(c) 2017 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 12 December, 2018
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL MERIT OF THIS DOCUMENTARY PROOF MADE OF
THE #41 - ONTIC NECESSITY BASIS TO JEWISH / CHRISTIAN AS NAZARENE / #509 -
YAHAD SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION IDENTITY WHICH IS CURRENTLY #82 PAGES THAT
THERE ARE MANY *ROMAN* *CATHOLICS* WHOM ARE VITALITY CONCERNED AND
REASONABLE SO ABOUT THE STATUS OF THEIR REDEMPTION AS WHICH WILL BE NOW
APPARENT TO YOU THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SECURE FOR SOME SUBSTANTIAL TIME (IF
EVER AT ALL).
THIS IS NOT A MATTER WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS, NOR GIVEN THE CONTINUING (OF
DECADES) *ROMAN* *CATHOLIC* HAUGHTY IRRATIONAL HATE SPEECH, NEITHER ARE WE
CONCERNED FOR YOU, BUT RATHER IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE RAISED WITH
YOUR PARISH PRIEST.
To that end a PDF version of the PUBLIC INTEREST RELEASE STATEMENT is now
available from here:
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/SPECIFICITIES%20OF%20NON-FACTUALITY%20AP-18-0609%20%28Censored%29.pdf>
"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of
man;
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but
the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the
world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be
in the end of this world.
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of
his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be *WAILING* AND
*GNASHING* *OF* *TEETH*.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. " ["Matthew 13:37-43 (KJV)]
"When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily
I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:
there shall be *WEEPING* *AND* *GNASHING* *OF* *TEETH*." [Matthew 8:10-12
(KJV)]
NO RESTITUTION HAS EVER BEEN MADE FOR THIS CULTURE OF HATRED AS CLAIMED
PIETY AND THEREFORE A CONSEQUENCE OF JUDGMENT AND CENSOR IS UPON YOU:
@1 {#1 - HEAR, O ISRAEL; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD [Mark 12:29]} +
@2 {#41 - ONTIC NECESSITY} +
@3 {#81 - PRINCIPLE OF JUXTAPOSITION} +
@4 {#123 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY} +
@5 {#369 - SEPTET INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTÀTIS} =
@15 {#615 - TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT AND TO SUBJECT TO CENSURE / #41 - #15}
- dolf
Initial Post: 12 December 2018
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
WHORE / DE NATUUR IS GEEN HOER
(c) 2017 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 12 December, 2018
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL MERIT OF THIS DOCUMENTARY PROOF MADE OF
THE #41 - ONTIC NECESSITY BASIS TO JEWISH / CHRISTIAN AS NAZARENE / #509 -
YAHAD SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION IDENTITY WHICH IS CURRENTLY #82 PAGES THAT
THERE ARE MANY *ROMAN* *CATHOLICS* WHOM ARE VITALITY CONCERNED AND
REASONABLE SO ABOUT THE STATUS OF THEIR REDEMPTION AS WHICH WILL BE NOW
APPARENT TO YOU THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SECURE FOR SOME SUBSTANTIAL TIME (IF
EVER AT ALL).
THIS IS NOT A MATTER WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS, NOR GIVEN THE CONTINUING (OF
DECADES) *ROMAN* *CATHOLIC* HAUGHTY IRRATIONAL HATE SPEECH, NEITHER ARE WE
CONCERNED FOR YOU, BUT RATHER IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE RAISED WITH
YOUR PARISH PRIEST.
To that end a PDF version of the PUBLIC INTEREST RELEASE STATEMENT is now
available from here:
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/SPECIFICITIES%20OF%20NON-FACTUALITY%20AP-18-0609%20%28Censored%29.pdf>
"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of
man;
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but
the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the
world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be
in the end of this world.
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of
his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be *WAILING* AND
*GNASHING* *OF* *TEETH*.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. " ["Matthew 13:37-43 (KJV)]
"When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily
I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:
there shall be *WEEPING* *AND* *GNASHING* *OF* *TEETH*." [Matthew 8:10-12
(KJV)]
NO RESTITUTION HAS EVER BEEN MADE FOR THIS CULTURE OF HATRED AS CLAIMED
PIETY AND THEREFORE A CONSEQUENCE OF JUDGMENT AND CENSOR IS UPON YOU:
@1 {#1 - HEAR, O ISRAEL; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD [Mark 12:29]} +
@2 {#41 - ONTIC NECESSITY} +
@3 {#81 - PRINCIPLE OF JUXTAPOSITION} +
@4 {#123 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY} +
@5 {#369 - SEPTET INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTÀTIS} =
@15 {#615 - TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT AND TO SUBJECT TO CENSURE / #41 - #15}
- dolf
Initial Post: 12 December 2018
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
FMurtz
Dec 12, 2018, 9:22:53 AM12/12/18
to
I doubt any one would wade through it.
Some one has completely wasted their time unless it was a university
thesis, it was certainly big enough
Taupe
Dec 12, 2018, 2:22:18 PM12/12/18
to
"FMurtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0R8QD.1310110$Vl2.1...@fx46.iad...
> Taupe wrote:
>> How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
>> December 10, 2018 Caitlin Johnstone
>>
>> How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
>> December 10, 2018 Caitlin Johnstone
>>
>> Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are
>> all
>> telling the truth all the time.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system
>> in
>> place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a
>> false
>> picture about what's going on in the world.
>>
>> all
>> telling the truth all the time.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system
>> in
>> place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a
>> false
>> picture about what's going on in the world.
>>
> Was there anything interesting in the above ?
> I doubt any one would wade through it.
> Some one has completely wasted their time unless it was a university
> thesis, it was certainly big enough
TL:DR
> I doubt any one would wade through it.
> Some one has completely wasted their time unless it was a university
> thesis, it was certainly big enough
Article about media & won't take too long to read
Explanation 1: media tells the truth all the time
Explanation 2: media tells the truth 'the media owners' & 'establishment
class' lets them tell if they want to keep their job , raise family & have
an uneventful trouble free life.
https://mobile.twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1072474832607039488?p=v
Explanation 2, is really what's happening, and why Trump's 'fake news' has
taken hold. Most people know media is complicit in telling lies for the
establishment class e.g. Iraq war, Iran is developing nukes , Russia hacked
the 2016 election etc....
0 new messages