Major Media Control


There Were 88 Media Companies...
Now There Are 6.


Rick Sanchez fired for saying "Jews run CNN, all media."


Rich Sanchez of CNN has been FIRED! CNN confirmed the news in a statement. "Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well." Earlier this week, Rick Sanchez made some controversial comments on a Sirius radio show, claiming CNN and other media networks are all run by Jewish people. (He also called Jon Stewart a bigot)

The statements were made during a discussion with radio-show host Pete Dominick, Sanchez claimed Jon Stewart "has a limited worldview," and called him a "bigot."

"I think Jon Stewart's a bigot," he said. "I think he looks at the world through, his mom, who was a school teacher, and his dad, who was a physicist or something like that." Sanchez made a more controversial point when Dominick suggested Stewart could understand being part of an oppressed minority because he's Jewish. Sanchez laughed and claimed CNN and the rest of the media is "run by Jewish people."

These are the words which inevitably led to Rick Sanchez's demise. Sanchez was stripped of his power, money and influence by the Zionist. He lost his job, was scrutinized by the media and will inevitably be labeled an anti-semit. Here is proof  Zionist control the media.




Why Nobody Trusts the Mainstream Media






Zionist Control of the Media


Video: OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism 1:17:43


 - Tim O'Shea
 We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

 It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story in today's news.

  If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that


 In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually contrived: somebody paid for
 it. Examples:

 Pharmaceuticals restore health
Vaccination brings immunity
The cure for cancer is just around the corner
Menopause is a disease condition
When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
Hospitals are safe and clean.
America has the best health care in the world.
Americans have the best health in the world.
Milk is a good source of calcium.
You never outgrow your need for milk.
Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
Aspirin prevents heart attacks.
Heart drugs improve the heart.
Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment.
No child can get into school without being vaccinated.
The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market.
Pregnancy is a serious medical condition
Infancy is a serious medical condition
Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer
When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection, antibiotics should be given immediately 'just in case'
Ear tubes are for the good of the child.
Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.
Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical specialists.
The purpose of the health care industry is health.
HIV is the cause of AIDS.
AZT is the cure.
Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return

Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth
Flu shots prevent the flu.
Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed on the Mandated Schedule.
Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any possible risks.
The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply and demand.
Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.
Soy is your healthiest source of protein.
Insulin shots cure diabetes.
After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything you want
Allergy medicine will cure allergies.
An airliner can be flown with professional precision by a group of crazed amateurs into a 100-storey building and can cause that building to collapse on its own footprint. Twice.

This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why most people in this country generally accept most of the above statements?

 Even the most compliant and naïve viewer may suspect that TV newsreaders and news articles are not telling us the whole story. The slightly more lucid may have begun to glimpse the calculated intent of standard news content and are wondering about the reliability and accuracy of the way events are presented. For the very few who take time to research beneath the surface of the daily programming and who are still capable of independent thought, a somewhat darker picture begins to emerge. These may perceive bits of evidence of the profoundly technical science behind much of what is served up in mass media.

Events taking place in today's world are enormously complex. An impossibly convoluted tangle o interrelated and unrelated occurrences happens simultaneously, often in dynamic conflict. To even acknowledge this complexity contradicts a fundamental axiom of media science: Keep It Simple. The tiniest fraction of actual events, but stupidly claim to be summarizing "all the news."
 The final goal of media is to create a following of docile, unquestioning consumers. To that end, three primary tools have historically been employed:

 Over time, the sophistication of these tools of propaganda has evolved to a very structured science, taking its cues in an unbroken line from principles laid down by the Father of Spin himself, Edward L Bernays, over a century ago, as we will see.
 Let's look at each tool very briefly:

 Deliberate misrepresentation of fact has always been the privilege of the directors of mass media. Their agents - the PR industry - cannot afford random objective journalism interpreting events as they actually take place. This would be much too confusing for the average consumer, who has been spoonfed his opinions since the day he was born. No, we can't have that. In all the confusion the viewer might get the idea that he is supposed to make up his own mind about the significance of some event or other. The end product of good media is single-mindedness. Confusion and individual interpretation of events do not foster the homogenized, one-dimensional lemming outlook.
 For this reason, events must have a spin put on them - an interpretation, a frame of reference. Subtleties are omitted; all that is presented is the bottom line. The minute that decision is made - what spin to put on a story - we have left the world of reporting and entered the world of propaganda. By definition, propaganda replaces faithful reporting with deceitful reporting.

Here's an obvious example: the absurd and unremitting allegations of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq. Of course none were ever found, but that is irrelevant. We weren't really looking for any weapons - but the deceit served its purpose - get us in there. Later the ruse can be abandoned and forgotten; its usefulness is over. And nobody will notice. Characterization of Saddam as a murderous tyrant was decided to be an insufficient excuse for invading a sovereign nation. After all, there are literally dozens of murderous tyrants the world over, going their merry ways. We can't be expected to police all of them.

So it was decided that the murderous tyrant thing, though good, was not enough. To whip a sleeping people into war consciousness has historically involved one additional prerequisite: threat. Saddam must therefore be not only a baby-killing maniac; he must be a threat to the rest of the world, especially America. Why? Because he has weapons of mass destruction. For almost two years, this myth was assiduously programmed into the lowest common denominator of awareness which Americans substitute for consciousness. The majority still believe it.

 Hitler used the exact same tack with the Czechs and Poles at the beginning of his rampage. These peaceful peoples were not portrayed as an easy mark for the German war machine - no, they were a threat to the Fatherland itself. And threats must be removed by all available force. With Iraq, the fact that UN inspectors never came up with any of these dread weapons before Saddam was captured - this fact was never mentioned again. That one phrase - WMD WMD WMD - repeated ad nauseam month after month had served its purpose - whip the people into war mode. It didn't have to be true; it just had to work. A staggering indicator of how low the general awareness had sunk is that this mantra continued to be used as our license to invade Iraq long after our initial assault. If Saddam had any such weapons, probably a good time to trot them out would be when a foreign country is moving in, wouldn't you say?

No weapons were ever found, nor will they be. So confident was the PR machine in the general inattention to detail commonly exhibited by the comatose American people that they didn't even find it necessary to plant a few mass weapons in order to justify the invasion. It was almost insulting.
 So we see that a little deceit goes a long way. All it takes is repetition. Lay the groundwork and the people will buy anything. After that just ride it out until they seem doubtful again. Then onto the next deceit.

 A second tool that is commonly used to create mass intellectual torpor is dissimulation. Dissimulation simply means to pretend not to be something you are. Like some insects who can disguise themselves as leaves or twigs, pretending not to be insects. Or bureaucrats who pretend not to be acting in their own interest, but rather in the public interest. To pretend not to be what you are.
 Whether it's the Bush league in Iraq or Hitler in Germany, aggressors do not present themselves as marauding invaders initiating hostilities, but instead as defenders against external threats.
 Freedom-annihilating edicts like the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act - currently the law of the land - do not represent themselves as the negation of every principle the Founding Fathers laid down, but rather as public services, benevolent and necessary new rules to ensure our SECURITY against various imagined enemies. To pretend to be what you are not: dissimulation.
Other obvious examples of dissimulation we see today include:
pretending like more and more government will not further stifle an already struggling economy
pretending like programs favoring "minorities" are not just another form of racism
pretending like drug laws are necessary for national security
pretending like passing more and more laws every year is not geared ultimately for the advancement of the law enforcement, security, and prison industries
pretending the Bush regime has not benefited from every program that came out of 9/11
To pretend to be what you are not: dissimulation.

 A third tool necessary to media in order to keep the public from thinking too much is distraction. Bread and circuses worked for Caesar in old Rome. The people need to be kept quiet while the small group in power carries out its agenda, which always involves fortifying its own position.
All actions of the present regime since 9/11 may be explained by plugging in one of four beneficiaries:
 War gear
 Security systems

 Every act, every political event, every public statement of the present administration has promoted one or more of these huge sectors. More oil, more drugs, more weapons, more security.
 But the people mustn't be allowed to notice things like that. So they must be smokescreened by other stuff , blatant obvious stuff which is really easy to understand and which they think has a greater bearing on their day to day life. A classic axiom of propaganda is that people shouldn't be allowed to think too much about what the government is doing in their name. After all, there's more to life than politics, right? So while the power group has its cozy little war going on, the people need to have their attention diverted.
 All the strong men of history would have given their firstborn to have at their disposal the number and types of distractions available to today's regimes:
 - TV sports, its orchestrated frenzy and spectacle
 - Super Sunday
 - the wanton sexless flash of MTV with its uninspired lack of talent, a study in split second phony images
 - colossally dull TV programs which serve the secondary purpose of instilling proper robot attitudes into people who have little other instruction in life values
 - the ever-retreating promise of financial success, switched now to the trappings and toys that suggest success, available to almost everyone
 - organized superstitions of all varieties, with their requisite pseudo-spiritual trappings


 Media science holds the advantage: as people get
 dumber and dumber year by year it gets easier and
 easier to keep them dumb. The only challenge is that
 their threshold keeps getting lower. So in order to
 get their attention, communication messages have to
 become more obvious and blatant, taking nothing for
 Here are some indicators of our declining
 - flagrant errors of grammar and spelling rampant in advertising, which go unnoticed
 - declining SAT scores and the arbitrary resetting of normals, in order to cover up the decline
 - increased volume and decreased speed of the voices of newsreaders on radio and TV
 - limited vocabulary and clichéd speech allowed in radio programs; obvious lack of education and requisite pedestrian mentality required of corporate simians who are featured on radio
 - increasing illiteracy of high school graduates, both written and spoken
 - decreasing requirements for masters theses and PhD dissertations in both length and content
 - increasing oversimplification of movie and TV plot lines - absence of subtlety in conceptual and dramatic content; blatant moralizing of compliant robot values
 - newspaper articles that are not written by reporters but that are scientifically crafted phrase by canny phrase by the PR industry and placed into the columns of syndication in the guise of 'hard news'
 - the downward spiral of the level of ordinary conversations, which are commonly just exercises in stringing together random clichés from the very finite stock of endlessly repeated homogeneous bytes. It's as though we're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, and most conversation is just linking these 50 programmed audio clips together in a different order. Listen to what people say, the way they say it.
 Imagine for a moment that 9/11 was a put-up job engineered for the sole purpose of cementing the current regime into power and frightening the bovine populace into surrendering even more of what little freedom they have left. Hypothetical situation of
 course, just work with me a little. Imagine there never were any dissident crazed terrorists representing Osama or Saddam, but instead a highly disciplined though slightly whacked-out team of military fanatics, programmed somehow to think they
 were doing something valuable for some faction or other. A put-up job, from the inside.
 Imagine that all the violence and stress perpetrated
 on the collective American psyche since 9/11 about
 war, bioterrorism, and security has all been
 completely unnecessary. And that all the billions of
 dollars of extra security and wasted time in
 airports and borders was also totally unnecessary
 because there never were any terrorists, except
 those on Capitol Hill. And all the shrill media
 articles and "stories" that support the few
 underlying events have been unnecessary, their prime
 purpose being self promotion. Think how much our
 quality of life has suffered. What if all this
 stress has been totally unnecessary?
 Many of our best people have come to precisely these
 conclusions. Once you get past the initial hurdle of
 being able to consider the unthinkable possibility
 that a regime could be so obsessed with gaining
 political advantage that they would actually blow up
 3000 of our own people, the rest falls into place.
 Over the top? Not such a stretch really when you
 compare the thousands that have been sacrificed to
 the whims of other murderous tyrants the world over
 throughout all of recorded history. Exactly how is
 it impossible?
 When it comes to a discussion of what's going on in
 the world, the honest individual must admit that he
 has almost no idea. When was the last time George
 Bush invited you into the Green Room for a private
 chat with Cheney and Ashcroft about the future of
 big oil? When did Bill Gates last invite you up to
 his Redmond digs for a wine and cheese brainstorming
 session about the next Big Thing? Or when did your
 neighbor who lives three blocks away from you call
 you up to tell you about the unfulfilled plans of
 his father who just found out he's dying of cancer?
 How many life stories of the world's six billion
 people do you know anything about? This is to say
 nothing of fluid events which are coming in and out
 of existence every day between the nations of the
 world. What is really going on?
 Seems like much more effort is spent covering up and
 packaging actual events that are taking place than
 in trying to accurately report and evaluate them.
 These are questions of epistemology - what can we
 know? The answer is - very little, if our only
 source of information is the superficial everyday
 media. The few people who buy books don't read them.
 Passive absorption of pre-interpreted
 already-figured-out data is the preferred method
 But wait, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's
 back up a minute. In their book Trust Us We're
 Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some
 compelling data describing the science of creating
 public opinion in America. They trace modern public
 influence back to the early part of the last
 century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward
 L. Bernays, the Father of Spin.
 From his own amazing 1928 chronicle Propaganda, we
 learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his
 famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself, and applied them
 to the emerging science of mass persuasion. The only
 difference was that instead of using these
 principles to uncover hidden themes in the human
 unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does,
 Bernays studied these same ideas in order to learn
 how to mask agendas and to create illusions that
 deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
 Edward L. Bernays dominated the PR industry until
 the 1940s, and was a significant force for another
 40 years after that. (Tye) During that time, Bernays
 took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a
 public perception about some idea or product. A few
 As a neophyte with the Committee on Public
 Information, one of Bernays' first assignments was
 to help sell the First World War to the American
 public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for
 Democracy." (Ewen) We've seen this phrase in every
 war and US military involvement since that time.
 A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to
 popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes.
 In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New York
 City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be
 reckoned with. He organized the Torches of Liberty
 Brigade in which suffragettes marched in the parade
 smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation.
 After that one event, women would be able to feel
 secure about destroying their own lungs in public,
 the same way that men have always done.
 Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.
 Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the
 liaison between the tobacco industry and the
 American Medical Association that lasted for nearly
 50 years. They proved to all and sundry that
 cigarettes were beneficial to health. Just look at
 ads in old issues of Life, Look, Time or Journal of
 the American Medical Association from the 40s and
 50s in which doctors are recommending this or that
 brand of cigarettes as promoting healthful
 digestion, or whatever.
 During the next several decades Bernays and his
 colleagues evolved the principles by which masses of
 people could be generally swayed through messages
 repeated over and over, hundreds of times per week.
 Once the economic power of media became apparent,
 other countries of the world rushed to follow our
 lead. But Bernays remained the gold standard. He was
 the source to whom the new PR leaders across the
 world would always defer. Even Josef Goebbels,
 Hitler's minister of propaganda, closely studied the
 principles of Edward Bernays when Goebbels was
 developing the popular rationale he would use to
 convince the Germans that in order to purify their
 race they had to kill 6 million of the impure.
 As he saw it, Bernay's job was to reframe an issue;
 to create a desired image that would put a
 particular product or concept in a desirable light.
 He never saw himself as a master hoodwinker, but
 rather as a beneficent servant of humanity,
 providing a valuable service. Bernays described the
 public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And this
 herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to
 leadership." Bernays never deviated from his
 fundamental axiom to "control the masses without
 their knowing it." The best PR happens with the
 people unaware that they are being manipulated.
 Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this: "the
 scientific manipulation of public opinion was
 necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a
 democratic society."
 -- Trust Us, p 42
 These early mass persuaders postured themselves as
 performing a moral service for humanity in general.
 Democracy was too good for people; they needed to be
 told what to think, because they were incapable of
 rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph
 from Bernays' Propaganda:
 "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of
 society constitute an invisible government which is
 the true ruling power of our country. We are
 governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our
 ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard
 of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
 democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of
 human beings must cooperate in this manner if they
 are to live together as a smoothly functioning
 society. In almost every act of our lives whether in
 the sphere of politics or business in our social
 conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
 the relatively small number of persons who
 understand the mental processes and social patterns
 of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that
 control the public mind."
 A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the
 subject: "I know of no safe depository of the
 ultimate power of the society but the people
 themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
 enough to exercise that control with a wholesome
 discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but
 to inform their discretion."
 Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only
 a few possessed the necessary insight into the Big
 Picture to be entrusted with this sacred task. And
 luckily, he saw himself as one of that elect.
 Once the possibilities of applying Freudian
 psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon
 had more corporate clients than he could handle.
 Global corporations fell all over themselves
 courting the new Image Makers. There were dozens of
 goods and services and ideas to be sold to a
 susceptible public. Over the years, these players
 have had the money to make their images happen. A
 few examples:
Philip Morris
Union Carbide
Eli Lilly
tobacco industry
Ciba Geigy
lead industry
Shell Oil
Standard Oil
Procter & Gamble
Dow Chemical
General Motors
General Mills
 Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer the demand
 for spin control. Among them:
Hill & Knowlton
Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin
 Though world-famous within the PR industry, these
 are names we don't know, and for good reason. The
 best PR goes unnoticed. For decades they have
 created the opinions that most of us were raised
 with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest
 commercial value, including:
pharmaceutical drugs
medicine as a profession
alternative medicine
fluoridation of city water
household cleaning products
global warming
leaded gasoline
cancer research and treatment
pollution of the oceans
forests and lumber
images of celebrities, including damage control
crisis and disaster management
genetically modified foods
food additives; processed foods
dental amalgams
 Bernays learned early on that the most effective way
 to create credibility for a product or an image was
 by "independent third-party" endorsement. For
 example, if General Motors were to come out and say
 that global warming is a hoax thought up by some
 liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's
 motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling
 automobiles. If however some independent research
 institute with a very credible sounding name like
 the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a
 scientific report that says global warming is really
 a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have
 doubts about the original issue.
 So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy
 inspired by genius, he set up "more institutes and
 foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined."
 (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries
 whose products were being evaluated, these
 "independent" research agencies would churn out
 "scientific" studies and press materials that could
 create any image their handlers wanted. Such front
 groups are given high-sounding names like:
Temperature Research Foundation
International Food Information Council
Consumer Alert
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Air Hygiene Foundation
Industrial Health Federation
International Food Information Council
Manhattan Institute
Center for Produce Quality
Tobacco Institute Research Council
Cato Institute
American Council on Science and Health
Global Climate Coalition
Alliance for Better Foods
 Sound pretty legit don't they?
 As Stauber explains, these organizations and
 hundreds of others like them are front groups whose
 sole mission is to advance the image of the global
 corporations who fund them, like those -listed on
 page 2 above. This is accomplished in part by an
 endless stream of 'press releases' announcing
 "breakthrough" research to every radio station and
 newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these
 canned reports read like straight news, and indeed
 are purposely molded in the news format. This saves
 journalists the trouble of researching the subjects
 on their own, especially on topics about which they
 know very little. Entire sections of the release or
 in the case of video news releases, the whole thing
 can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given
 the byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV
 station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and paste.
 Written by corporate PR firms.
 Does this really happen? Every single day, since the
 1920s when the idea of the News Release was first
 invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as
 many as half the stories appearing in an issue of
 the Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR
 press releases.. (22) These types of stories are
 mixed right in with legitimately researched stories.
 Unless you have done the research yourself, you
 won't be able to tell the difference. So when we see
 new "research" being cited, we should always first
 suspect that the source is another industry-backed
 front group. A common tip-off is the word
 As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward
 Bernays gained more experience, they began to
 formulate rules and guidelines for creating public
 opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology
 must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is
 incapable of rational thought, motivation must be
 based not on logic but on presentation. Here are
 some of the axioms of the new science of PR:
technology is a religion unto itself
if people are incapable of rational thought, real
 democracy is dangerous
important decisions should be left to experts
when reframing issues, stay away from substance;
 create images
never state a clearly demonstrable lie
 Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional
 impact. Here's an example. A front group called the
 International Food Information Council handles the
 public's natural aversion to genetically modified
 foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the
 text. Now in the case of GM foods, the public is
 instinctively afraid of these experimental new
 creations which have suddenly popped up on our
 grocery shelves and which are said to have DNA
 alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure the public
 of the safety of GM foods. So it avoids words like:
gene gun
 Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
natural order
 It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association.
 The fact that GM foods are not hybrids that have
 been subjected to the slow and careful scientific
 methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really
 matter. This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is
 everything and substance just a passing myth.
 Who do you think funds the International Food
 Information Council? Take a wild guess. Right -
 Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet -
 those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.
 (Stauber p 20)
 As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms
 developed further guidelines for effective copy.
 Here are some of the gems:
dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and
 name calling
speak in glittering generalities using
 emotionally positive words
when covering something up, don't use plain
 English; stall for time; distract
get endorsements from celebrities, churches,
 sports figures, street people - anyone who has no
 expertise in the subject at hand
the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just
 like you
when minimizing outrage, don't say anything
when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits
 of what just happened
when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues
 Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques.
 Not hard to find - look at today's paper or
 tonight's TV news. See what they're doing; these
 guys are good!
 PR firms have become very sophisticated in the
 preparation of news releases. They have learned how
 to attach the names of famous scientists to research
 that those scientists have not even looked at.
 (Stauber, p 201) It's a common practice. In this
 way, the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are
 themselves often unaware that an individual release
 is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have
 "deniability," right?
 Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas
 came into the picture. In 1922, General Motors
 discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars
 more horsepower. When there was some concern about
 safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake
 "testing" and publish spurious research that
 'proved' that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter
 Charles Kettering.
 Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial
 Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering
 also happened to be an executive with General
 Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon have
 Sloan-Kettering issuing reports stating that lead
 occurs naturally in the body and that the body has a
 way of eliminating low level exposure. Through its
 association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation
 and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane-Kettering
 opposed all anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p
 92). Without organized scientific opposition, for
 the next 60 years more and more gasoline became
 leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our gasoline was
 Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was
 a major carcinogen, which they knew all along, and
 leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But
 during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30
 million tons of lead were released in vapor form
 onto American streets and highways. 30 million tons.
 That is PR, my friends.
 In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and
 coined a new term. The book was Galileo's Revenge
 and the term was junk science . Huber's shallow
 thesis was that real science supports technology,
 industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly
 junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how
 Huber's book was supported by the industry-backed
 Manhattan Institute.
 Huber's book was generally dismissed not only
 because it was so poorly written, but because it
 failed to realize one fact: true scientific research
 begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are
 seeking the truth because they do not yet know what
 the truth is.
 True scientific method goes like this: 1. form a
 2. make predictions for that hypothesis
 3. test the predictions
 4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the
 research findings
 Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff
 explains that ideas in science are themselves like
 "living organisms, that must be nourished,
 supported, and cultivated with resources for making
 them grow and flourish." (Stauber p 205) Great ideas
 that don't get this financial support because the
 commercial angles are not immediately obvious -
 these ideas wither and die.
 Another way you can often distinguish real science
 from phony is that real science points out flaws in
 its own research. Phony science pretends there were
 no flaws.
 Contrast this with modern PR and its constant
 pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored
 research, whether it's in the area of drugs, GM
 foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined
 conclusions. It is the job of the scientists then to
 prove that these conclusions are true, because of
 the economic upside that proof will bring to the
 industries paying for that research. This invidious
 approach to science has shifted the entire focus of
 research in America during the past 50 years, as any
 true scientist is likely to admit. If a drug company
 is spending 10 million dollars on a research project
 to prove the viability of some new drug, and the
 preliminary results start coming back about the
 dangers of that drug, what happens? Right. No more
 funding. The well dries up. What is being promoted
 under such a system? Science? Or rather Entrenched
 Medical Error?"
 Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate
 sponsorship of university research. (206) This has
 nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.
 Scientists lament that research has become just
 another commodity, something bought and sold.
 It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast
 majority of corporate PR today opposes any research
 that seeks to protect
public health
the environment
 It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see
 the phrase "junk science," it is in a context of
 defending something that threatens either the
 environment or our health. This makes sense when one
 realizes that money changes hands only by selling
 the illusion of health and the illusion of
 environmental protection or the illusion of health.
 True public health and real preservation of the
 earth's environment have very low market value.
 Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's
 self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are
 usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again
 they can do this because the issue is not science,
 but the creation of images.
 When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups
 and alternative medicine people, they again use
 special words which will carry an emotional punch:
sound science
junk science
 The next time you are reading a newspaper article
 about an environmental or health issue, note how the
 author shows bias by using the above terms. This is
 the result of very specialized training.
 Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of
 the environmentalists themselves to defend a
 dangerous and untested product that poses an actual
 threat to the environment. This we see constantly in
 the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically
 modified foods. They talk about how GM foods are
 necessary to grow more food and to end world hunger,
 when the reality is that GM foods actually have
 lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p
 173) The grand design sort of comes into focus once
 you realize that almost all GM foods have been
 created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides
 so that those plants can withstand greater amounts
 of herbicides and pesticides. (see The Magic Bean)
 Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every
 research scientist. That means whoever expects
 funding for the next research project had better get
 the current research paper published in the best
 scientific journals. And we all know that the best
 scientific journals, like JAMA, New England Journal,
 British Medical Journal, etc. are peer-reviewed.
 Peer review means that any articles which actually
 get published, between all those full color drug ads
 and pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed
 and accepted by some really smart guys with a lot of
 credentials. The assumption is, if the article made
 it past peer review, the data and the conclusions of
 the research study have been thoroughly checked out
 and bear some resemblance to physical reality.
 But there are a few problems with this hot little
 set up. First off, money
 Even though prestigious venerable medical journals
 pretend to be so objective and scientific and
 incorruptible, the reality is that they face the
 same type of being called to account that all glossy
 magazines must confront: don't antagonize your
 advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best
 journals cost millions, Jack. How long will a
 pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a
 magazine that prints some very sound scientific
 research paper that attacks the safety of the drug
 in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors may
 lack moral fibre, but they aren't stupid.
 Another problem is the conflict of interest thing.
 There's a formal requirement for all medical
 journals that any financial ties between an author
 and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the
 article. In practice, it never happens. A study done
 in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even
 one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99)
 A 1998 study from the New England Journal of
 Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles
 had financial ties to the drug they were studying.
 (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures?
 Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out
 whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about
 the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.
 Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug
 company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have
 a favorable article printed. (Stauber, p 204)
 Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In
 1987, the New England Journal ran an article that
 followed the research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven
 year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had
 published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed
 journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these
 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud
 and misrepresentation, including:
reporting data for experiments that were never
reporting measurements that were never made
reporting statistical analyses that were never
o Engler
 Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the
 Babel Effect
 that results when this very common and frequently
 undetected scientific fraud in peer-reviewed
 journals is quoted by other researchers, who are in
 turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.
 Want to see something that sort of re-frames this
 whole discussion? Check out the McDonald's ads which
 routinely appear in the Journal of the American
 Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is
 the same publication that for almost 50 years ran
 cigarette ads proclaiming the health benefits of
 tobacco. (Robbins)
 Very scientific, oh yes.
 Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start
 reading newspaper and magazine articles a little
 differently, and perhaps start watching TV news
 shows with a slightly different attitude than you
 had before. Always ask, what are they selling here,
 and who's selling it? And if you actually follow up
 on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some of
 the other resources below, you might even glimpse
 the possibility of advancing your life one quantum
 simply by ceasing to subject your brain to mass
 media. That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV
 news, no more Time magazine or People magazine
 Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think
 what you could do with the extra time alone.
 Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out
 "what's going on in the world" for a few hours every
 day? Think about the news of the past couple of
 years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major
 stories that have dominated headlines and TV news
 have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you
 actually think there's been nothing going on besides
 the contrived tech slump, the contrived power
 shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign
 violence and disaster, even the new accounts of US
 retribution in the Middle East, making Afghanistan
 safe for democracy, bending Saddam to our will,
 etc., and all the other non-stories that the
 puppeteers dangle before us every day? What about
 when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica
 Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city bombing? Or now with
 the Neo-Nazi aftermath of 9/11. Or the contrived war
 against Saddam? Do we really need to know all that
 detail, day after day? Do we have any way of
 verifying all that detail, even if we wanted to?
 What is
the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly.
 The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a
 state of fear and uncertainty
 so that they'll watch again tomorrow to see how much
 worse things got and to be subjected to the same
 Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of
 mass media mastery - simplicity. The invisible hand.
 Like Edward Bernays said, the people must be
 controlled without them knowing it.
 Consider this: what was really going on in the world
 all that time they were distracting us with all that
 stupid vexatious daily smokescreen? We have no way
 of knowing. And most of it doesn't even concern us
 even if we could know it. Fear and uncertainty --
 that's what keeps people coming back for more.
 If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it
 one step further:
 What would you lose from your life if you stopped
 watching TV and stopped reading newspapers and
 glossy magazines altogether?
 Would your life really suffer any financial, moral,
 intellectual, spiritual, or academic loss from such
 a decision?
 Do you really need to have your family continually
 absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, culturally
 bereft, desperately brainless values of the people
 featured in the average nightly TV program? Are
 these fake, programmed robots "normal"?
 Do you need to have your life values constantly
 spoonfed to you?
 Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary
 distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or
 trying to figure things out yourself by doing a
 little independent reading? Or perhaps from having a
 Name one example of how your life is improved by
 watching TV news and reading the evening paper or
 the glossy magazines. What measurable gain is there
 for you?
 What else could we be doing with all this freed-up
 time that would actually expand awareness?
 There's no question that as a nation, we're getting
 dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we've
 been choosing lately. Ever notice the blatant
 grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's
 advertising and billboards? Literacy is marginal in
 most American secondary schools. Three-fourths of
 California high school seniors can't read well
 enough to pass their exit exams. ( SJ Mercury 20 Jul
 01) If you think other parts of the country are
 smarter, try this one: hand any high school senior a
 book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open
 to any random page and just read one paragraph out
 loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily
 shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids
 are getting year by year. (ADD: A Designer Disease)
 At least 10% have documented "learning
 disabilities," which are reinforced and rewarded by
 special treatment and special drugs. Ever hear of
 anyone failing a grade any more?
 Or observe the intellectual level of the average
 movie which these days may only last one or two
 weeks in the theatres, especially if it has
 insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone,
 fake martial arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Doesn't
 anyone else notice how badly these 30 or 40 "movie
 stars" we keep seeing over and over in the same few
 plots must now overact to get their point across to
 an ever-dimming audience?
 Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the
 falsely animated corporate simians they hire as DJs
 -- seems like they're only allowed to have 50
 thoughts, which they just repeat at random. And at
 what point did popular music cease to require the
 study of any musical instrument or theory
 whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just
 don't understand this emerging art form, right? The
 Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man.
 Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy
 magazines sound like they were all written by the
 same guy? And this writer just graduated from junior
 college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on
 social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow,
 smug, homogenized corporate omniscience, which
 enables him to assure us that everything is fine...
 All this is great news for the PR industry - makes
 their job that much easier. Not only are very few
 paying attention to the process of conditioning;
 fewer are capable of understanding it even if
 somebody explained it to them.
 Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy
 a cup of tea. And as you're about to sit down you
 see your friend way across the room. So you put the
 tea down and walk across the room and talk to your
 friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your
 tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink it?
 Remember, this is a crowded place and you've just
 left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've
 given anybody in that room access to your tea.
 Why should your mind be any different? Turning on
 the TV, or uncritically absorbing mass publications
 every day - these activities allow access to our
 minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
 anyone with the resources to create a public image
 via popular media. As we've seen above, just because
 we read something or see something on TV doesn't
 mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here
 is, like the tea, perhaps the mind is also worth
 guarding, worth limiting access to it.
 This is the only life we get. Time is our total
 capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our
 scope of awareness, our personality, our values to
 be shaped, crafted, and boxed up according to the
 whims of the mass panderers? There are many
 important issues that are crucial to our physical,
 mental, and spiritual well-being which require time
 and study. If it's an issue where money is involved,
 objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember,
 if everybody knows something, that image has been
 bought and paid for.
 Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little
 excavation down at least one level below what
 "everybody knows."
 ©Copyright MMIV Two Trees
 ReferencesStauber & RamptonTrust Us, We're
 ExpertsTarcher/Putnam2001Ewen, StuartPR!: A Social
 History of SpinBasic Books1996 Tye, LarryThe Father
 of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public
 RelationsCrown Publishers, Inc.2001Bernays
 EPropagandaLiveright1928King, RMedical journals
 rarely disclose researchers' tiesWall St.
 JournalFebruary 2, 1999Engler, R et
 al.Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical
 ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine v 317 p
 1383November 26, 1987Black, D PhDHealth At the
 CTainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in
 America1996Robbins, JReclaiming Our
 HealthKramer1996Huxley, AThe Doors of Perception:
 Heaven and HellHarper and Row1954O'Shea TThe Magic

quote: "Today, seven (jewish) Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:

*Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner
*Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company
*Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd
*Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios
*Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc
*Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric
*Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited

Those seven men collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.

Source: article from Reuters


What major media companies own: 

American Media, Inc.
CanWest Global Communications
Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.
Clear Channel Communications
Copley Press Inc.
Cox Enterprises
Dow Jones & Company
Emmis Communications Corp.
Entercom Communications
E.W. Scripps
Freedom Communications
General Electric
Hachette Filipacchi
Hearst Corporation
Knight Ridder
Landmark Communications
Lee Enterprises
Liberty Group Publishing
Liberty Media Corp.
Media General
MediaNews Group, Inc.
McClatchy Company
Morris Communications Corp.
News Corporation
New York Times Co.
Pulitzer, Inc.
Reed Elsevier
Time Warner
Tribune Company
Vivendi Universal
Washington Post Co.

THE BIG TEN: & Clear Channel

AOL Time Warner
General Electric
News Corporation
Liberty Media


What's Wrong With This Picture?
by Mark Crispin Miller

(Editor: Vivendi Universal, Viacom Corporate, Time Warner, General Electric, Bertelsmann  all work with Sony Corp!)

For all their economic clout and cultural sway, the ten great multinationals profiled in our latest chart--AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media--rule the cosmos only at the moment. The media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed is always growing here and shriveling there, with certain of its members bulking up while others slowly fall apart or get digested whole. But while the players tend to come and go--always with a few exceptions--the overall Leviathan itself keeps getting bigger, louder, brighter, forever taking up more time and space, in every street, in countless homes, in every other head.
The rise of the cartel has been a long time coming (and it still has some way to go). It represents the grand convergence of the previously disparate US culture industries--many of them vertically monopolized already--into one global superindustry providing most of our imaginary "content." The movie business had been largely dominated by the major studios in Hollywood; TV, like radio before it, by the triune axis of the networks headquartered in New York; magazines, primarily by Henry Luce (with many independent others on the scene); and music, from the 1960s, mostly by the major record labels. Now all those separate fields are one, the whole terrain divided up among the giants--which, in league with Barnes & Noble, Borders and the big distributors, also control the book business. (Even with its leading houses, book publishing was once a cottage industry at both the editorial and retail levels.) For all the democratic promise of the Internet, moreover, much of cyberspace has now been occupied, its erstwhile wildernesses swiftly paved and lighted over by the same colossi. The only industry not yet absorbed into this new world order is the newsprint sector of the Fourth Estate--a business that was heavily shadowed to begin with by the likes of Hearst and other, regional grandees, flush with the ill-gotten gains of oil, mining and utilities--and such absorption is, as we shall see, about to happen.
Thus what we have today is not a problem wholly new in kind but rather the disastrous upshot of an evolutionary process whereby that old problem has become considerably larger--and that great quantitative change, with just a few huge players now co-directing all the nation's media, has brought about enormous qualitative changes. For one thing, the cartel's rise has made extremely rare the sort of marvelous exception that has always popped up, unexpectedly, to startle and revivify the culture--the genuine independents among record labels, radio stations, movie theaters, newspapers, book publishers and so on. Those that don't fail nowadays are so remarkable that they inspire not emulation but amazement. Otherwise, the monoculture, endlessly and noisily triumphant, offers, by and large, a lot of nothing, whether packaged as "the news" or "entertainment."
Of all the cartel's dangerous consequences for American society and culture, the worst is its corrosive influence on journalism. Under AOL Time Warner, GE, Viacom et al., the news is, with a few exceptions, yet another version of the entertainment that the cartel also vends nonstop. This is also nothing new--consider the newsreels of yesteryear--but the gigantic scale and thoroughness of the corporate concentration has made a world of difference, and so has made this world a very different place.
Let us start to grasp the situation by comparing this new centerfold with our first outline of the National Entertainment State, published in the spring of 1996. Back then, the national TV news appeared to be a tidy tetrarchy: two network news divisions owned by large appliance makers/weapons manufacturers (CBS by Westinghouse, NBC by General Electric), and the other two bought lately by the nation's top purveyors of Big Fun (ABC by Disney, CNN by Time Warner). Cable was still relatively immature, so that, of its many enterprises, only CNN competed with the broadcast networks' short-staffed newsrooms; and its buccaneering founder, Ted Turner, still seemed to call the shots from his new aerie at Time Warner headquarters.
Today the telejournalistic firmament includes the meteoric Fox News Channel, as well as twenty-six television stations owned outright by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (which holds majority ownership in a further seven). Although ultimately thwarted in his bid to buy DirecTV and thereby dominate the US satellite television market, Murdoch wields a pervasive influence on the news--and not just in New York, where he has two TV stations, a major daily (the faltering New York Post) and the Fox News Channel, whose inexhaustible platoons of shouting heads attracts a fierce plurality of cable-viewers. Meanwhile, Time Warner has now merged with AOL--so as to own the cyberworks through which to market its floodtide of movies, ball games, TV shows, rock videos, cartoons, standup routines and (not least) bits from CNN, CNN Headline News, CNNfn (devised to counter GE's CNBC) and CNN/Sports Illustrated (a would-be rival to Disney's ESPN franchise). While busily cloning CNN, the parent company has also taken quiet steps to make it more like Fox, with Walter Isaacson, the new head honcho, even visiting the Capitol to seek advice from certain rightist pols on how, presumably, to make the network even shallower and more obnoxious. (He also courted Rush Himself.) All this has occurred since the abrupt defenestration of Ted Turner, who now belatedly laments the overconcentration of the cable business: "It's sad we're losing so much diversity of thought," he confesses, sounding vaguely like a writer for this magazine.
Whereas five years ago the clueless Westinghouse owned CBS, today the network is a property of the voracious Viacom--matchless cable occupier (UPN, MTV, MTV2, VH1, Nickelodeon, the Movie Channel, TNN, CMT, BET, 50 percent of Comedy Central, etc.), radio colossus (its Infinity Broadcasting--home to Howard Stern and Don Imus--owns 184 stations), movie titan (Paramount Pictures), copious publisher (Simon & Schuster, Free Press, Scribner), a big deal on the web and one of the largest US outdoor advertising firms. Under Viacom, CBS News has been obliged to help sell Viacom's product--in 2000, for example, devoting epic stretches of The Early Show to what lately happened on Survivor (CBS). Of course, such synergistic bilge is commonplace, as is the tendency to dummy up on any topic that the parent company (or any of its advertisers) might want stifled. These journalistic sins have been as frequent under "longtime" owners Disney and GE as under Viacom and Fox [see Janine Jaquet, "The Sins of Synergy," page 20]. They may also abound beneath Vivendi, whose recent purchase of the film and TV units of USA Networks and new stake in the satellite TV giant EchoStar--moves too recent for inclusion in our chart--could soon mean lots of oblique self-promotion on USAM News, in L'Express and L'Expansion, and through whatever other news-machines the parent buys.
Such is the telejournalistic landscape at the moment--and soon it will mutate again, if Bush's FCC delivers for its giant clients. On September 13, when the minds of the American people were on something else, the commission's GOP majority voted to "review" the last few rules preventing perfect oligopoly. They thus prepared the ground for allowing a single outfit to own both a daily paper and a TV station in the same market--an advantage that was outlawed in 1975. (Even then, pre-existing cases of such ownership were grandfathered in, and any would-be owner could get that rule waived.) That furtive FCC "review" also portended the elimination of the cap on the percentage of US households that a single owner might reach through its TV stations. Since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the limit had been 35 percent. Although that most indulgent bill was dictated by the media giants themselves, its restrictions are too heavy for this FCC, whose chairman, Michael Powell, has called regulation per se "the oppressor."

And so, unless there's some effective opposition, the several-headed vendor that now sells us nearly all our movies, TV, radio, magazines, books, music and web services will soon be selling us our daily papers, too--for the major dailies have, collectively, been lobbying energetically for that big waiver, which stands to make their owners even richer (an expectation that has no doubt had a sweetening effect on coverage of the Bush Administration). Thus the largest US newspaper conglomerates--the New York Times, the Washington Post, Gannett, Knight-Ridder and the Tribune Co.--will soon be formal partners with, say, GE, Murdoch, Disney and/or AT&T; and then the lesser nationwide chains (and the last few independents) will be ingested, too, going the way of most US radio stations. America's cities could turn into informational "company towns," with one behemoth owning all the local print organs--daily paper(s), alternative weekly, city magazine--as well as the TV and radio stations, the multiplexes and the cable system. (Recently a federal appeals court told the FCC to drop its rule preventing any one company from serving more than 30 percent of US cable subscribers; and in December, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.) While such a setup may make economic sense, as anticompetitive arrangements tend to do, it has no place in a democracy, where the people have to know more than their masters want to tell them.
That imperative demands reaffirmation at this risky moment, when much of what the media cartel purveys to us is propaganda, commercial or political, while no one in authority makes mention of "the public interest"--except to laugh it off. "I have no idea," Powell cheerily replied at his first press conference as chairman, when asked for his own definition of that crucial concept. "It's an empty vessel in which people pour in whatever their preconceived views or biases are." Such blithe obtuseness has marked all his public musings on the subject. In a speech before the American Bar Association in April 1998, Powell offered an ironic little riff about how thoroughly he doesn't get it: "The night after I was sworn in [as a commissioner], I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest. I waited all night, but she did not come." On the other hand, Powell has never sounded glib about his sacred obligation to the corporate interest. Of his decision to move forward with the FCC vote just two days after 9/11, Powell spoke as if that sneaky move had been a gesture in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "The flame of the American ideal may flicker, but it will never be extinguished. We will do our small part and press on with our business, solemnly, but resolutely."
Certainly the FCC has never been a democratic force, whichever party has been dominant. Bill Clinton championed the disastrous Telecom Act of 1996 and otherwise did almost nothing to impede the drift toward oligopoly. (As Newsweek reported in 2000, Al Gore was Rupert Murdoch's personal choice for President. The mogul apparently sensed that Gore would happily play ball with him, and also thought--correctly--that the Democrat would win.)
What is unique to Michael Powell, however, is the showy superciliousness with which he treats his civic obligation to address the needs of people other than the very rich. That spirit has shone forth many times--as when the chairman genially compared the "digital divide" between the information haves and have-nots to a "Mercedes divide" between the lucky few who can afford great cars and those (like him) who can't. In the intensity of his pro-business bias, Powell recalls Mark Fowler, head of Reagan's FCC, who famously denied his social obligations by asserting that TV is merely "an appliance," "a toaster with pictures." And yet such Reaganite bons mots, fraught with the anti-Communist fanaticism of the late cold war, evinced a deadly earnestness that's less apparent in General Powell's son. He is a blithe, postmodern sort of ideologue, attuned to the complacent smirk of Bush the Younger--and, of course, just perfect for the cool and snickering culture of TV.
Although such flippancies are hard to take, they're also easy to refute, for there is no rationale for such an attitude. Take "the public interest"--an ideal that really isn't hard to understand. A media system that enlightens us, that tells us everything we need to know pertaining to our lives and liberty and happiness, would be a system dedicated to the public interest. Such a system would not be controlled by a cartel of giant corporations, because those entities are ultimately hostile to the welfare of the people. Whereas we need to know the truth about such corporations, they often have an interest in suppressing it (as do their advertisers). And while it takes much time and money to find out the truth, the parent companies prefer to cut the necessary costs of journalism, much preferring the sort of lurid fare that can drive endless hours of agitated jabbering. (Prior to 9/11, it was Monica, then Survivor and Chandra Levy, whereas, since the fatal day, we have had mostly anthrax, plus much heroic footage from the Pentagon.) The cartel's favored audience, moreover, is that stratum of the population most desirable to advertisers--which has meant the media's complete abandonment of working people and the poor. And while the press must help protect us against those who would abuse the powers of government, the oligopoly is far too cozy with the White House and the Pentagon, whose faults, and crimes, it is unwilling to expose. The media's big bosses want big favors from the state, while the reporters are afraid to risk annoying their best sources. Because of such politeness (and, of course, the current panic in the air), the US coverage of this government is just a bit more edifying than the local newscasts in Riyadh.
Against the daily combination of those corporate tendencies--conflict of interest, endless cutbacks, endless trivial pursuits, class bias, deference to the king and all his men--the public interest doesn't stand a chance. Despite the stubborn fiction of their "liberal" prejudice, the corporate media have helped deliver a stupendous one-two punch to this democracy. (That double whammy followed their uncritical participation in the long, irrelevant jihad against those moderate Republicans, the Clintons.) Last year, they helped subvert the presidential race, first by prematurely calling it for Bush, regardless of the vote--a move begun by Fox, then seconded by NBC, at the personal insistence of Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric. Since the coup, the corporate media have hidden or misrepresented the true story of the theft of that election.
And having justified Bush/Cheney's coup, the media continue to betray American democracy. Media devoted to the public interest would investigate the poor performance by the CIA, the FBI, the FAA and the CDC, so that those agencies might be improved for our protection--but the news teams (just like Congress) haven't bothered to look into it. So, too, in the public interest, should the media report on all the current threats to our security--including those far-rightists targeting abortion clinics and, apparently, conducting bioterrorism; but the telejournalists are unconcerned (just like John Ashcroft). So should the media highlight, not play down, this government's attack on civil liberties--the mass detentions, secret evidence, increased surveillance, suspension of attorney-client privilege, the encouragements to spy, the warnings not to disagree, the censored images, sequestered public papers, unexpected visits from the Secret Service and so on. And so should the media not parrot what the Pentagon says about the current war, because such prettified accounts make us complacent and preserve us in our fatal ignorance of what people really think of us--and why--beyond our borders. And there's much more--about the stunning exploitation of the tragedy, especially by the Republicans; about the links between the Bush and the bin Laden families; about the ongoing shenanigans in Florida--that the media would let the people know, if they were not (like Michael Powell) indifferent to the public interest.
In short, the news divisions of the media cartel appear to work against the public interest--and for their parent companies, their advertisers and the Bush Administration. The situation is completely un-American. It is the purpose of the press to help us run the state, and not the other way around. As citizens of a democracy, we have the right and obligation to be well aware of what is happening, both in "the homeland" and the wider world. Without such knowledge we cannot be both secure and free. We therefore must take steps to liberate the media from oligopoly, so as to make the government our own.


Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation


Seven Jewish Americans
Control Most US Media

From John Whitley

From southern France, Christopher Jones summarizes and comments on a report on the assassination of President Kennedy. Need I stress that WAIS censors only direct attacks on other WAISers and grossly improper language.

Christopher says: "I glanced at the Kennedy assassination site and found this; it fits into our discussion of Hollywood stereotypes and the slavish behavior of the US press after the 9/11 tragedy and in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. In a quick rundown, the website recapitulates an old story that I heard back in the late sixties and early seventies in California: that Kennedy was liquidated by the mafia whose kingpin was Meyer Lansky (pal of Lucky Luciano). In fact, I could add a small tidbit which the author may or may not have covered: that Marilyn Monroe was murdered by the mafia as a warning to her lovers; Bobby and Jack Kennedy. The story of the Corsican hit squad was documented in a TV documentary in Europe. Of course it would be interesting to know more about Auguste Ricord and his collaboration wih the Gestapo and if he had anything to do with our old friend, Mandel Szkolnikoff.

"Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:

1. Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner

2. Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company

3. Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd

Edgar M. Bronfman, Sr.
"Creating a Renaissance in Jewish Life"

4.Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios

5. Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc

6. Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric

7. Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited

Those seven Jewish men (above) collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.

Most of the larger independent newspapers are owned by Jewish interests as well. An example is media mogul is Samuel I. "Si" Newhouse, who owns two dozen daily newspapers from Staten Island to Oregon, plus the Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine, among other imprints; and cable franchises with over one million subscribers."

I could add that Michael Eisner could depart Disney tomorrow but the company will remain in the hands of Shamrock Holdings, whose principal office is now located in Israel". 

Bronfman Group Buys Time Warner Music

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Inc. (TWX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday said it would sell its Warner Music business to a group led by media mogul Edgar Bronfman Jr. for $2.6 billion, in a move to trim the media group's debts and signaling a return of the former Seagram chairman to the music business.

The Bronfman group beat out a bid by EMI (EMI.L: Quote, Profile, Research) for the recorded music portion of the business for an estimated $1 billion.

By choosing the Bronfman bid, Time Warner is forsaking $250 million to $300 million in cost savings it could have realized by combining with EMI, home to such acts as The Beatles and Radiohead. Warner Music artists include Madonna, Led Zeppelin and R.E.M.

On the other hand, Time Warner is getting more cash up front by selling the entire business, which includes the music publishing company, and will have an easier path to regulatory approval. In the past, European and U.S. regulators have frowned on consolidation within the music business.

Bronfman's team, backed by some of America's biggest private equity houses including Thomas H. Lee Partners, is betting it can slash costs and turn Warner Music around ahead of a comeback in sales, a major challenge in an industry currently in decline.

Bronfman has had long ties to the music business, first as a songwriter for the likes of Dionne Warwick and Celine Dion, and later as head of Seagram when he bought entertainment group MCA from Japan's Matsushita for $5.7 billion. On his watch, the renamed Universal Music bought Polygram, creating the world's largest record company.

Bronfman merged his family's entertainment empire with France's Vivendi three years ago, only to see the family fortune disintegrate. When Vivendi put its entertainment assets on the block earlier this year, Bronfman led a group to buy the assets back but was ultimately outbid by NBC.

Hit by rampant piracy and competition from other entertainment such as video games, music sales are expected to fall for the fourth year in a row in 2004.

Earlier this month Sony Music (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) agreed to merge with Bertelsmann AG's (BERT.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) BMG.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.

From Donna Halperin

Hi Jeff - I am Jewish and I take exception to some of the articles you post on your site. However, this particular article is staggering in its implications. It is said there are less than 15 million Jews on the planet. Most of us...and I know a lot of people... are kind, normal and not megalomaniacal in our approach to life. When someone of ANY religious or political persuasion reads this story and then also factors in the dominance of Jews in finance and the economy, government, science, the medical profession, the legal profession - in fact all the professions - one has to come away pondering how such staggering influence has been acquired by such a microscopic percent of the world's 7 BILLION people. For ANY group to wield such power clearly and obviously injects profound bias and skewing into all areas of a nation so dominated. Is there a Zionist/Jewish bias in Western society and especially the US? Is grass green? It is often whispered that Baron Rothschild really owns and controls Great Britain. It is reported that 7 of the 8 oligarch/gangsters who control most of Russia are Jews ...probably hard core Zionists. (Maybe Putin is trying to prevent a total Zionist takeover of Russia with the Lukos oil magnate's arrest?) And then look at the Zionist Jewish near domination of the Bush administration (no coincidence, that) and the more than one trillion dollars the kindly American people have given to Israel in 'loan guarantees'...not a penny of which has ever...or will ever... be paid back. I could go on but it when a Jew starts to point out the facts and connect the dots, they are quickly smeared as 'self-hating' and so forth. Well, this Jew is an American first and I'm hoping you continue to post factual articles like this on your site. Thank you.


How many taxpayer's dollars does your State give to Israel?
U.S.-Israel Relations




The Alien Grip on Our
News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

Who Rules America?

By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Magazine
PO Box 330, Hillsboro, West Virginia 24946 USA. FAX# 304-653-4690

There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds
For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan -- with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters -- and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media -- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures -- speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world -- a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends -- and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. The preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming, however, that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News & Entertainment Media
Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via a cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine -- it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies.

The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when AOL bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Although AOL-TW isn't (yet) run entirely by Jews, the effect of this blend of leadership between a White capitalist whose biggest concern is money and a racially conscious Jew will be gradually to increase the Jewish influence within AOL. Steve Case won't complain when Gerald Levin begins hiring mostly Jews to fill key positions beneath him because Case's own profits won't be affected. After Case dies or retires, the Jews will have complete control at AOL.

Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and it will now be used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner.

Time Warner, Inc., with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL. Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, had bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996 from Ted Turner, who had been one of the few Gentile entrepreneurs in the media business. Ted Turner, as the company president, became the number three man at AOL-TW, after Case and Levin.

When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 until 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network were obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. When his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objection.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the "connections" necessary for being a true media master. He finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to Levin. Ted Turner is in one respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both of these White men are capitalists with no discernible degree of racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001, AOL Time Warner announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO of CNN News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted Turner built.

Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema) and in publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).

The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as "a control freak," includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family, prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called "adult" material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.

ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1997. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women's Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals), and the Diversified Publishing Group.

Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom.

Working for Redstone as CBS's chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin. He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large number of outdoor advertising assets.

Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.

Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. As of early 2001, Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap." These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips. With the revenue from PolyGram added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control of the world's largest producer of classical music CDs: PolyGram owns the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities company led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi Universal, will retain Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. The strategy for this merger seems to mirror that of AOL-Time Warner: infect and wait. Vivendi Universal will pay off the debts it assumed in the merger by selling Seagram's alcohol business, retaining its media empire.

With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, and with Jews in executive charge of the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.

What about the other big media companies?

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a Gentile Australian, but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin's supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: "I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?"

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premier independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill Clinton was trying to keep her quiet.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry.

Films produced by just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above -- Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) -- accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over periods of several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.

NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network's news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw's producer. It is not known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the "Special Events" coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- and the only exception that we know of to an otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three producers were fired, ostensibly for not being "aggressive" enough. One wonders whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the Early Show.

Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997, where he became the president of CNN/USA.

The Print Media
After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1483 different publications (this figure is for February 2000). One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most "local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country's 1483 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 104 of the total number have circulations of more than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all of their national and international news.

The Associated Press, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the AP's national news as assistant managing editor since 1992. He was promoted to his current job in 2000. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who is executive editor for the AP.

In only 47 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Mobile, Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press-Register; and the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal -- all owned by the Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 30 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $8 billion today.

The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue -- not the small change collected from a newspaper's readers -- that largely pays the editor's salary and yields the owner's profit.

Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers -- primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers
The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.

The New York Times, with a September 1999 circulation of 1,086,000, is the unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th century it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. The executive editor is Joseph Lelyveld, also a Jew (he is a rabbi's son).

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, industry czar in America during the First World War.

The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979 she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 763,000, and its Sunday edition sells 1.1 million copies.

The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Washington Post Company's various television ventures reach a total of about 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 635,000 subscribers.

In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world.

The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. And, as mentioned above, the New York Post is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.1 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.2 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.

Our Responsibility
Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable, and when confronted with them Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of "anti-Semitism" for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent.

But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues! The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing -- plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war -- more dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character -- except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.

Owners, managers, and corporate relationships change from time to time, of course. All of the names and other data in this report have been checked carefully and are accurate as of July 2001.


Who controls your media?
Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. 


Enter the Matrix: The FCC's New Rules

Monday, June 2, 2003
It is done. After 20 months of study, discussions, and, occasionally, public hearings, the Federal Communications Commission has announced new rules for media ownership. 

Here's a quick matrix of the FCC's decisions:

Old rule What's changed
Companies may not own broadcast and print organizations in the same market.
Cross ownership rules restrictions lifted in areas with nine or more television stations, which are the largest markets; other markets would face some limits; cross ownership banned in markets with three or fewer TV stations.
No broadcast company can own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the national audience. The plan would allow the nation's four national television networks and other group owners to buy enough television stations to reach 45 percent of the national audience. The networks had sought total repeal, but the change at the very least ensures that News Corp. Inc.'s (NWS) Fox network and Viacom Inc.'s (VIA) CBS network, which currently reach nearly 40 percent of the audience, won't have to sell stations.
Companies can only own two stations in one market if they are not large stations, and there are eight other competitors.
Broadcasters will be allowed to own three stations in the biggest markets where there are 18 stations, such as Los Angeles, up from two; companies could add a second channel in smaller in markets where there are at least five stations, as long as one is not in the top four, based on ratings.
A company may not own two of the top four broadcast stations in a market.
No change. The FCC bars a broadcaster from owning two of the top four rated stations in any market. Those four are usually the affiliates of the major networks -- Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC.
Companies are limited in radio station ownership. No change to current rule; new constraints as the agency imposes new market definitions to avoid monopolies that have sprung up in some markets. But these monopoly clusters won't be broken up unless the clusters are sold.
No mergers between the top four networks.
No change; mergers prohibited among top four networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox

Compiled from various news sources.


Richard Ruelas
OUTFOXED: Former Fox newsman not afraid to be honest
Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:19

Former Fox newsman not afraid to be honest  site down

Richard Ruelas
Republic columnist
Aug. 23, 2004 12:00 AM

Jon Du Pre had to be honest during the job interview when Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Network, asked him what he thought about "what we do." Du Pre told Ailes he hadn't seen the network because, at the time, it wasn't available in Phoenix, where he worked as a news anchor. Ailes then half-coughed to clear his throat. The outgoing air flapped his jowls. He then asked Du Pre, "What's your political preference?" It was a question Du Pre had never been asked while seeking a journalism job. During his employment there, from 1998 to 2002, Du Pre would find that much of what went on at Fox News Channel, the upstart 24-hour cable news network, was unlike any news organization he'd been at before.

Du Pre answered the political question this way: "Respectfully, Mr. Ailes, it's none of your business." Ailes told him he liked that answer. Du Pre was assigned to the network's West Coast bureau. Ailes' reason for asking about his politics would become clear over the next few weeks.

"Only as time went on, did I begin to realize that Fox News Channel wasn't a news-type organization," Du Pre said. "It was a political propaganda machine."

Du Pre, familiar to Phoenix-area viewers as an anchor for Channel 12 (KPNX) and Channel 5 (KPHO), is one of the former Fox News employees interviewed for the documentary Outfoxed. He is the only on-air personality to let his name and face be shown. Du Pre didn't think it was a big deal to talk openly about his experience at Fox News, even on a documentary that aims to portray the news network as a Republican Party operative. The network's conservative agenda was never kept a secret among its employees.

"I never saw anybody attempt to masquerade as anything we weren't," Du Pre said. "It was all done in the open, in staff meetings."

Although he's one of the "stars" of the documentary, Du Pre was not sent a copy. The film, funded by the left-leaning MoveOn group, is being distributed primarily by mail order, through Du Pre didn't see the documentary until last week, when I took a copy up to his north Scottsdale home.

"I have no idea what to expect," Du Pre said, leaning back on his brown leather couch. Du Pre, 45, has the classic good looks of a news anchor, and his living room walls resonate with his deep voice.

The screen showed Rupert Murdoch, the network's owner, and Ailes holding a news conference in 1996, announcing the formation of Fox News Channel. Ailes said the network would "restore objectivity where we find it lacking." He also said that his former jobs working for Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would not affect the programming. "We just expect to do balanced journalism," he said.

Spooky music came out of the speakers as the documentary showed some leaked memos from John Moody, a vice president at the network. The memos gave directives on not only what stories the network would cover, but also how it would cover them.

One said to downplay coverage of the 9/11 commission hearings. "This is not 'What did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate," it read.

Another anticipated that a Kerry speech that day would include criticism of the war in Iraq. It advised that the network "take the beginning of the Kerry speech," which was expected to focus on jobs, "and see if other news at that time is more compelling."

Du Pre hit pause. "This is presented in here as some sort of nefarious or hidden agenda," he said. "It wasn't so subtle." In reality, his bureau chief, who would have been a recipient of the daily memos, would relay the messages to him in much more colorful and blatant language. Reporters knew who the enemies were. They were ordered to deliver stories that made Democrats look bad and Republicans look good.

Du Pre said most Fox News Channel employees figured the bias was so obvious that audience would be able to see it as well. "Nobody thought that what we were doing was 'fair and balanced,' " he said, quoting the network's slogan. It was more "an attempt to balance out what everybody else was doing." He also said such rationalization was "survival."

"Their point of view is their point of view, and they have every right to it," Du Pre said. "But to hold themselves out as a fair and balanced source of news and information, let alone the truth, is abhorrent."

Du Pre left Fox News when his contract expired in 2002. The network said it wasn't renewing his contract. That was fine with Du Pre, who said he wouldn't have renewed it anyway. The network took his salary, which reflected 19 years of broadcast experience, and used it to hire two "kids" out of Sacramento, Du Pre said. Ailes is still listed as a reference on Du Pre's resume.

On its Web site, Fox News released a statement about the documentary, saying that any news organizations that run stories on the film "is opening itself to having its copyrighted material taken out of context for partisan reasons." The statement does not say the documentary is in error nor deny the authenticity of the internal memos.

The network, on its Web site, also tries to discredit its former employees, including Du Pre. It says Du Pre left Fox News because "as his personnel file states, he was a weak field correspondent and could not do live shots." Du Pre said that claim is false.

Du Pre, who left Channel 5 this year, has twice been denied anchor jobs at Fox affiliates in other cities because of his appearance in the documentary.

"Even if I don't get another job in this business, it will have been worth it," Du Pre said of the Outfoxed interview. He got into this business to tell the truth, after all. It's a lesson he learned from his journalism professor at Brigham Young University, Lynn Packer.

BYU fired Packer for pursuing an investigation on Paul Dunn, a Mormon Church leader. Dunn had made a mini-empire out of inspirational stories from his own life. Packer found that most of those were demonstrably untrue. In a 1991 Republic story, Dunn admitted he stretched the truth, but it was only to make the stories interesting or help convey a message.

Which is exactly the justification behind what Fox News Channel does.

Du Pre said the producers of Outfoxed were surprised that he agreed to an on-camera interview. Most other former employees appear as disguised voices.

But that wouldn't have been nearly as cleansing for Du Pre.

Instead, the crew set up in his dining room, clipped a microphone to his shirt, and asked him questions about his time at the Fox News Channel. Du Pre told the truth.

"It'd been so long since I'd really done that," he said. "It felt good."

Reach Ruelas at

Buy it here:

Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.


Media Ownership and Deregulation

Could Al Franken and his left-wing cronies possibly be right? Is liberal media bias just a myth propagated by conservatives, and have the mainstream media actually swung to the right?

Absolutely not.

In the new book Weapons of Mass Distortion, L. Brent Bozell III—founder and president of the Media Research Center, America’s largest and most respected media watchdog organization—presents the definitive account of how liberal bias in the news industry is alive and well.

But here’s the thing: The liberal media are headed for a downfall. Bozell demonstrates how their monopoly on information is at last coming to an end, in large part because journalists continue to deny the bias that infects their news coverage. His unrivaled expertise allows him to show readers exactly how the media landscape is changing—and to expose the even bigger changes that are coming.

Marshaling an astonishing amount of evidence, Bozell documents exactly how the news media deliberately attempt to set the national agenda through their slanted coverage. In the process he destroys the arguments that Franken and many other left-wing commentators have put forward regarding media bias.

Weapons of Mass Distortion also reveals:

• How the liberal media’s slanted coverage of President George W. Bush will play a huge role in the 2004 elections
• Why liberals’ claims about the influence of Fox News and the “conservative media” are wrong—and deliberately misleading
• How the mainstream press has waged war on the war on terrorism
• Never-before-told stories of how leading journalists, behind the scenes, betray the liberal bias they so forcefully deny in public—incidents that Bozell has witnessed firsthand
• How the same journalists who condemn the Right for “hate speech” regularly launch (and get away with) vicious personal attacks on conservatives
• Clear evidence that the major news outlets are hemorrhaging viewers, readers, and listeners precisely because of their liberal bias

By dominating the news media for so long, liberals have been able to control what we see and hear. But as Bozell makes clear, the Left will lose that control soon enough.

From the Hardcover edition.

Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media
Click here for book

Weapons of Mass Distortion
Click here for E-Book buy on-line


Mind Control in America
In the book 1984, George Orwell warned that people were in danger of losing their freedom of mind without being aware of it while it was happening because of psychological, emotional and intellectual manipulation: Mind Control.
"All the problems in America are the result of people being led to believe things that are not true," says Steven Jacobson, author and producer of the audio cassettes Mind Control in America and Wake-Up America. If you have not been deprogrammed yet, then these two powerful tapes (the result of more than ten years of research) will open your eyes and mind to a hidden reality! =================================================

The CFR / Trilateral / New World Order Connection


"Why does the world hate us so much? One reason may be that no one likes being lied to...". Vietnam and Afghanistan Show why Limiting Press Access to War is Unpatriotic
Village Voice


Media Censorship and Control

Mind Control (Propaganda)
Do you watch television? How many hours a day do you spend watching T.V.?
Have you ever stopped to wonder why is it that ALL OF THE NEWS STORIES ARE THE SAME NO MATTER WHICH CHANNEL IT IS?

A Classic Case Of Media
Conditioning & Mind Control

Media Industrial Complex 

The CIA and the Media:
A Complex Relationship

War, Propaganda and the Media 

The Military-Mass Media Complex

Silent Subliminal Mind Control

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 1/6

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 2/6

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 3/6

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 4/6

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 5/6

Behind The Big News : Propaganda and the CFR - 6/6


Behind the Big News assortment from Google:

The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American
Decline (Paperback) by James Perloff

MEDIA CONTROL: Who Owns and Controls It

When Will the American People Expose the Media ...

Defining the Elite Media

The Truth Shall Make You Mad

LIBERTY - US - Attacked by .....


Don't underestimate the power of the CIA's media manipulation

9-11 URGENT: Send this message to corporate media

The Lie’s the Limit? WHERE DOES IT END?

Media censorship

Major New Study Blasts Media Coverage of WMDs

Correcting the Record About President Bush's Immigration


 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net worker's..

APFN Sitemap

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page


Hit Counter

Last updated 05/14/2011