THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
WHY AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING
- 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
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
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?
PROGRAMMING THE VIEWER
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
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:
Other obvious examples of dissimulation we see today include:
pretending like more and more government will not further stifle an already
pretending like programs favoring "minorities" are not just another form of
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
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
All actions of the present regime since 9/11 may be explained by plugging in
one of four beneficiaries:
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
- 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
- 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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW?
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
HOW IT ALL GOT STARTED
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.
THE FATHER OF SPIN
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.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
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
-- 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.
HERE COMES THE MONEY
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
Procter & Gamble
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:
medicine as a profession
fluoridation of city water
household cleaning products
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
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
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Air Hygiene Foundation
Industrial Health Federation
International Food Information Council
Center for Produce Quality
Tobacco Institute Research Council
American Council on Science and Health
Global Climate Coalition
Alliance for Better Foods
Sound pretty legit don't they?
CANNED NEWS RELEASES
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
THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN
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;
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:
Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
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)
CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA
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
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
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!
SCIENCE FOR HIRE
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
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
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
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
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
THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE
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
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.
THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF "SOUND SCIENCE"
It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast
majority of corporate PR today opposes any research
that seeks to protect
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.
THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK
When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups
and alternative medicine people, they again use
special words which will carry an emotional punch:
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)
THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW
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
Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the
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
Very scientific, oh yes.
KILL YOUR TV?
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?
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
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
What else could we be doing with all this freed-up
time that would actually expand awareness?
PLANET OF THE APES?
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.
TEA IN THE CAFETERIA
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
©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
*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
Source: article from Reuters
THE BIG TEN: &
AOL Time Warner
What's Wrong With This Picture?
by Mark Crispin Miller
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and
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
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?
VIRTUAL JEWISH LIBRARY
SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
"WE NEED TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary
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
Here's a quick matrix of the FCC's decisions:
|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
|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.
OUTFOXED: Former Fox newsman not afraid to
Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:19
Former Fox newsman not afraid to be honest
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 www.outfoxed.org. Du Pre didn't see the
documentary until last week, when I took a copy up to his north Scottsdale
"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:
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.
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?
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
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
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
THE NEWS TWISTERS (Hardcover) by EDITH EFRON
Behind the Big News assortment from Google:
HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS? READ THESE:
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 .....
CIA MEDIA CONTROL
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?
Major New Study Blasts Media Coverage of WMDs
Correcting the Record About President Bush's Immigration
OPERATION "CRITICAL MASS" - Media Hot List
**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.
American Patriot Friends Network
"....a network of net worker's..
APFN Contents Page