Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Media Manipulation
#11
Billionaires Control the Media -


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yout...bqhTKgv0hg
#12
When Corporate Power Is Your Real Government, Corporate Media Is State Media

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/when-c...tate-media

CORRUPTION IS LEGAL IN AMERICA

https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
#13
Mainstream Media TV Veteran Admits: ‘We Are a Cancer and There is No Cure’

https://www.prisonplanet.com/media-tv-ve...-cure.html
#14
Dershowitz: Why I Am Suing CNN

I love the First Amendment, I support the First Amendment, I have litigated cases defending the First Amendment. I have written and taught about the First Amendment. And I was a law clerk for the Supreme Court when it rendered its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which "protects media even when they print false statements about public figures, as long as the media did not act with 'actual malice.'"

But I also understand the limitations of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is designed to promote the marketplace of ideas. It is not a license for giant media companies to deliberately and maliciously defame citizens, even public figures. So when CNN made a decision to doctor a recording so as to deceive its viewers into believing that I said exactly the opposite of what I actually said, that action was not protected by the First Amendment. Here is what CNN did.
I was asked to present the Constitutional argument against President Trump's impeachment and removal to the United States Senate this past January. For an hour and seven minutes, I argued that if a president does anything illegal, unlawful, or criminal-like -- if he commits treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- he satisfies the criteria for impeachment under the Constitution. But if a president engages in entirely lawful conduct motivated in part by the desire to be reelected, which he believes is in the public interest, that would not constitute grounds for impeachment. Everybody seemed to understand the distinction I was drawing. Some agreed, others disagreed. But the distinction was clear between illegal conduct on the one hand, and lawful conduct on the other hand.
Two days later I returned to the Senate to answer questions put to the lawyers by the senators. The first question to me came from Senator Ted Cruz. He asked whether a quid pro quo constituted an impeachable offense. My response was consistent with my argument two days earlier: I said that what "would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal." If it was, it could constitute an impeachable offense. But if it wasn't illegal or unlawful, the president's political motives could not turn it into an impeachable offense. That was quite clear. Indeed, the next question from the senators was directed to the Democratic House Manager who was asked to respond to my answer. Congressman Adam Schiff, disagreed with my answer, but understood the distinction between lawful and unlawful. So did CNN. When they first showed my answer, they showed it in full, including my statement that a quid pro quo would not be impeachable so long as it was not "in some way illegal." I then went on to say that if a president was motivated in part by his desire to be reelected, which he believes was in the public interest, that motive would not turn a lawful act into an impeachable offense.
But then CNN made a decision to doctor and edit my recorded remarks so as to eliminate all references to "unlawful" or "illegal" conduct. They wanted their viewers to believe that I had told the Senate that a president could do anything -- even commit such crimes as "bribery" and "extortion" -- as long as he was motivated by a desire to be reelected. That, of course, was precisely the opposite of what I said. And that is precisely the reason by CNN edited and doctored the tape the way they did: namely to deliberately create the false impression that I had said the president could commit any crimes in order to be reelected, without fear of impeachment.
CNN then got its paid commentators to go on the air, broadcast the doctored recording and rail against me for saying that a president could commit crimes with impunity. Joe Lockhart, former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, said that I had given the president "license to commit crimes" and that:
Quote:"This is what you hear from Stalin. This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalize, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."
No one corrected him by pointing out that I said exactly the opposite in the sentence that CNN had edited out. Nor did anyone correct Paul Begala when he wrote:
Quote:"The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act, so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their re-election effort. Campaign finance laws: out the window. Bribery statutes: gone. Extortion: no more. This is Donald Trump's fondest figurative dream: to be able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it." (Emphasis added)
CNN is, of course, responsible for the decision to edit and doctor the recording to reverse its meaning and they are also responsible for how their paid commentators mischaracterized what I said.
So I am suing them for a lot of money, not in order to enrich myself, but to deter CNN and other media from maliciously misinforming their viewers at the expense of innocent people. I intend to donate funds I receive from CNN to worthy charities, including those that defend the First Amendment. Every American will benefit from a judicial decision that holds giant media accountable for turning truth on its head and for placing partisanship above the public interest. So I will continue to defend the First Amendment as I have for the last 55 years (I am now consulting with Julian Assange's legal team). But I will insist that giant media not abuse their First Amendment rights in the way that CNN did.
#15
THE MEDIA: appeasing madness & irrelevance

The most over-used and falsely applied term in what passes for journlism now has to be fake news. Passing highly plausible conspiracy reports off as ‘luicrous rubbish’ on the one hand – while promoting myths themselves on the other – how the mainstream media hacks find the enthusiasm to do it day after day remains a mystery.
‘Hope for vaccine in New Year’ headlined yesterday’s Sunday Times: I used its search engine to establish that the Murdoch Mendacity Machine has run ‘promised vaccine’ stories 186 times this year. How mad do you have to be to spend 186/256 days predicting something, but pushing it further into the future? I mean, how bonkers are the hacks who spend 73% of their time predicting the impossible?
In the olden days of our dear departed Guardian, the excuse most of the time for it printing hilarious nonsense was that it was housed in a building full of sloppy proofreaders. This led to it being referred in Private Eye as The Grauniad – a name that stuck for many years.
Today, Little G no longer has the proofreaders to blame: instead, printing lies is down to its Executive editor, who has decreed how to smear those with whom it disagrees. Thus, she dictates that Climate Change sceptics are in fact ‘deniers’, conservative thinkers are ‘regressive’, Covid19 libertarians are ‘anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists’, and Antifa rioters are ‘peaceful demonstrators’.
My default reactions to any news story these days are (1) Is this a wind-up? (2) You would say that and (3) Do I look as if I give a shit? That’s to say, it’s about people getting upset about nothing, bias sticking out like an in-scale penis in the Statue of Liberty’s mouth, or celebrity codswallop.

By sheer volume, N° 3 is the most obvious. This was my favourite record of nothing yesterday:
Wayne Rooney gets emergency Covid test after infected pal delivers luxury watch to his house.
Wayne Rooney is super-fit and under thirty-five. He has roughly 30 chances in 200,000 of dying from Covid. He may sneeze up to four times and throw a sicky for a few days. This is not news, this is a washed-up soccer playing gonk buying a watch.
N° 2 led the pack at the Mail on Sunday – if you could fight your way past the ads – with a gripping video of the Pfizer production line churning out bottles of “Covid vaccine”:
……new footage shows the vaccine that could end the Covid misery engulfing the planet. Drug giant Pfizer has already manufactured ‘several hundred thousand doses’ of the jab at its plant in Puurs, Belgium, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. They are being stockpiled ready to be rolled out worldwide if clinical trials are a success, and regulators deem it safe and effective. The US giant hopes to make 100 million doses available this year, of which 40 million are destined for the UK – a figure that will be dwarfed by the 1.3 billion jabs the company aims to manufacture in 2021.
The Mail Group is the best-run business in Fleet Street, but it’s business isn’t journalism. This is pretty apparent in everything they produce. My questions on reading this alarming story yesterday morning were: why is Pfizer stockpiling the stuff before it’s been tested? who is the “vaccine” to be tested on? and who’s going to do the regulating? None of these questions were answered: as George Orwell would’ve said, “This isn’t news, it’s PR”.
But I group it under N°2 because of the ridiculous opener, ‘the Covid misery engulfing the planet‘. The only misery is being caused by the élites’ reaction to Coronavirus, and their impenetrable rules about the standing sitting running jumping distancing mask farrago.
The Editorial Board behind the Mail would say that, because the swabs around its Zero moral compass editor Ted Verity (not veritas, mind) are all globalists who gladly switched sides on the Brexit issue in order to ensure the advertising revenue from Big Globalist business would carry on pouring into the MoS.
Verity’s first act as editor was to fire the delightful and intelligent Boris Johnson sister Rachel, and replace her with the unutterably ghastly (and lucky to be at liberty) hacking airhead Tina Weaver. Terrifique Tina 38-27-46 learned her trade at The Mirror. You know – the Mirror edited by Piers Morgan who had nothing to do with phone-hacking and never learned how to hack a phone, with but one flaw in his case….he was guilty.
So now you know.
But the richest seam is Numero Uno, because for a wrinkly like me who still grasps the chemical and olfactory difference between stools and sucrose, it is the easiest evidence to collect for any journalist still interested in Truth – as opposed to who owned the hamster that Freddie Starr allegedly consumed.
My N°1 pick of the weekend is this little tidbit of invented self-absorption:


READ MORE

https://therealslog.com/2020/10/19/the-m...relevance/
#16
JAMES O'KEEFE LIVE STREAMS CNN PRESIDENT JEFF ZUCKER'S 9AM CALL

https://youtu.be/uW-z287KQzg
#17
Captain Sir Tom Moore -

What was that? 

“He has received his first dose of the COVID vaccine”

And they’re trying to tell EVERYONE that he didn’t, after he passed away.

Share and Download before it’s deleted, because we know they’re going to.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3...e=youtu.be



The lying mainstream media went to great lengths to claim he had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, however the truth of the matter is provided in web archives (see paragraph 8) ...

Link on 14/15.1.21 ...  http://web.archive.org/web/2021020317303...i-jab.html


 ... then updated on 3.2.21 to remove his name!  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...bkU0b1i8U4
#18
Social engineering via media 101 – how to normalize the absurd -

Ever pay attention to trends in the media? Some stories and narratives rise and fall in cycles, along with your awareness of them. It’s kind of like a shell game, where the street hustler directs your attention to one shell as a distraction while he shuffles aside the nut with the goods in it. A ‘now you see it, now you don’t,’ kind of thing...


https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/geopol...e-absurd-1
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)