Sep 18, 1997
"You can change the channel but you cannot change the news."
"A national survey of fifty local television newscasts by the
Rocky Mountain Media Watch, a Denver-based nonprofit group,
revealed what viewers already knew," charges Carl Jensen, author
of Censored 1996. "Local TV news focuses on crime, disasters,
sensational visuals, weather, sports, promotions and ads - to
the exclusion of real news."
local television stations all reporting the same news
simultaneously, one claiming the title "news leader", another
billing itself as the one with "total news", it is apparently
becoming more difficult for the public to distinguish one from the
other - or from common entertainment, according to former CIA agent,
"Television news is show business,"
declares Agee in his book, On the Run, Lyle Stuart Inc., 1987,
"designed to entertain and intentionally or not, programmed to
keep people ignorant."
With an observation as this written ten
years ago, George Orwell's prophetic world where "ignorance
is strength" no longer seems a prophetic forecast, but a present
Surfing between channels, seeking a different perspective on a
particular news story, or to even see a different story, one can
easily observe that not only are the reports worded nearly
identically, but the photography, in many cases, is identical.
A logically sardonic question could be posed as to why the waste of
resources? Why not pool them into one reporting agency and charge
the advertisers two or three times the standard fee based on how
many news sources were eliminated in the consolidation?
The answer, other than the obvious monetary considerations, perhaps
lies with Carl Jensen's assessment of Adolph Hitler's philosophy of
"More than half a century ago Hitler
said the masses take a long time to understand and remember,
thus it is necessary to repeat the message time and time and
time again. The public must be conditioned to accept the claims
that are made... no matter how outrageous or false those claims
Last month Good Morning America
reported that a state governor announced the Fig Newton as his
state's official fruit cookie. The comment made by the program's
host, amidst much laughter was, "You'd think the Governor would have
a few better things to do."
With such an observation, would it not
seem logical that Good Morning America would have much better
items to report on?
"If, however, the public does not
receive all the information it needs to make informed
decisions," Jensen claims, "then some form of news blackout is
taking place...some issues are overlooked (what we call
'censored') and other issues are over-covered (what we call
'junk food news')."
Why does a boxer's bitten ear receive
local and nationwide coverage, but we are never told about
presidential Executive Orders that affect the entire nation? Why
does the case of a slain child beauty queen receive daily updates,
but UN sanctions that starve millions during their "peacekeeping"
operations, receive only a passing mention? One can receive minute
detail on the actions of a homosexual serial killer involving a
nationwide hunt for a man possibly dressed as a woman, but UN
soldiers camouflaged as peacekeepers are scarcely reported?
Aldous Huxley in his book, Brave New World, observes,
"The greatest triumphs of propaganda
have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by
refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a
practical point of view, is silence about truth."
A child's death is certainly a tragedy.
A bitten ear is painful, yet things that affect an entire nation or
the world are seldom, if ever, covered.
Truth, it seems, is destined to be
forever buried under a flood of "cookies".
RULED BY MONEY
Peter Phillips observes in his book,
Censored 1997, why it is so
difficult in this age of information to obtain true, pertinent facts
that have a distinct impact upon the lives of this country's
"Corporate-owned media outlets tend
to ignore or dismiss stories that run counter to corporate
interests...," Phillips observes. "Why does a particular story
not receive the coverage it deserves in the media? While a
variety of reasons may be at cause, foremost among them...seems
to be conflict of interest issues involving the financial
concerns of major media advertisers."
Walter Cronkite, intimately aware that
the news media is controlled by money, laments,
"Those who permit such pressure to
be exerted clearly are thinking purely of their pocketbooks and
that alone -- not of the people's rights to know or necessity to
know -- and I abhor it."
Apparently, the hand that pays the news
media controls the mouthpiece as well. It does not appear to be a
question only of news gathering costs being supported by
advertisers. The advertisers themselves are the apparent determiners
of what is newsworthy based exclusively upon monetary
When this ethic is applied to multi-national corporations whose
yearly revenue arguably exceeds the national budget of most third
world countries, the stakes are raised to a level that far exceeds
merely the success or failure in the marketplace of a new model of
automobile or a diet pill.
"In the United States, in
particular," says Benjamin Ginsberg, Director of the Center for
Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University, "the ability
of the upper and upper-middle classes to dominate the
marketplace of ideas has generally allowed these strata to shape
the entire society's perception of political reality and the
range of realistic political and social possibilities. While
westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of
opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent
an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state."
(From The Captive Public, New
York: Basic Books, 1986).
While news is driven by advertising
sales, there is another aspect to the proliferation of media
"...A significant reason...stories
were not covered has to do with the conglomeration of the
mainstream press," says Peter Phillips in his introduction to
the 1997 volume of Project Censored. "This has resulted in fewer
media outlets, increased pressure on news divisions to produce
higher ratings and profits...."
The Telecommunications Deregulation
Bill, signed into law February of 1996 by President Clinton,
generated significant opposition due to a piece of legislation
tacked onto it called the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Most of the opposition to the bill resulted from fears of
censorship, but few recognized that the CDA allowed for the creation
of virtual monopolies in the communications arena from the purchase
of multiple media outlets by large corporations.
General Electric's ownership of the
National Broadcasting Corporation with all its subsidiaries, for
example, ensures that anything NBC airs will not run counter to GE's
policies or conflict with its revenue base.
The same principle would necessarily
apply to Time Warner's ownership of Turner Broadcasting, Disney's
takeover of ABC and Westinghouse's control of CBS.
"Those who manipulate the organized
habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible
government which is the true ruling power of our country", wrote
Edward Bernays, assistant to William Paley, founder of
CBS. "...We are dominated by a relatively small number of
"...Media corporations, practicing 'press release' journalism,
have become dependent on established sources of information
available through government and corporate channels. These
channels sanitize and spin the news to reflect their special
interests, and downsized news organizations do not expend
resources to do the in-depth investigative news gathering
necessary to counter these packaged versions of the news.
Therefore, stories that run counter to major corporate or
governmental messages tend to be ignored or discounted."
Does a larger portrait of corporate
intent emerge from this?
For example, would General Electric,
previously one of the nation's leading manufacturers of nuclear
reactors, have allowed NBC to disseminate accurate, in-depth news
critical of nuclear power? Is it also realistic to think that a
government bent on world dominion would allow news releases of
national and international importance if that news would prove
counterproductive to its political agenda?
By observing history, can we not see that governmental and media
censorship is greatest when efforts at major national control are
Walter Cronkite addressed the
issue of governmental control of the press and information flow when
"Limitations on press freedom are
imposed by the government itself despite the very clear wording
of the First Amendment that there shall be 'no law abridging the
freedom of speech or of the press."
"The government limits freedom of
information through secrecy, the almost uncontrolled use of the
document classification privilege," Cronkite continued in his
introduction to Censored 1996.
"It limits freedom also by limiting
access to news sources. The government limits freedom when it,
as the courts have from time to time, forces revelation of
reporters' sources, a process which can cut off valuable,
perhaps unique springs of information. And there is what I
consider to be the greatest threat to freedom of information:
the government licensing of broadcasting."
"A 1975 study on 'governability of
democracies' by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the
media have become a 'notable new source of national power,"
writes Noam Chomsky in his book, Necessary Illusions. Samuel
Huntington, a professor of international politics at Harvard and
the chairman of Harvard's Institute for Strategic Planning said,
in his book, The Crisis of Democracy, "Truman had been able to
govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small
number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers."
(New York University, 1975).
World bankers, by pulling a few simple
levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire
economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that
shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten
their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can
extend that control world wide.
Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the
background, invisible to the average citizen.
Expressing that very sentiment, David
Rockefeller, founder of the aforementioned
Trilateral Commission in June of
1991, addressed a meeting of that organization.
"We are grateful to The Washington
Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine," Rockefeller told them,
"and other great publications whose directors have attended our
meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our
plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights
of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more
sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world
bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination
[read as "democracy"] practiced in past centuries."
"...A handful of us," wrote Walter Cronkite, again from
his introduction to Censored 1996, "determine what will be on
the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New
York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.... Indeed
it is a handful of us with this awesome power....And those [news
stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled
by persons far outside our control."
A SICK NATION
"WE ARE AS SICK AS OUR
- Kitty Dukakis
A national survey published in
The Day America Told the Truth,
(1991, Patterson and Kim) reveals the true character
of the American people. The polls for the survey were taken assuring
anonymity to the respondents so the public felt free to reveal
The results indicated that,
"91% of us lie regularly....The
majority of us find it hard to get through a single week without
lying. One in five can't make it through a single day - and we
are talking about conscious, premeditated lies....Lying does
empower us to be people we aren't. It gives us the illusion of
control. There are more serious liars right now (liars who do
harm) than at any time in our nation's past. Lying has become a
cultural trait in America. Lying is embedded in our national
character. That hasn't really been understood around the world.
Americans lie about everything -- and usually for no good
The book went on to say that of the
remaining 9%, less than half would not lie because it was morally
wrong. An obvious conclusion can be drawn from this data that it is
not politicians, world bankers, FCC directors, presidents, the press
or "someone else" who lie to get control. It is woven throughout the
moral fabric of our society.
The government cloaks its secrets under the guise of "national
security"; world bankers keep secrets for economic gain; the media
protects its "sources" and secrets to keep its "presses" rolling;
advertisers censor the news to protect product sales from damaging
publicity. Occasionally, those manufacturers allow certain negative
information to reach the public about a product, as in the recent
fen-phen and Redux drug revelation, because to do so gives the
appearance of forthrightness - also to do otherwise, in some
circumstances, would be more damaging than the truth.
One can be assured, however, in the
light of the 1991 survey, that concern for the welfare of humanity
is not the driving force behind any spasm of necessary honesty by
product manufacturers, or any other sector of U.S. culture for that
Can it not be concluded that the news that is finally released is so
thoroughly sifted to protect government, corporate and media
interests that "state cookies" and "bitten ears" are about the only
substantive information that survives?
With 91% of the public habitual liars, according to the
aforementioned poll, can one expect anything but intense moral and
national sickness from such pervasive national lying? When 91% of a
nation is infected with epidemic dishonesty, should it be surprising
to witness moral sickness and declination in every part of its
"In fact, the way some people talk
about trying to do without lies," according to Patterson and
Kim, "you'd think that they were smokers trying to get through a
day without a cigarette."
It appears that the paparazzi,
advertisers, multi-national companies and the government all supply
the nation with lies just to feed its insatiable hunger for
entertainment and frivolity. The citizens of this nation apparently
require frequent, routine injections of lies into their moral
bloodstream in order to satisfy a growing addiction to this fantasy
and make-believe. Truth has become as unpopular as cold turkey to an
addict because it carries with it a natural tendency to sobriety and
From the Protocols we find an almost prophetic description, written
over a hundred years ago, of the lightning rush of society to the
brink of eternal ruin:
"Every man aims at power, everyone
would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare
indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the
welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.... In
applying our principles let attention be paid to the character
of the people in whose country you live.... What is the part
played by the press today?
It serves to excite and inflame
those passions which are needed [that already exist] for our
purpose.... It [the media] is often vapid, unjust, mendacious,
and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what
ends the press really serves.... Literature and journalism are
two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our
government will become proprietor of the majority of the
journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the
privately owned press and will put us in possession of the
tremendous influence upon the public mind....
"In order that the masses may not guess what they themselves are
about, we further distract them with amusements, games,
pastimes, passions, extravagance and wealth.... Growing more and
more disaccustomed to reflect and form any opinion of their own,
people will begin to talk in the same tone as we because we
alone shall be offering them new directions for thought."
THE MEDIA IS ONLY A
It is easy to point at a governor and laugh at his frivolity. It is
easy to point at a large corporation as the perpetrator of media
conspiracies. It is easy to point at the new world order
conspirators and blame them for our social and cultural sickness.
But should the citizens of this nation be looking at
outside themselves for the problem when it is determined to be the
national character - a condition for which the individual is
Is it not true that one has only the government one chooses?
Withholding the truth and telling lies for gain or security is not
what is perpetrated upon us but, rather, what this nation has
become. The invisible government is seen only by those with eyes to
It is an unseen stamp in the forehead
(the thinking) and upon the hand (what is done).
"Also it causes all, both small and
great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on
the right hand or the forehead.... This calls for wisdom: let
him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it
is a human number."
Revelation 13:16 & 18.