The media’s role in overcoming political propaganda can’t be over-stated, writes Russell Edwards. It’s also high time journalists started fighting it. What should we expect of those who govern us? We live in a liberal democracy. The legitimacy of any government rests on the informed consent of the public. Should we therefore expect that governmentsMore
For years the influence of the CIA in Hollywood was hidden and unacknowledged. Now it’s more of an open secret; not publicized, but pretty easy to read up on if you care. Just ask the spy agency’s Entertainment Industry Liaison.
Supporters of Israel steal animated video without creators’ permission to send Europe an extreme message.
The label ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used by Western Establishment gatekeepers as a means of shutting down debate and smearing those who have the temerity to challenge elite-friendly narratives.
Mainstream media is hopelessly conflicted these days with an ideology to sell, bought and paid for by their corporate puppet masters. Christian Marx calls on us to boycott and divest from the MSM!
If you follow American politics, by now you’re privy to the case of the many bathroom bills introduced by religious conservatives in various states.
The recent, rather unsurprising revelation that all of the anti-trans propaganda is nothing but propaganda reminded me of the utter effectiveness of the Goebbels model. Particularly the fabrication of anxiety. Or as Doob put it in Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda:
Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
- Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat.
- Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than that concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and cannot be reduced by people themselves.
Goebbels, of course, was not alone- nor was he the brilliant creator of modern marketing. Long before him monotheistic religions had already put those principles into practice with extraordinary success. The creation of anxiety has been the backbone of interpersonal manipulation forever.
Apartheid South Africa tried and failed to use similar efforts to cover up its crimes and deflect pressure.
Hyeonseo Lee left North Korea when she was just 17 years old, crossing a river into China and never returning.
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte is a top German journalist and editor and has been for more than two decades, so you can bet he knows a thing or two about mainstream media and what really happens behind the scenes. Recently, Dr. Ulfakatte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents […]
This week, news reporter Brian Williams created global controversy when he admitted to lying about being in a helicopter crash in Iraq. His admission is just the most recent revelation in a long line of situations that have exposed the corruption that exists within the mainstream media.
While it is fairly common for reporters like Williams to get caught up in lies, it is equally common for mainstream media whistleblowers to leave their jobs and speak out against what they had seen.
Amber Lyon, for example, is an investigative journalist and photographer, who is most well known for her work reporting human rights abuses against pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain. She has also done extensive work on the power of psychedelic drugs as well as the problem of police brutality.
Lyon was thrown into the spotlight in 2012, after she conducted a groundbreaking investigation on the violence that the government in Bahrain was carrying out against their own citizens.
Unfortunately, before the episode that she recorded was able to air, CNN cancelled the report because the government in Bahrain paid them to cover it up. Instead of remaining silent about this cover-up, Lyon spoke out about the censorship and publicly left her job at CNN.
According to Wikipedia, on September 5, 2012 with the help of journalist Glenn Greenwald, Lyon exposed that CNN International never aired her documentary, iRevolution, on the Bahrain uprising. In an article by Greenwald in The Guardian, Lyon accused the network of censoring the documentary because the Bahrain regime was a paying customer at the network. The article also exposes that the government of Bahrain, as well as other governments throughout the world, are paying CNN for special content casting their countries in a positive light.
The banned episode can be viewed below:
by John Vibes
This is one of the most lie filled biased right-wing propaganda reports Bill O’Reilly has ever put out. It is full of nothing but right-wing spin and lies, and it ignores all the actual facts. O’Reilly even said The Iraq War “Was A Victory Until President Obama Mucked It Up” Which is just laughable.
Here is what the dishonest right-wing hack said:
And now here are the facts, point by point.
1) The Iraq war was a disaster and based on lies about WMD’s from Cheney and the bogus intelligence service he set up to feed lies about WMD’s to the media. O’Reilly claims everyone thought Iraq had WMD’s, which is a total lie, because at the time Scott Ritter (the actual weapons inspector in Iraq) was saying they did not have any. Among many others who said the very same thing.
You can read much more if you just google the facts about the Iraq war. And it all proves everything O’Reilly said is a lie in his attempt to slam Obama and defend Bush.
2) The creation of ISIS was a direct cause of getting rid of Saddam, that is a fact. Saddam had control of the country and he did not allow ISIS to operate in Iraq. Saddam also hated Al Qaeda and he did not allow them to operate in Iraq either.
This can be proven with many sources who are experts on Iraq, and some of them are even Republicans, including Colin Powell and Lawrence Wilkerson, who is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. They are both Republicans and they have said that ISIS would not be what it is today if Saddam was still in power in Iraq, and O’Reilly ignores it all.
3) And the biggest lie O’Reilly told, about Obama not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. That is garbage and total lies. Because Obama “pulled us out” under the terms of an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. He was going to leave troops there and the Maliki government refused the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement that made U. S. forces immune to prosecution for crimes committed while occupying Iraq.
George W. Bush approved the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in November of 2008, not Obama. In fact, Obama did not even take office until January of 2009.
The U.S.A -Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
George W. Bush agreed to it and signed it, President Obama had nothing to do with it, zero, because he was not even the President yet. And Bill O’Reilly never mentioned this fact one time, not once.
In November 2008, Iraq’s Cabinet approved the agreements; on 27 November, the Iraqi Parliament ratified them; on December 4, Iraq’s presidential council approved the security pacts. And under Obama they refused to change it and allow troops to stay, so Obama was forced to remove them from Iraq, he had no choice, because of the agreement Bush made and signed.
Under that agreement it was impossible for Obama to leave the 10,000 troops O’Reilly claims would have prevented ISIS. O’Reilly says Obama mucked it up by not leaving the troops, when he could not do it, and Iraq would not allow it. Because Bush put the SOFA in place and agreed to it, so how in the hell is that Obama’s fault?
Only a biased partisan right-wing hack could come to that conclusion, to do that you have to leave out all the facts, which is exactly what O’Reilly did. Then on top of that O’Reilly says we won the Iraq war until Obama mucked it up, so what did we win?
Iraq is and was a disaster, and nobody in their right mind thinks we won, even before ISIS was created. Only clueless Bush defending right-wing fools believe we won in Iraq. We attacked a country that did not attack us, based on lies about WMD’s, and it cost us billions and hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention creating the terrorist group ISIS, and it was all Bush’s fault.
So when Obama tells the truth about Iraq O’Reilly attacks him, ignores all the facts, and spins out some right-wing fairy tale about how it is all Obama’s fault for not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. When it was Bush who signed the SOFA, and even if we had left 10,000 troops the the experts say that would not have stopped ISIS anyway.
The problem was getting rid of Saddam, and that is a fact O’Reilly will never admit to, because he is a Bush defending fool. Bush did it, and Obama had no choice to pull the troops out because of the agreement Bush signed, and those are facts.
Lawerence Wilkerson said this: Before we invaded Iraq and sort of cemented the two sides and caused it to start. I think that was a disaster, invading Iraq in 2003, and we’re seeing the results of that disaster right now.
But I don’t think–that said, I don’t think that adding more American troops to it is the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is a political answer, but it’s a political answer that’s very complex and would take a long time to work its way out.
It involves Ankara, it involves the Turks, of course, it involves Tehran and the Iranians, it involves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, it involves Lebanon, it involves all the region–and I don’t preclude Israel from being in there too–and taking on all the problems that are causing this Islamic State force to be supported by increasing numbers of Muslims, continue to be able to recruit, and recruit even better than before, and continuing to be able to prosecute its agenda in the region.
You don’t stop that with bombs. You don’t stop that with aircraft. You don’t stop that with troops on the ground, for that matter, unless you’re willing, as I said, to mobilize the nation and really go to war. The way you stop that is with political solutions to problems that are causing these people to do what they’re doing, and more importantly, causing Muslims all around the world to support them.
And I could fill this website for weeks with more stuff just like that, it all proves O’Reilly wrong, and proves he is a liar, and that he did it to make the Democrat Obama look bad while defending his Republican hero George W. Bush. O’Reilly is wrong about all of it, and left out all the facts that show he is wrong. Nothing he said was true, not a word, it was all right-wing propaganda.
Almost on cue, Möbius Ecko drew our attention to an article in The Australian which stated:
“THE carbon tax cost $5310 for every tonne of emissions abated during its two years of operation, new government analysis shows.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt leapt on numbers in Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory declaring the carbon tax an expensive failure.
He said the 2.9 million tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions reductions during the carbon tax’s operation came at a cost of $15.4 billion in gross carbon tax revenue, or $5310 a tonne.
When the land sector is included, as is the case under Kyoto accounting, Australia’s emissions fell from 567.1mt in 2012-13 to 563.5mt, a drop of 3.6mt. Between 2011-12 and 2013-14, emissions fell 0.5 per cent or 2.9mt.”
Let’s have a closer look at this.
“Land sector” refers to deforestation and reforestation activities. Under the Kyoto Protocol, deforestation is defined as the direct, human-induced removal of forest cover on land that was forest on 1 January 1990. Emissions result when cleared vegetation is burned or left to decay, and as soil carbon levels decline over time.
Net emissions due to deforestation had been declining since 2005 but increased in the last two years. Annual emissions over 2013-14 are estimated to be 37.8 Mt CO2-e, 3.9% higher than the previous year.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the afforestation and reforestation sector covers new commercial and environmental forest plantations by direct human action on land not forested in 1989. Net emissions are typically negative, as sequestration of carbon in biomass of growing trees outweighs emissions from harvesting activities.
On an annual basis, net sequestration was lower by 13.3% to -16.8 Mt CO2-e over 2013-14. The main cause for the decline in afforestation and reforestation credits in 2013-14 is a decline in sequestration rates due to the post 1990 plantation estate reaching harvestable age.
In other words, over the last two years we have been cutting down too many trees. Imagine how much worse it would be if Hunt got his way about logging Tasmanian World Heritage forests.
As the carbon tax did not affect the forestry industry, it should hardly be included in calculations as to whether the tax has been effective.
The Clean Energy Regulator published a list of 293 companies and organisations that were liable to pay a charge of $23 for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emitted (or the equivalent amount from greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide)
In reality many of these companies are subsidiaries of much larger corporations so this probably overstates the extent of the impact. For example, BHP Billiton has at least eight subsidiaries listed as separate liable entitites, AGL has six and the relatively small Energy Developments Limited (EDL) lists five.
The companies that were liable, many of whom received up to 94.5% free permits in 2012-13, belonged to the following categories:
2) Building and construction materials
3) Paper and packaging
4) Food processing
5) Glass packaging
6) Manufacturing general
7) Mining and waste services
8) Oil and gas
9) Petroleum refining
10) Metals processing
12) Coal Mining (Held liable because methane is inadvertently released in extracting the coal. They are not held liable for emissions associated with combustion of the coal)
13) Gas distribution (held liable for any leakage of methane from pipelines)
14) Power generation and gas retail
15) Waste disposal (mainly local government councils responsible for managing local rubbish tips)
Excluding land sector, annual emissions for 2013-14 are estimated to be 542.6 Mt CO2-e3. This represents a 1.4% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year.
Over 2013-14, annual emissions from electricity generation fell by 4.0%. This was partially attributed to a decrease in demand in the National Electricity Market (NEM), 2.6% lower than the previous year, registering the lowest level seen since Tasmania joined the NEM in 2006.
Changes in the fuel mix used to generate electricity have also contributed to the recent decline in emissions. Over the year to June 2014, generation in the NEM from black coal decreased by 5.1%, brown coal generation decreased by 3.0% and gas generation decreased by 1.2%. Hydroelectric generation grew by 1.8% and generation from wind and other renewables continues to grow, increasing by 27.5%, from a small base.
Australia cut carbon dioxide emissions from its electricity sector by as much as 17 million tonnes because of the carbon price and would have curbed more had industry expected the price to be permanent, according to an Australian National University study.
The ANU report, which used official market data to the end of June, found the drop in power demand attributed to the carbon price was between 2.5 and 4.2 terawatt-hours per year, or about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of the National Electricity Market serving about 80 per cent of Australia’s population.
Emissions-intensive brown and black coal-fired power generators cut output, with about 4 gigawatts of capacity taken offline. The emissions intensity of NEM supply dropped between 16 and 28 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of supply, underscoring the role of carbon pricing rather than slumping demand in curbing pollution, the paper said.
However, investors’ doubts that the carbon tax would last – fostered in part by then opposition leader Tony Abbott’s “blood oath” to repeal it if the Coalition took office – meant high-emissions generators were mothballed rather than permanently closed.
“We’d expect the impact of the carbon price would have been larger, perhaps far larger, if there had been an expectation that the carbon price would have continued,” Professor Jotzo said.
The repeal of the carbon tax will see a partial reversal of emissions reductions, particularly on the supply side as generators switch back to coal. Rising gas prices, unrelated to carbon pricing, will add to demand for coal-fired power generation.
The other factors that Mr Hunt ignores are that the population has grown by about 780,000 and the economy by about 6% in the last two years yet we have had an overall reduction in emissions – not a decline in the increase – a real decrease despite our growth.
Yes, I think we can chalk this one up to propaganda and marketing along with so many other examples of Liberal Party perfidy outlined in this excellent article by Greg Jericho which should be compulsory reading for all maths teachers and students on how to make misleading graphs.
PS Whilst on the subject of perfidy, the latest MYEFO predicts the free trade agreement with Japan will reduce revenue by nearly $1.6 billion over the forward estimates.
Only 8% of what Fox broadcasts has been found to be true. is that ‘Fair and Balanced’
Have a look at what some silly sausage posted here. The FURPHY that Ordinary Australians are somehow Communists has been trumpeted by The Conservatives for a Century.
The Filth currently in charge of Australia has succeeded in their plan to create a Divisive Society that is in a perpetual State of Fear, Anxiety, Depression and Anger.
This time they are using Religion and Terror as their ammunition. Back in the 70’s they used “Communism” as an excuse for the Vietnam War.
Oil in Iraq and the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ gave us the ‘Be afraid of Muslims’ campaign that is currently still in vogue. It has been twenty years in the planning and the LNP have pulled it off to perfection.
But they could not have completed their hoodwinking of the Australian people without their greatest ally Rupert Murdoch. He has spread their messages of Fear and Hate brilliantly, ably assisted by John Singleton’s 2GB and Macquarie National News, which is syndicated Australia-Wide. Add to this, Andrew Bolt on Commercial TV, and you have a winning formula.
*** Time to turn off Commercial TV.
*** Time to ditch your Foxtel.
*** Time to stop reading Rupert Rags.
*** Time to stop listening to 2GB and Macquarie National News.
TIME TO WAKE UP!!!
The power elite are using well-worn, time honoured methods of silencing reputable sources of dissent to keep ordinary Australians in a docile, compliant state of perpetual fear, writes Kellie Tranter.
FROM THE review of the National School Curriculum to the relentless claims of bias by both our public broadcaster and in our academic institutions, there is a concerted campaign playing out in this country to implement a model of thinking that occupies the entire intellectual and cultural space.
Whether or not you call it social engineering, its purpose is to aggressively block unwanted progress, to maintain tribalism and to insulate the power elite. The mechanism is fear, and the main vehicles are media of all kinds and government policies.
No one can make progress or speak out until they master their fear; until they isolate which fears are worth listening to and how that fear is engendered in them; and until they understand how the political class and the power elite manipulate those fears in order to maintain discipline and control of the population.
Howard Zinn ‒ American historian, author, playwright and social activist ‒ suggested that collectivity reduces fear. Community reduces fear. Doing something with other people reduces fear, because being part of a movement you believe in and being associated with other people who believe in the same thing, helps to overcome fear.
Perhaps it is fear of a critically thinking population who have mastered their fears and who join together to challenge the existing political and economic system that scares the power elite the most. Particularly if, as some experts suggest, the goal of state terror is to isolate and separate social movements.
In Australia, we have witnessed the gradual introduction of a range of laws which affect non-violent resistance — including anti-protest laws, the expansion of National Security laws, Preventative Detention Orders, ASIO and AFP spying on environmentalists, proposed bills disallowing political activists from disrupting companies and the gagging and punishment of public servants and whistleblowers. Riot police are even called in to university campuses as a ‘precautionary’ measure.
The list is more extensive than most of us probably realise.
Titled ‘Attack On American Free Enterprise System’, the memo outlined ways in which business should defend and counter attack against a ‘broad attack’ from ‘disquieting voices’.
It seems that the ‘hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers’ is what the elite fear the most because, according to Powell:
Powell’s tactics to maintain the status quo and block change can be clearly seen throughout Australia today: concerted attempts to try and silence critical comments from ‘respectable elements of society’.
Conservative think tanks yield a constant stream of critics of progressive ideas, who are given disconcertingly regular and disproportionate airtime. The Australian newspaper regularly disparages intelligent critical commentators and their opinions.
But the attacks aren’t limited to publishing opposing views on television or in print.
A perfect illustration is social media sensation Father Rod Bower’s interview with Chris Kenny on Sky News in August this year during which he was accused of directing his church signage to the Green/Left end of the political spectrum, for not being able to separate religion from politics, for favouring the former government instead of the current government and for criticising the current policies of the government.
Kenny litters the interview with false premises and unjustified assumptions, as Father Bower attempts to point out.
Whether its trouncing the views of Cate Blanchett for participating in a climate change advertisement, litigation against Professor Jake Lynch for his refusal to sponsor an application for a fellowship in Australia by an Israeli academic because of Lynch’s support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, or continued complaints that conservatives are not employed in prominent positions, all are tactics raised in the Powell rule book.
When you understand the tactical rationale of this institutional criticism and its methods, it becomes an object of contempt, and something that can be dealt with rather than a source of fear. The same applies to publications online and in social media which always attract similar disparaging comments from pseudonymous trolls — and there’s an army of them out there.
Speaking out almost always attracts some sort of criticism, but different viewpoints and rational criticisms are a fair price to pay for being able to say what you need to say. Living your life without ever speaking out, suppressing your need to be heard in support of things you regard as socially good and your need to express your questioning of or opposition to things that are socially bad, is no way to live at all.
We all have an obligation, both to ourselves and to society, to speak out and to act when we see unfairness, injustice and the orchestrated manipulation of true discussion of issues that affect us all.