Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Chavez rallies thousands launching re-election bid [View all]Judi Lynn
(164,174 posts)118. Yup, it is a requirement for LBN. We always know how the piece will go if the subject is a leftist.
Just found an interesting article on the CIA and corporate media, which might have something worth scanning. This part concerns Democratic Senator Frank Church's committee investigating CIA personel and journalism, long ago, in 1973:
Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer
by Daniel Brandt
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997
~snip~
The committee staff was shocked at the extent of the CIA's activity in this area, and felt that they still didn't have the story. But they were running out of time, and expected that the Senate's new permanent oversight committee would continue their work. The Church committee's final report contained only a handful of vague and misleading pages on the CIA and the media. "It hardly reflects what was found," stated Senator Gary Hart. "There was a prolonged and elaborate negotiation (with the CIA) over what would be said."[5]
The House investigation of the CIA, under Otis Pike, had more problems than the Senate investigation. The full House voted to suppress its committee's final report under pressure from the executive branch, at which point Daniel Schorr of CBS leaked a copy to the Village Voice. This report contained just twelve paragraphs on the topic of the CIA and the media, including the tidbit about the CIA's "frequent manipulation of Reuters wire service dispatches."[6] Another paragraph gave some idea of the scope of the CIA's efforts in this area:Some 29 percent of Forty Committee-approved covert actions were for media and propaganda projects. This number is probably not representative. Staff has determined the existence of a large number of CIA internally-approved operations of this type, apparently deemed not politically sensitive. It is believed that if the correct number of all media and propaganda projects could be determined, it would exceed Election Support as the largest single category of covert action projects undertaken by the CIA.[7]
One enterprising researcher took this 29 percent figure, and extrapolating from figures on CIA expenditures for covert operations, found that the cost of propaganda in 1978 was around $265 million and involved 2,000 personnel. Comparing this to figures for other news agencies, he concluded that the CIA "uses far more resources in its propaganda operations than any single news agency.... In fact, the CIA propaganda budget is as large as the combined budgets of Reuters, United Press International and the Associated Press."[8]
http://www.namebase.org/news17.html
Also, regarding just information from the Church committee's investigation:
The report is particularly critical of the CIAs successful, and clandestine, manipulation of the US media. It observes: The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets. The report identifies over 50 US journalists directly employed by the CIA, along with many others who were affiliated and paid by the CIA, and reveals the CIAs policy to have their journalists and authors publish CIA-approved information, and disinformation, overseas in order to get that material disseminated in the United States. The report quotes the CIAs Chief of the Covert Action Staff as writing, Get books published or distributed abroad without revealing any US influence, by covertly subsidizing foreign publicans or booksellers. Get books published for operational reasons, regardless of commercial viability. The advantage of our direct contact with the author is that we can acquaint him in great detail with our intentions; that we can provide him with whatever material we want him to include and that we can check the manuscript at every stage . (The agency) must make sure the actual manuscript will correspond with our operational and propagandistic intention. The report finds that over 1,000 books were either published, subsidized, or sponsored by the CIA by the end of 1967; all of these books were published in the US either in their original form or excerpted in US magazines and newspapers. In examining the CIAs past and present use of the US media, the report observes, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the US journalists and media organizations.
More:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frank_church_1
This attempt to investigate them was far, far back, decades ago. They must be so much better at it now, consider who owns all the papers, tv news, magazines, etc., etc.
Damned sad, isn't it?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This is just false, the primary polls have him polling across all demographics.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#72
Yeah, because the "vultures" weren't circling in Caprile's registration thread.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#73
so you didn't hear about the Capriles rally in Caracas where Chavistas were shooting
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#92
Designations used doesn't change that their policies are left of our progressive caucus.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#128
While your hate for Chavez and the left in general is more adorable than harmful...
harmonicon
Jun 2012
#8
For what it's worth I hope with every fiber of my being that he lives until Oct. 7th.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#9
I did not say that, you're saying I'm ruling out that possiblity, it's simply untrue.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#77
Looks as if they put a platform on top of a truck. Looks like a good idea, doesn't it?
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#10
Compare Rightwing rallies here for the presidential election to Leftwing rallies, even when the
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#23
His father was a businessman in the cookies industry I think. Have you heard about JFK's?
ChangoLoa
Jun 2012
#47
What does " 'officialization' of all social programs in the Constitution" even mean?
Ken Burch
Jun 2012
#57
All the old oligarchs are gone, ousted from power. The rest of that is nonsense.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#38
oh, I'd love to see the links to claims you make about Capriles' positions n/t
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#39
It sounds like they read Capriles' platform and then prepended "is against" to it.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#42
bogus claims indeed. could you imagine if Capriles was against free health care???
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#44
He would not have got almost 3 million votes in the primaries that's for damn sure.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#45
There's nothing good in Capriles-he just wants to put the rich back in power.
Ken Burch
Jun 2012
#56
That's quite perverse. He means that he isn't going to pull a Chavez and divide the country.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#71
The rich were always destined to be anti-Chavez no matter what rhetoric he used.
Ken Burch
Jun 2012
#89
Do you have any reference to Capriles and your claim he "build more houses and schools in his state
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#83
I doubt it's overlooked, I think people just don't want to accept that Chavismo isn't the best.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#85
Found a video of the registration for candidacy by Hugo Chavez on June 11, 2012.
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#22
The Global Oil Cartels are not going to be happy. I'm sure they're pouring money into the
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#24
The tactics used by Chavistas are right wing in comparison to Primero Justicia.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#26
Yep, they even use voter suppression / messaging tactics right out of a teabagger / GOP playbook:
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#30
didn't see that one, thanks. I was down "south" for 9 days lets no forget the shooting incident
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#32
The same thing happens anywhere, if someone has a corruption cloud hanging over their heads,
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#36
it is the actual administration that has barred numerous opposition candidates
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#37
Um, if Hillary Clinton said what he said, and it was posted on WhiteHouse.gov...
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#40
Totally false. You're reading Granma or some other propaganda site for that information.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#78
Chavismo is right wing state capitalism that has led to 150k murdered Venezuelans.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#79
We never see that crappola, not even in our goober corporate faux "news" (for idiots only) media.
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#99
It could've been phrased better. I should've said it is a crony capitalist state...
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#104
I have said nothing that is a lie in this thread. The right wing isn't concerned about much...
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#119
I agree. And Chavismo has not been a friend of unions and they recently pulled out of ILO.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#115
Obama had good relations with Venezuela until Wikileaks. Then Chavez got a hot head.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#106
No, they are not. They cash in when Venezuela expropriates their dying businesses.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#103
haha good one, but the Cuban government is actually becoming more progressive
Bacchus4.0
Jun 2012
#122
Yup, it is a requirement for LBN. We always know how the piece will go if the subject is a leftist.
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#118
We got a real view of how corporate media cover leftist demonstrations when Bush was the pResident.
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#120
Are you taking a playbook from that? Downplaying Capriles' possible million man march?
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#123