Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Media has True Power

It might sound repetitive, but our media is the most powerful piece of the American power structure. We live in an information age so their ability to soft censor, hard censor, edit, and share information is extremely powerful. Banks could buy media entities, but the media still has the power. The fear that the NSA program, and therefore defense contractors, could have all your secrets at their fingertips is the potential blackmail or coercion force that the media (and the Mob) formerly only enjoyed. A weird example of the power was on display when the CIA asked Simon and Schuster to not print James Risen's State of War. The book was published, and revealed who has real power in America.

Edward Bernays discussed the invisible government in his book Propaganda.

Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country... It remains a fact in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by this relatively small number of persons.

The invisible government is in play here as sources leak information to fill a best seller. We find out here the goofs by the CIA with regards to Iraq, the bull charge to go to Iraq and the underestimating of the Iraq insurgency. We hear from these sources that the Bush team never contemplated them or even had them discussed as a possible problem. We don't know if that is 100% true as we do not hear the other side, but the goal is to get you thinking these cowboys ran into an invasion without thinking. That concept of mindless warmongering is so important to the left that Zero Dark Thirty has an exchange of dialogue about the OBL raid and there is the explicit mention of not wanting to jump on a rumor too fast. Message NY Times bestseller readers: the left is deliberate about war and would never have gone into Iraq.

The CIA attempted to stop publication officially for the botched Iranian operation that would risk exposing current operations or secrets with what was going on in Iran. Unofficially, stopping publication of embarrassing details and discussion of Afghanistan being a heroin narcostate would be helpful as well. This was not CIA coordinated leaks and story filtration. The CIA wanted to get CEO Sumner Redstone to stop publication. Whoops, Sumner could not stop it as it had been published. Contrasted with the treatment of Deborah Davis' book on Katherine Graham, we know that is garbage. Simon and Schuster could have compensated Risen, pulled the book and pulped all printed copies unsold just as the publisher had done to Davis. Davis was truly printing what the system did not want out while Risen's book was something the system was fine with seeing printed. Specific elements within the system that the media deemed acceptable. Risen protected his sources for years, and in the end, it was revealed one of his sources was a disgruntled former CIA agent who was let go when the CIA and the employee could not settle a racial discrimination lawsuit.

This is why I harp on the media as sovereign. They shape opinion and do so by any means, all of which are protected. Risen's source eventually was punished for leaking security data, but Risen continues working. This book most likely put operations at risk or at a minimum damaged effort in meddling with Iran's nuclear program. The push to get it published also was to properly vet and debate the situation with Iran before we rushed into war with them like we did with Iraq. The Iraq war plan was actually formulated over years. It was debated for months if not years. It was the elite's idea. Look at 2000 presidential debates and guess which candidate was the bigger hawk on Iraq. This book was released to cripple our efforts in stopping an Iranian nuclear program. This book was to make the current administration look bad. This book was written by a NY Times journalist, approved by a Simon and Schuster editor and marketed by their marketing department. The CIA could not stop them, and the CEO of their parent company could not stop them. So I ask once again, who besides our media is the sovereign in America?


nikcrit said...

yeah, media has true power ----- but it's not all that concerted a effort in terms of goals and agenda----- beyond that financial imperative, that is.

PA said...

Nikcrit, what's the profit angle on eracing black intetrracial crime?

Son of Brock Landers said...

Narrative uber alles. Nikcrit, you know papers would sell more if they did not insult their ideological opponents. That's part of their decline.

nikcrit said...


Ok, i was sorta channeling feat-ent-type print media when i said my earlier commment.

but for the record, i'm for noting racial patterns of crime. i'm not sure it's covered up asx much as some claim; moreso they go out of their way to NOT note the overwhelming pattern, but when a crime is reported, the headshots of the perps and victims speak for themself.

I'm not for 'eracing'; i believe the patterns of b-on-w and b-on-b crime should be noted and pondered and mediated to the limit.

I think it was here, on a post relating to the Ferguson thing, I told a bit about how I was at one of the year-round schools in august, sitting in on a class and I happened into a riff about how out of control black-on-black violence was and, responding to me, how a black teen girl argued with me, revealing that she truly believes white cops kill more young black men than do fellow black men. i'm not very p.c. and i'm surely not when it comes to black issues or whatever..... anybody who would tail me at work for a week would see as much.

nikcrit said...


RE: "That's part of the decline."

No. The decline is industry-wide and worldwide. it's a dated format and technology.

Abie Gefiltefish said...

I highly recommend Bernay's book, It is available for download or reading online at www.archive.org.