But, even a cursory content analysis of all or most of our news sources, especially the major television providers, shows that the general content line from all sources is basically the same. This has been the case, for example, in coverage of Lyndon LaRouche and his policies; in the major media, the coverage of LaRouche has followed the line dictated by the late Lazard Freres - linked Katharine Graham of the "Washington Post", to never cover LaRouche, unless it was to slander him. Similarly, the decision to black out the present global depression and financial collapse. While there may be no formal meetings among the controllers of the media cartel where such policy is laid out, a policy consensus, nonetheless, ruthlessly enforces the content of the "news."
In periods of crisis, like the current one, however, some of the controls become more visible; much less is left to chance.
It has been reported by some sources, that within a few hours of the Sept. 11th attacks, executive orders were issued which put the U.S. media under effective "wartime censorship". That is not to say that government auditors of news reporting actually issued orders censoring reports; it is to say that they moved quickly to block any reporting that might have veered away from the "official line."
There was also coordination on the extent of coverage as well. It was reported that all broadcast media were given the "recommendation" to cease normal program broadcasts in favor of 24-hour coverage of the "Terrorist Attack On The United States" and "America at War," as the ID logos appeared on all of the major networks. It was also reliably reported that the White House and national security operatives participated in the decision to cancel all major sporting events.
What this translates into, we have been told, is that a muzzle has been placed on government sources, and that all information coming out about the attacks and the investigation is under top-down control. This is understood by those who control the news reporting of the major media outlets, who have thus submitted to a "voluntary" censorship.
And you, of course, have still somehow managed to understand the "truth" in this complicated brainwashing environment? As they say, "Give me a break!"
Beating the drums for war, there was a brief interval that morning of Sept. 11th, as the great brainwashing machine allowed for the visual impact of the terrorizing message to sink in, before the signal was given for the talking heads to "pronounce the name" of the enemy.
If it appeared to some that no matter which channel - broadcast or cable - you tuned in to during those first hours, you saw the same dozen or so "spin doctors," you weren't mistaken: This has been confirmed by various media-watch outfits. For example, one media-watch organization tallied more than a dozen appearances by former CIA Director James Woolsey in the first few days after the attack, each repeating the message about the need to wage war against Iran, Iraq and anyone else who allegedly sponsored the likes of bin Laden. An only slightly less strident Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) appeared numerous times; we lost count on Henry Kissinger.
As the media-watch group, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) stated, following Sept. 11th, any hope that the media would present an unbiased account of what happened, that it might resist the drive for an ill-defined war, went out the window. Instead, FAIR documented how the print and broadcast media issued emotional tirades for war, echoing what they believed to be the sentiment of the American people; in so doing, there were no contrary views presented, and in effect, Americans still have no clear idea about what happened, or exactly what the Bush Administration is proposing to do to protect them from future terrorist threats.
Look at the following examples, which could be amplified by many more:
* Kissinger-clone Larry Eagleburger, appearing on CNN, on the day of the attack: "There is only one way to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them, even if they are not directly involved in this thing."
* The "New York Post", the next day: "The response to this unimaginable 21st- Century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for the cities or countries of these host worms, bomb them into basketball courts."
* Sept. 14th op-ed in the "Washington Times" by Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow: "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration."
FAIR commentator and media watcher Norman Solomon commented that many of the same people who were now calling for a "war against terrorism" and anyone who might support it (including many of the analysts who were appearing as talking heads and op-ed columnists) were themselves involved in assisting terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, when such efforts were official, if then-secret U.S. policy. "How can a long-time associate of terrorists now be credibly denouncing terrorism?", he asks. "It's easy. All that is required is for media coverage to remain in a kind of history-free zone that has no use for facets of reality that are not presently convenient to acknowledge."
Cont ...