Posts Tagged ‘Controlled Media’

There’s enough smut on FOX News to make an entire porn site!
All the footage you see in the videos aired on the FOX News Channel.

Want to tell the FCC you should not be forced to pay for FOX’s smut?

Demand “a la carte” cable television. Sign this Petition!

Under current law, you cannot opt-out of FOX. You are forced to put money in FOX’s pockets every time you pay your cable bill.

The best way to keep FOX out of your home is to force cable companies to offer “a la carte” cable, where you only pay for the channels you want. A la carte will lower your cable bill, prevent inappropriate programming from entering your home, and will keep your money out of FOX’s pockets.

Where the “FOX Attacks: They Distort. We Reply” campaign all started:

  • Outfoxed DVD
  • Outfoxed BookFOX Attacks: They Distort. We Reply.OutFoxed .com

    MORE ‘Fox Attacks’ Videos:

    Bill O’Reilly attacks 9/11 victim’s son


    Fox Attacks: Black America




    FOX Attacks Decency… with Bill O’Reilly Leading the Way

    FOX ATTACKS! Business

    Outfoxed: Fox Attacks Richard Clarke

    Outfoxed: Fox Attacks Richard Clarke

    Outfoxed: Fox Attacks Immigrants

  • Kurt Nimmo

    Hired propagandist and corporate media shill, Glenn Beck, had Jonathan Sandys, great-grandson of Winston Churchill, and the neocon and former Marxist David Horowitz on his show to attack Ron Paul, or more accurately the “fringe elements” that support Paul.

    Horowitz, typically mired in the 1960s, completely mischaracterizes the underlying dynamic of the movement, drawing anachronous comparisons between antiwar radicals of the so-called “New Left” back in the day with Muslims and the diversified antiwar movement of today. Horowitz, with his Marxist conditioning, insists on lumping these two elements together and for obvious reasons — demonizing Paul supporters becomes an easier, albeit intellectually lazy and disingenuous effort.

    Beck fine tuned Horowitz’s mischaracterization. “Let me take it back the other way, David,” he averred, “it’s not just the Left this time, it’s also the Right. Ron Paul’s supporters are also on the Right.” Horowitz agreed and specifically attacked Lew Rockwell, declaring the Libertarians as “indistinguishable from the anti-American Left these days” and insisting they are “totally in bed with the Islamo-fascists,” in other words they are terrorists.

    Jonathan Sandys lamented the loss of “traditional values,” that is to say it is no longer quite so easy to bamboozle the public and march them off to war, as our rulers are accustomed.

    Beck concluded his segment by declaring the “Ron Paul Revolution” is “meant as a catchy slogan, but I fear some of his fringe supporters are taking the word ‘revolution’ to literally,” sort of like the founders took the word literally and acted upon it. Beck and his corporate handlers are concerned because, indeed, the Ron Paul Revolution is far more than a simple slogan and Paul supporters fully intend to clean out the corporate infested whorehouse in the District of Criminals and return America to a nation based on constitutional principles.

    “As the Ron Paul movement grew, it was inevitable that the neocons would turn from demeaning to smearing,” writes Lew Rockwell on the LRC blog. “One clownish and sinister example was Glenn Beck’s CNN show last night.”

    Beck actually said that the US military may have to be used against the growing threat of domestic terrorism: Ron Paul donors. Why? Because there is a “rising tide of disenfranchisement” (sic) and Ron’s volunteers raised $4.3 million in one day “to commemorate Guy Fawkes” in a “money bomb.” Of course, no American knows anything about the English Catholic rebel of four centuries ago. The donors were referencing the movie and graphic novel, V for Vendetta.

    Then Beck says he [is] a libertarian in his heart and it’s OK to raise money anyway you want, so long as you are not “blowing people up.” This from a guy who advocates blowing people up every day, so long as they’re Arabs.

    Then comes a plummy Brit who I think is one of Bertie Wooster’s friends from the Drones Club. Then Beck gets to the real point: we are a right-wing peace movement. And being for peace means you want to kill people, whereas being for war means you want peace, if I may distill the agitprop.

    It should be obvious by now that there is indeed a concerted effort to go after the “fringe element,” that is to say patriotic Americans who want to put an end to endless neocon wars advocated by the likes of washed-up Marxists and former Trotskyites—or as the patriotic American, Paul Craig Roberts, calls them, “the Jacobins in the Bush administration”—and return America to a constitutional republic.

    In the weeks ahead, we should expect more such scurrilous attacks.

    CNN host lays into truth movement in vicious attack

    Steve Watson
    day, Oct 23, 2007

    CNN host Glen Beck viciously attacked the 9/11 truth movement last night on his Headline Prime show, describing the whole movement as “insane” and branding 9/11 activists as “dangerous anarchists”.

    Beck singled out 9/11 truthers in a segment in response to the infiltration of Real Time with Bill Maher by We Are Change protesters last week.

    In a piece that we would normally associate with the “fair and balanced” Fox News, Beck featured two guests who BOTH argued against 9/11 truth, as well as throwing in his own two cents.

    Full article here –

    I wrote this over a year ago. As with most of this stuff I’ve been transferring from my old spot, I could go MUCH further with this, but don’t have time.

    By IgnoranceIsntBliss

    When the Iraq war was first beginning, most had seemed to think that they were getting a somewhat accurate portrayal of the “reasons” we were driven to conflict. Because the media uncritically parroted the administrations every claims and fabrication, they were directly complicit not only selling the war, but US buying the war. From there, ensuring that people ar ejust content enough to be able to ignore or support the war.

    When the war started, the media was right inside with military forces reporting “live” “from the scene”. They reported mostly the same “view” we ever seen the media portray in almost any war. All they ever seem to show is the tank shooting, the jet shooting the missiles, the troops running and maybe shooting. They try their best to make it look like something we’d pay money to go see in an action movie. They don’t show the other end of the things that are shooting.

    They avoid mentioning that unexploded cluster bombs often result in civilians blowing their limbs off in later contact.

    They refuse to mention how virtually all of the various munitions are made from depleted uranium, despite the fact that even the DOD admits that it’s a highly toxic and partially radioactive substance.

    This is why the U.S. Army prefers to use depleted uranium over
    tungsten ammunition. If you look on the chart you can see that the depleted uranium is a material that has a characteristic that allows it to sharpen itself as it penetrates the target.…

    It’s critical that they don’t spoil the DOD’s avoid jail card, beause using it in most of the weapons platforms gives our military tremendous advantage, meaning less troops dying. Keeping the troops deaths extremely low isn’t important merely for caring abotu the troops lives, it’s about making sure that public support is easy to sway in all of the never ending global conflicts.

    Then the war begins, and then it even “ends”. It’s never about actually leaving, it’s about establishing military bases and economic and political control. Or re-establishing as is the case with Iraq.

    Then they still implicitly and explicitly help sell the current and upcoming wars.


    Conservatives often believe that the Media in general has a Liberal bias because they don’t show the good images like the soldiers playing with the kids:

    Liberals on the other hand tend to believe that the Media has a Conservative bias, as they don’t show the other side of the coin:

    It’s really quite clear when you step back that they only show just enough to mention the issue without getting anyone too upset that they might do something about it. They are “fair” in that they don’t show the good images otherwise Liberals would be able to see a clearcut bias. It’s likely they would percieve “opposing bias” anyways thanks to what’s known as the “hostile media effect“, but because the Media doesn’t show the “good” images it maintains an “even balanced” appearance.

    By: Nicole Belle on Friday, February 9th, 2007


    All told, the -president’s proposed fiscal year 2008- budget calls for $668.2 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the federal agency that supervises all US government non-military propaganda.

    At the same time Bush’s budget proposes steep cuts to federal funds for public broadcasting by nearly 25%. According to the Association of Public Television Stations, the Bush budget would cut up to $145 million from the $460 million proposed FY 2008 budget for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

    The amount allocated to the BBG is a 3.8 percent increase from the agency’s 2007 budget with monies specifically “targeted to the war on terror.” These tax dollars would flow to government mouthpieces including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Alhurra, Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

    by Staff Writers
    Washington (AFP) April 28, 2008
    The Pentagon has suspended a public affairs program that has come under fire for using retired military “media analysts” as surrogates to get out its messages on the Iraq war, a spokesman confirmed Monday.Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the program was undergoing an internal review following criticism that the retired officers offered Pentagon talking points as their own during the run-up to the Iraq invasion and thereafter.

    “It’s temporarily suspended so we can take at look at some of the concerns,” said Whitman.

    Teleconferences and briefings for the military analysts have been halted pending the review, which is being conducted by the Pentagon’s public affairs office, he said.

    US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not directly addressed the issue since the New York Times carried a lengthy report on the program April 20, except to say that the analysts should make clear they were speaking only for themselves.

    The New York Times found that the Pentagon laid on special briefings and conference calls for the retired officers, many of whom then repeated the talking points as military experts on television news shows.

    The Times also found that many of the media analysts also worked as consultants or served on the boards of defense contracting companies, but that those ties often went undisclosed to the public.

    The only time Gates has met with the military media analysts was in March 2007, Whitman said, revising his earlier recollection that the secretary met with them in September.

    Whitman said the program was designed to provide information to the US public “by any number of means, the media being one of them — analytical assessments and discussions on network television is another.”

    He said the Pentagon also interacted with bloggers, corporate leaders and education leaders as part of the effort to reach out to the public.