Breaking News, Recent Shows - posted on June 15, 2017 by

6/15: FANNING THE FLAMES EXPOSING THE PROPAGANDA WAR W/ JP SOTTILE

FANNING THE FLAMES

EXPOSING THE PROPAGANDA WAR

Concerns over media propaganda are based in part on the often stated assumption that one responsibility of a democratic media system is to keep the public open-minded; that is, to keep people curious, questioning, unwilling to accept simple pat answers to complex situations, to operate as an objective and critical-thinking consensus.

“Cognitive Liberty,” they assume, comes when people have the capacity, and exercise the capacity, to weigh numerous sides of controversies and to come to their own decisions, free of outside constraints.

Fox News has been at the forefront in positioning themselves as “Fair and Balanced” They also were famous for the slogan “We report, you decide.”

However now, these slogans no longer apply because Fox News without fanfare have quietly dropped their slogan of “fair and balanced news.” In its place, producers have been asked to use the network’s other slogan: “Most Watched. Most Trusted” — a statement that is at least half true, insofar as Fox News maintains some of the highest ratings in cable news.

Fox News was from its inception a conservative network – and more of a message to Americans who had grown wary of what they saw as liberal bias in mainstream media.

I guess this move is appropriate as now more than ever before we are now seeing mainstream news sources fanning the flames of both a civil and information war. Their aim has always been control of the narrative and the eradication of the independent news sources popping up all over the internet.

The information war was also on the agenda for the Bilderberg group when they met last week. If we can be so frank, it is obvious that we are in the middle of an information war that is breeding the social war and if it continues may breed an all out civil war.

For generations, media critics have pointed to factors in mass media that mitigate against open mindedness. As a matter of fact the mass media in general and television in particular has now created within the public it is supposed to serve a weakened sense of discrimination, a heightening of stereotypical thinking patterns, a tendency toward conformity and dependence on political ideology .

Over a period of time it has been determined that the mass media has discouraged people from forming independent judgments.

For a lot of people, the phrase pack journalism is an unfamiliar term. But it is time to know what the definition is and what it is doing to us and the crowd think. Pack journalism is a phenomenon by which large groups of reporters from different media outlets collaborate to cover the same story. They cite or draw from the same sources, simultaneously, with the same purpose and employing the same methods pushing the same agendas or creating combative attitudes that cause a reaction and shape public opinion.

Pack journalism has become incorporated into conventional political journalism. This pack-style of news coverage leads to the agenda setting of journalism, which, in turn, leads to “mainstream pack journalism”. The problem here is that pack journalism is considered not only erroneous and inefficient, but also unethical.

Pack journalism is often times the real villain, turning trivial news stories into national concerns. It inflicts short-term negative outcomes on the general public in that when a mass of pack journalists cover a news story, they can inadvertently create an atmosphere of helplessness and conformity.

It can be intrusive and fatal — it can provoke and in the case of the Virginia attack on several members of the Republican congress breed anger in the court of public opinion.

The plan to divide us with strategies of tension has worked and now we can see this has tripped a response.

Now we have to wait for the ripple effect and the inevitability of continued retaliation and copycat criminality. The unfortunate thing is that because of pack journalism, it appears that the people want to substitute rule of politics for rule of law, for constitutional law and today politics is indistinguishable from mob rule.

Multiple members of Congress said they received threatening emails and calls on after the Virginia shooting that targeted republican law makers including an email to one New York congresswoman that warned, “one down, 216 to go” The Washington Examiner confirmed Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., received the email sometime following the shooting Wednesday morning.

“Did you NOT expect this?” continued the email sent to Tenney’s office. “When you take away ordinary peoples very lives in order to pay off the wealthiest among us, your own lives are forfeit. Certainly, your souls and mortality were lost long before.”

This morning on CNN Wolf Blitzer interviewed Jane Sanders, wife of former Presidential Nominee Bernie Sanders and asked her about the shooting suspect James Hodgkinson and his volunteer relationship with the Sanders campaign.

Wolf Blitzer was surprised when Sanders accused the media of fanning the flames and creating a hostile environment with their making every sound bite or tweet a scandal. She boldly said to Blitzer “That the media enabled the rise of President Donald Trump and exacerbating the stark divisions in U.S. society.

Blitzer asked Sanders if her husband went too far in his criticisms of Trump from last weekend, calling Trump “the worst and most dangerous president” the U.S. has ever had.

“I don’t think so, Wolf,” Sanders said. “When you throw 23 million people off of health care without even a hearing, that’s dangerous — to those 23 million people. We have to be able to discuss the issues without demonizing the opponent.”

“Honestly, Wolf,” she continued, “I think the media needs to look at itself as well. The media characterizes every conversation as an adversarial one. Your job — the media’s job, I think, is to illuminate the facts, not fan the flames. And the media continues to cover the latest scandal, the latest back-and-forth, but not the issues so much.”

“With all due respect, if a President, or a Senator, or someone of authority is making very, very strong statements, you want us to simply ignore those statements?” Blitzer replied. “Do you want us to censor those words as part of the news media? What are you suggesting?”

“Well, I’m suggesting that just like the Democrats and the Republicans and the Independents and the progressives are all thinking about what happened in this presidential race, that the media needs to do some self-reflection as well,” said Sanders.

Of course this conversation has me laughing because of what we discussed last night about how the media has to bear some responsibility for pushing their agitprop about race relations, sexual orientation, and political division –and how it may be creating an air of civil war and insurrection.

The Bilderberg information war is hell bent on once again making us go rogue. The war that is now being waged is against independent analysis and cognitive liberty. This is inciting violence.

It is vital to expose how the mainstream media is fanning the flames of contention in the country.

The real power of the mainstream media comes from the effect of its continuous repetition of an attitude that is based or loosely based in facts in which its viewers have no chance to check or verify.

The media also has the ability to take an idea and surround it with an environment of suggestion.

In which, often half-consciously, seeps its way into the mind of the viewer and forms the viewer’s premises for him or her without them even being aware that they are really prejudices to which they have scarcely given a moment of thought.

According to a recording of NBC’s Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, Todd actually admitted that journalists were perfectly aware of how “hated” Hillary Clinton was in the heartland of America during the campaign, but made the conscious choice to not report it, and to “underplay” that news, in order to keep Hillary in a good light with the public.

What Todd admitted could have been catalyst for why we are here in this social war of words. Todd tries to excuse the issue of not telling the whole truth – to being politically correct, but this omission led the mainstream consensus into believing that Hillary has the election in the bag. However, the general public was caught completely off guard when Donald trump won the presidency.

This of course triggered so much anger that protests began, rioting, violence intensified and then the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, started calling for “resistance.” Barack Obama also pushed for more violent protests.”

The media also fawn over former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s call for blood in the streets, where she said “It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

This is a perfect example of how the media is using its power of resistance to push flow, a greater emphasis on conflict than on cooperation among people, institutions, and situations.

Directly after the election, the media started pushing the Kremlin Conspiracy theory claiming that President Trump was “under investigation” by the FBI, stoking the anger of the viewers for months on end, until last Thursday when former FBI director James Comey finally was forced to admit under oath that Trump was never personally under investigation and there was no Russia/Trump collusion.

Many people breathed a sigh of relief hoping that this situation would die down and that we could hear more information from the media about other subjects.

It didn’t take long for the media to pick up the ball again and while we were still discussing the shooting in Virginia the media was multi-tasking.

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow reacted to news that James Hodgkinson; the now-deceased alleged shooter in Virginia was a fan of her program.

Maddow referenced a Hodgkinson letter to the editor that appeared in the July 29, 2012 edition of the Belleview (IL) News-Democrat, but denied having received correspondence Hodgkinson.

“He once submitted a letter to the editor that cited statistics about political donations that he says he heard on this TV show because he said he watched this TV show,” she said. “I should tell you we went through our correspondence today as soon as we got his name, as soon as we got that detail about him. We didn’t find evidence he ever sent anything to this show or tried to contact us at all.”

During the re-air of her program at 12 a.m. ET, the segment did not air. Instead, the opening segment was a replay of a May 26 segment about allegations of President Donald Trump and his associates having ties with the Russian government.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times both ran hit pieces against Trump saying that his behavior with Comey could be compared to the sexual Harassment that Anita Hill claimed she received from Clarence Thomas.

In fact, the headline that was published in the New York Times was “James Comey and the Predator in Chief.”

Niccole Serratore wrote:

“As I listened to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about his personal meetings and phone calls with President Trump, I was reminded of something: the experience of a woman being harassed by her powerful, predatory boss. There was precisely that sinister air of coercion, of an employee helpless to avoid unsavory contact with an employer who is trying to grab what he wants.”

The Los Angeles Times continued to push the harassment charge by saying “when Comey appeared Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, he was treated in a way that was reminiscent of how the Senate Judiciary Committee treated Anita Hill so many years ago, when she alleged sexual harassment by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Why didn’t you speak out at the time? Why did you take phone calls from him after that? Why didn’t you quit?

“You’re big, you’re strong,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “I know the Oval Office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn’t you stop and say, ‘Mr. President, this is wrong and I cannot discuss this with you?’”

“Great question,” Comey replied. “Maybe if I were stronger I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in.”

Here we have two news papers couching a senate hearing in some tawdry comparison to predatory sexual harassment. Comey was no fragile flower – but was he that frightened of Trump?

The New York Times reporter even included a dinner date with both Trump and Comey where Trump looked at him and said “I need loyalty, I want your loyalty.”

Both articles were all put together about as intelligently as a script for the movie, 50 Shades of Grey.

The media later reported that special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct justice by firing the former FBI director because of the Russia probe.

So the cycle is starting again.

When there is a pattern of behavior on the part of media practitioners that repeatedly finds them jumping to conclusions, acting as advocates, making assumptions based on previous experience rather than the evidence at hand, and approaching their assignments with preconceived notions of what is happening and how the event should be depicted… when they have this pattern of behavior, we can say they are acting as propagandists. They may be doing it unconsciously, but at the moment it is a hard sell for those who see this as a sickening attempt to promote an insurrection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *