Dan Rather Blows the Whistle on CBS
Daily Paul has often carried stories about, and references to, the mainstream media, or MSM. It is not only controlled by major corporations, with major influence from the White House, the CFR, the CIA and other powerful people and organizations, the stories are tailored -- not to report the news, but to shape public opinion.
Dan Rather has recently filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, his former employers. Part of the suit details CBS knowingly covering up, or under-reporting, stories. What is most significant about this is that a "big" guy like Rather would blow the whistle in such a public way. When he was the CBS anchor, so were Tom Brokaw (NBC) and Peter Jennings (ABC). All of these gentlemen were not only CFR, Jennings was also a member of the Bilderburg Group.
Here is a good story about Rather and the lawsuit.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092607A.shtml
What has this to do with Ron Paul? Plenty. We can see (if we haven't already) that the mainstream media deliberately keeps Dr. Paul out of the spotlight, and for good reason. He represents a threat to the status quo and to the mistruths that are routinely passed off as news The more we can shine the light of truth on the major networks and daily newspapers, the better chance we have of exposing their misdeeds.
It has been rumored that Dr. Paul has an upcoming spot on 60 Minutes. If he has not done so already, I hope he makes himself unavailable to the CBS team. It would most certainly be a hit piece. That is what they do best. And, as Rather implies, CBS has an agenda - and Ron Paul is not part of it.
.
I love 60 minutes
I love 60 minutes, I watch it all the time. I just watched their Clarence Thomas piece. I think people may be selling 60 minutes short. Look, bad press is still press and its your job to deal with the bad press. Ron showed us what he was made of with the Book Reading Assignment Press Conference for Rudy. Paulies had a You Tube video up within days showing the historical connections and events;.... from 1954 CIA Iranian coup, to Jimmy Carter refusing to Return the Shaw to Iran, resulting in hostages being taken, to current events---excellent!!!!!!!
What the Ron Paul campaign needs is LOTS of PRESS.
If Rudy can withstand all the bad press he gets, if Hillary can show her face in public after her husband got a BJ, if Bush can look the Public in the face after finding no WMD's, ....then I am sure that Ron Paul can give a great interview. You can only do so much editing and smearing. We out here on YouTube and Blogs, will have to be there for RON PAUL today and later when he is in office ..either as President or back as a Congressman. We will have to clean up the damage done. Thats politics.
What do think Happity and Limbnut are? They are big time cheerleaders for the GOP & Bush. What do you think AirAmerica and Randy Rhodes is all about? They are big time cheerleaders for the DNC & Hillary. Now guess what you Paulies are? Thats right, big time cheerleaders for Ron Paul and the Revolution. Yes, you are it. Are you Paulies saying you are not up to the task to do the clean up after he goes on? Thats your choice. We all have our limits. But Rush, Sean, and Randy all get their hits, Paulies should expect to get theirs too. The nice thing about us, we have no Mouthpiece-figurehead....which is an advantage.
Look, the Revolution is MUCH BIGGER than the Constitution Party, The Green Party, The Libertarian Party, ..etc..... No I do not wish those parties ill, I see their limits. The Revolution has no limits. The Revolution is about "restoring the American Dream, the dream of Liberty, to live free, to live with a government that is minimul, working FOR you, not against you. The Revolution is about the Constitution, yes, and its about a better GREEN - LIBERTARIAN future too.
It is about a whole new society, we are the Phoenix Birds, and we are an exponential growth curve,...we have caught a wave, we have a new media medium, and we have deep moral, historical, and principled roots to the REVOLUTION. We are not, to our surprise, 100% libertarian. We are not, to our shock, pure Greens, we are not, to our worry, doctrinal Constitutionalists. We are its new child, not yet a teenager, still feeling out the eighth grade, looking ahead, and seeing a future. The Death of the Constitution came with FDR, the death Great Republic came with The Great Society, the death of Freedom came with George Bush, and soon will be the death of Life on this Planet ......... but not yet, the Revolution is coming. We are the Internet Generation, over one Billion Strong.
The politics of the world will come to bare upon the USA, and CHINA, and INDIA and EUROPE and the World. And the Politics of the World will feel the heat of the Revolution. What is different about the Revolution is the internet which provides a FEED BACK LOOP, that allows for Chaos, but ordered Chaos, ....it allows for intelligence to RISE UP and effect policy. It is a filter, an equalizer, a "collective intelligence" and it is on an exponential growth path. The Revolution is in the eighth grade, barely 13 years old. By the time we are 18, just five short years from today, WE WILL DECIDE the NEXT PRESIDENT of the United States of America.
Other countries will feel the Revolution too. From Mexico to Canada, to China, the Revolution there is just 7 years old....but will have lots to say in 5 years. Don't fear it, welcome it, be a part of it. The old ways, the old parties, the old systems are soon to be swallowed up and reborn too under the Revolution that is coming. We in the Ron Paul movement, is our first political expression. I am so exited that I will be alive to see our next.
SO my friends, the next immediate challenge to us all, is to make the REVOLUTION something that survives Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan's campaign was short lived, so was Ross Perot, and so has been Nader and the Green Party. All such political Radicals should be absorbed into the Revolution. After all, we all want a Revolution, don't we?
Perhaps you will agree with me, the REVOLUTION needs a rockin website....one that is ROCKIN hot, very interactive, a thousand times better than ANYTHING thats out there. If anyone can do that, help with that, please contact me trey4600 at yaho. I for one hope Ron Paul does 60 minutes, and I would tivo it for future production material.....the Revolution will not be owned, not be stopped and is on an exponential growth path that will end once this society is fundamentally changed from the bottom up.
Some believe the Old Republic is dead, and I think you will agree it is, but like a Phoenix it will rise again, reborn newer, shinny, and fiery hot. I hope Ron Paul does 60 minutes again and again, goes on 20/20 to do John Stossel interview and even the Tonight Show....heck, go on all the shows. Let them spin it how they will, we are here to put the back-spin on it. I hope Ron will never shy from any forum that as Ron says, "is willing to hear the Freedom Message". We Paulies, and all of us in the Revolution, will be there to pick up the pieces and build upon it.
Voting
Vote, vote and vote, but not on a computer. Please.
Taomaster
Taomaster
To my young friend
.
The old dogs, esp those who have worked in media, know what is going on, who runs things and how people can be manipulated.
You mention Rudy and Hillary - they are CFR, as are the media. They are not going to take hits from 60 Minutes, except soft jabs. You might familiarize yourself with the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and its influence.
The Paul campaign does not need lots of press; it needs lots of support. If it can come from the press, that is great. But if not, then the bad press must be avoided. Once a hit piece has run then it cannot be taken back - people can get turned off. The O'Reilly interview did little to help the campaign.
Alan Colmes does not support George Bush one bit. He can't stand Bush. Hannity, however, would lick Bush's boots.
The Revolution is a fine idea; that is what we are working towards; but there are the neo-cons, the international bankers, the CFR and the Bilderburg Group to factor in. They are formitable and they mean business. We have them to thank for NATO, the UN, GATT, NAFDA, the WTO and the likely North American Union. Worth looking up, all of them.
I like your enthusiam, even with the lousy spelling. But, honestly, you need to study history a little more.
Amazing
It's amazing that my Mom knew that Rudy's telephone trick was a ruse, but gave the Clinton's Jennifer Flowers interview a pass. I have told her time and time again never to take stock in shows like '60 Minutes'.
Peter Jennings not CFR.
Peter Jennings was a Canadian citizen which excluded him from membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Look it up. Bilderberg meetings, probably, but not CFR, their rules don't allow it. I have never seen his name on any CFR membership lists and trust me, I've looked closely. That being said, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have been a member if he had been an American citizen. Just wanted to correct the original post. If someone can find proof otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Paul
You are right - my error
.
Bilderburg group - that's the one. Also elitist. But I think, at the end of the day Jennings was a good guy and went to the Bilderburg group to see what was going on - not to participate in the shenanigans.
To reinforce your point, during 911, Jennings was on-air while the buildings were burning. When the first one collapsed, he observed that it looked like a controlled demolition. Had he been CFR it is highly unlikely he would have used those words.
CFR tactics
No Problem. As a former chapter leader for the JBS, I considered it "part of my job" to study one of the greatest threats to our freedoms, the CFR. The CFR says they are nothing more than a debating society and they do debate issues. But they do it in a sneaky way and I'm not just referring to their secrecy. What they do is "frame" the debate in such a way that no matter the outcome, the end result is acceptable to them. The following is not necessarily an actual debate they had, I'm just using it to demonstrate their tactics:
Debate question: Should we give the soviet union 8 billion in foreign aid this year or 12 billion?
Anything outside the above terms is not discussed including whether to give them nothing at all on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't allow foreign aid of any kind. However, the result for them is that the soviets would get at a minimum 8 billion and that was acceptable to them. Pretty sneaky. If you want to know why foreign policy has been incomprehensible over nearly the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century, one need look no further than the Council on Foreign Relations and their mouthpiece publication "Foreign Affairs."
Paul
You are 100% correct
.
Sometimes the CFR is referred to as a "think tank." But I often reply, "If you think the CFR is a think tank (or a debating society) then you probably also think the Corleone family is in the olive oil business."
You may be familiar with the works of John Coleman. There is a compelling video series on YouTube (The Truth John Coleman). In it he states that there are other, similar organizations to the CFR with vast power also. These include The Tavistock Institute, The Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Aspen Institute (whose chairman is CFR) and The Council of 300.
I do not agree with everything Mr. Coleman says, but I think he is often more right than wrong.
John Coleman
Hi again,
I read Coleman's "Comittee of 300" somewhere around 12 years ago or more. Right when it first came out. Like you, I do not agree with everything he writes and I also disagree with the tactics used in the edition I read. There is good information in the book, too much in fact (hard to believe someone actually saying that but I will explain). However, the info is not too well documented. From my reading of other works, I can confirm that much of the info in there is probably true but when attempting to tell the masses that everything they have thought about the world isn't at all true, you need to be able to back it up with documentation. The tactic he (most likely unintentionally) uses that I referred to is the way he just beats you over the head with so many things that by the time your done reading, it can leave you feeling totally hopeless. I've had many of my friends say the same. It didn't leave me feeling hopeless though, It made me feel angry. Angry enough to do something about it. That is why I'm here. I'm angry and want to do something about it. Overall, it's an OK piece of work I guess.
The best picture in my opinion of the actual influence of the CFR and one with painstaking documentation, is "The Shadows of Power" by James Perloff. Although published years ago, it is unmatched still to this day. Just got another copy used from amazon the other day (I tend to hand them out). The reviews for the book are outstanding with only a couple of NWO lap dogs chiming in with negative ones. I strongly urge anyone who really wants to know what the CFR is all about, to get themselves a copy and read it. I would also like to say this, if one wishes to keep the "rose colored glasses" on and go along their merry way and does not wish to see the roadsigns along the way that lead to the destruction of our freedoms, then this book is not for you. It will totally change the way you view the world. It's like the red pill, blue pill thing in the movie "The Matrix." Life for me was much simpler prior to reading "The Shadows of Power" but I have no regrets over reading it.
Here is one thing to remember, and you may already know this, but no matter which direction you take against the NWO and their "divide and conquer" tactics, the solution always comes back to education. By the term education, I'm not necessarily talking about the public schools, I'm talking about waking up the masses (although the public school system does need work). Pick anything in our nation that is failing and you'll find the solution is not only getting the information into the hands of the people that it is in fact failing, but explain why it's failing (CFR) and offer a solution. This is what Dr. Ron Paul does and that is why I support him. All this may sound obvious but my experience has been that it isn't. Many people tend to get stuck on one issue and are basically "one hit wonders." But when it is explained to them why their particular issue is the way it is (CFR), they can become powerful allies in this fight against global tyranny.
I liken the CFR and their ilk to a pack of cockroaches. They scamper for cover when the light (of truth) is shown upon them. This isn't quite as true anymore because of the recent "turning on" of the light switch by the internet. They have become more bold. I think there are several reasons. One reason is the extra exposure they've been getting from the "light" really hasn't harmed them so they haven't retreated to the nooks and crannies yet. Another reason is that their plans for world government are so far along that only a miracle can stop it. I contend that miracle is Dr. Ron Paul. EVERY word out of this great mans mouth is another left jab into the face of the globalist cabal. He doesn't attack "them" directly but his policies and ideas and what he wants to implement are an affront to them in every instance. This part of the whole thing for me is the most scary. Dr. Ron is the most courageous man I've ever seen. Others have stood up to them in the past and the outcome has not always been good.
Paul
but who will report it...
There was a case not too long ago against Fox News, in which the reporters who did the sueing actually won on the grounds that it was proven beyond doubt that Fox News had coerced them into fabricating stories and fired them when they would not.
Upon appeal, Fox News won the appeal because it was found that fabrication of news and the creation of propaganda was NOT a crime and therefore the reporters were not covered under the whistleblower act.
How was this reported? Not at all, until Fox won their appeal, and then they never said anything about the fact that their news was proven propaganda, never said that that the only reason that they won their appeal was that lieing to the american people wasn't found to be a crime. In fact, they painted the reporters as nutjobs.
I am glad Dan Rather is finally standing up for principle, but in this case, it is hardly that and more like trying to regain his credibility, or just get some cash to carry him through. Who knows.
What would have meant something is for someone as well known as Rather to have stood up to them before he lost everything and had nothing left to lose. THAT would have been courage, to risk everything for principle. Now, this story will be safely tucked away and only accessible from blogs. No one will follow the progress in the news, and even we will forget it in a relatively short period of time. We'll never think to come back and discover the outcome or to follow the evidence during the case.
The only way to truly put a stop to MSM is to stop supporting them. Turn off your cable, or at least never flip on the MSM. Drop their viewership so that they can't sell ads anymore. Get your news from the internet and let the MSM die it's natural death.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
the other thing you should do right away...
...is stop endorsing them. Every time you call them "mainstream" you imply that others are fringe. That must end. I call the corporate-controlled propaganda media the Dino Media; many call it the Old Media, and there are other names for it. Pick one. Labeling them "mainstream" reinforces the fundamental lie. They may have been mainstream before, but we are moving past them now. Buh-bye!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
I stand corrected... but...
There needs to be a way to label them better than what I have heard so far. It needs to be something that while not overtly offensive, implies stupidity for viewership and has a catchy sound. When I hear what I am looking for, I will know it. Until then, I will follow Rachel's lead and refer to them as the Old Media.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Old Media
Why not call them what they are? The "Old Media"--dying and soon to be replaced by our media. :)
I think I have decided...
It is not overtly offensive and yet is actually descriptive, can't be argued and carries a negative feel...
corporate media...
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Botox Media
My 40 cents (adjusted for inflation):
Most of these fail your first test of 'not overtly offensive', but they're fun.
Better Name
Maybe not the best 'catchy' name, but I always just call 'em Discredited Media.
Memia
I like to refer to the conglomerate news agencies as the memia because it is their job to broadcast and rebroadcast certain memes - nuggets of information (or disinformation) that train people to think certain ways and hold particular beliefs.
Tabloid Media
I like to call them Tabloid media.
In essence that is what all the major network news hours have become.
I like the internet when it comes to my news, cause you definitiely get every slant there is out there.
If I want a conservative slant I go to a conservative site, if it's too liberal I know it's a liberal site.
It makes for better discernment.
I would be happy if TV news media would just report the news with no slant.
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
Great response
.
I worked at NBC for a long time. Even though I worked with some of the bigs - Brokaw, Jane Pauley, Stone Philips, the Today Show and Dateline, I was not about to just go up to them and say, "Hey, why don't you say what is really going on?"
I would have been quickly escorted to the door.
People stay in jobs because they are well paid, they are friends with everybody and it would upset their lives.
This happened also at the New York Times, about the Iran-Contra mess. The Times wouldn't cover the cocaine shipments, the black ops, even after Eugene Hasenfus's C-130 was shot down. After The Christic Institute held a big press conference and spilled the beans, only then did the Times agree to cover it. The assigned their agricultural reporter, Keith Schneider. He was all excited and wrote a powerful story, complete with interviews of the Army CID chief who was furious his airplanes were used for ferrying drugs. In the end, the CIA guy, on staff at the Times, spiked the story.
The ending of Three Days of the Condor (Robert Redford picture) is quite famous also - about leaking what he knew to the NY Times. But then the rhetorical question, "Would they print it?"
I hope some enterprising screenwriter turns out a script with the scenario you suggest: that a major news anchor just starts spilling the beans on the live Network news broadcast. Now, wouldn't that be a good premise?
Prpoganda News
I see the many points being made here, BUT, what about all of the other "truthful" and retired journalists?
Take John Stossell or Geraldo Rivera. Just two examples of journalists that are hailed for their truthful and controversial issues. I have read Stossell's books and he makes some very open points about big government and lies told by the media. I loved his last showing of Michael Moore's interview about healthcare. He made Moore look like the bufoon that he is.
What about Walter Cronkite?
What I'm trying to see is, why is there not more of these folks coming forward with these "truths" that really have nothing to lose and could actually do our society a giant favor?
Maybe
.
There is still the problem of one's social circle, friends, affiliations, church memberships, and all the other relationships that people have.
The people you mention, I am sure, know more than they say (Rivera and Cronkite) but they would be outcast if they started talking the way Rather has.
They could write a book, as many have, but the TV networks wouldn't mention it. Or it might make Page 6 of the New York Post for a day, but then fade away. In the meantime the individuals would be committing professional suicide.
Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at what has happened to our "free press."