Clarence Thomas calls media untrustworthy

[240 is Back]

Lots of people with brains are suddenly starting to talk about the fact the media is now more about serving its corporate interests than in journalism.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/07_11/b4025080.htm?chan=gl

[Dos Equis]

Father Brooks asked me to do it. One of the reasons I don't do media interviews is, in the past, the media often has its own script. One reason these stories are never told is that they are contrary to the script that people play by. The media, unfortunately, have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions of what I should think or I should do.

He is right.

But I thought the CIA controls the media?  I guess he didn't get the memo. . . .   

[240 is Back]

Father Brooks asked me to do it. One of the reasons I don't do media interviews is, in the past, the media often has its own script. One reason these stories are never told is that they are contrary to the script that people play by. The media, unfortunately, have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions of what I should think or I should do.

He is right.

But I thought the CIA controls the media?  I guess he didn't get the memo. . . .  

Former CIA head james woolsey said that the agency has control over a decision maker in every media organization.


but i guess an anonymous high school dropout who teaches at universities without a phd knows more about it than he does...

[Dos Equis]

Former CIA head james woolsey said that the agency has control over a decision maker in every media organization.

Hahahahahaha!!!! 

 

[240 is Back]

Hahahahahaha!!!! 

 

hey, you're a university professor who doesn't know what an MBA is.

you must know more about CIA/media relationship than say, A FORMER HEAD OF THE CIA.



Seriously, I didn't know a GED > CIA Director.

[Dos Equis]

This is an outrage!  The CIA controls the media.  I think Congress should investigate.  This is unbelievable.   

[240 is Back]

This is an outrage!  The CIA controls the media.  I think Congress should investigate.  This is unbelievable.  

you claim to be a 38-year old university professor and business manager who dropped out of school but not resides in the 200k bracket.

yet you act like a 19 year old weirdo, posting nonsense all day long on getbig.

[Dos Equis]

you claim to be a 38-year old university professor and business manager who dropped out of school but not resides in the 200k bracket.

yet you act like a 19 year old weirdo, posting nonsense all day long on getbig.

LOL!  You obviously have a crush on me.  I'm flattered.     But what I really want to know is whether Allied Powers likes me too.  Can you ask him? 

[240 is Back]

LOL!  You obviously have a crush on me.  I'm flattered.     But what I really want to know is whether Allied Powers likes me too.  Can you ask him? 

I don't know, Mr. Tony Snow.  Ask him yourself.

Your tendency to attribute multiple accounts to me would tell me that it irks you that others feel the same way I do.  Let's see, you've accused me of being allied, fuze, tony bolini, who else?

[Dos Equis]

I don't know, Mr. Tony Snow.  Ask him yourself.

Your tendency to attribute multiple accounts to me would tell me that it irks you that others feel the same way I do.  Let's see, you've accused me of being allied, fuze, tony bolini, who else?

I have "accused" you of being Allied Powers and that's it.  Because you are Allied Powers.     Actually, I think you're better as Allied Powers.  Tell him to hang around more often.  He's not nearly as acerbic as you.

But I do enjoy when you two have discussions on the board.  That is really funny.    

[240 is Back]

I have "accused" you of being Allied Powers and that's it.  Because you are Allied Powers.     Actually, I think you're better as Allied Powers.  Tell him to hang around more often.  He's not nearly as acerbic as you.

But I do enjoy when you two have discussions on the board.  That is really funny.    

Hey folks, today we have a "university professor & business owner" who is doing a multiple personality diagnosis on a stranger (incorrectly I might add) at 5 in the morning on a Tuesday.

The lie is falling apart for you, Beach Bum. 

[Dos Equis]

Hey folks, today we have a "university professor & business owner" who is doing a multiple personality diagnosis on a stranger (incorrectly I might add) at 5 in the morning on a Tuesday.

The lie is falling apart for you, Beach Bum. 

But inquiring minds want to know:  what does Allied Powers think about this? 

[240 is Back]

But inquiring minds want to know:  what does Allied Powers think about this? 

Is this the behavior of a 38-year old university professor at 9 am?

you are not being honest about your job, are you?

[Dos Equis]

Is this the behavior of a 38-year old university professor at 9 am?

you are not being honest about your job, are you?

Hey do you and Allied Powers ever disagree with each other?   

[240 is Back]

Hey do you and Allied Powers ever disagree with each other?  

you're a f'knikg weirdo.  Hope this helps.

[Hedgehog]

Former CIA head james woolsey said that the agency has control over a decision maker in every media organization.


but i guess an anonymous high school dropout who teaches at universities without a phd knows more about it than he does...

I frankly don't buy it.

Why?

Because of how media organisations are structured.

There are never just ONE gatekeeper (the most frequently used term).

Information passes up through so many channels, it's impossible to cut it off or direct it all, you would need an insane amount of gatekeepers.

At least one gatekeeper at each big newsdesk in each media center, also a gatekeeper in every board room.

It would take at least 1000 gatekeepers to run it.

It's just not happening.

However, I don't rule out possibility that the CIA director has called the editor of NY Times, or the CEO of CNN and asked them to hold a story to save American lives.

But that's not the same thing as directing the gatekeepers.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

I frankly don't buy it.

Why?

Because of how media organisations are structured.

There are never just ONE gatekeeper (the most frequently used term).

Information passes up through so many channels, it's impossible to cut it off or direct it all, you would need an insane amount of gatekeepers.

At least one gatekeeper at each big newsdesk in each media center, also a gatekeeper in every board room.

It would take at least 1000 gatekeepers to run it.

It's just not happening.

However, I don't rule out possibility that the CIA director has called the editor of NY Times, or the CEO of CNN and asked them to hold a story to save American lives.

But that's not the same thing as directing the gatekeepers.

-Hedge

Good points.  This silly allegation has been used to try and explain why the media doesn't report the alleged 911 conspiracy.

I guess these CIA operatives disappear when the media is reporting polls that allegedly support a 911 conspiracy.    

[OzmO]

I frankly don't buy it.

Why?

Because of how media organisations are structured.

There are never just ONE gatekeeper (the most frequently used term).

Information passes up through so many channels, it's impossible to cut it off or direct it all, you would need an insane amount of gatekeepers.

At least one gatekeeper at each big newsdesk in each media center, also a gatekeeper in every board room.

It would take at least 1000 gatekeepers to run it.

It's just not happening.

However, I don't rule out possibility that the CIA director has called the editor of NY Times, or the CEO of CNN and asked them to hold a story to save American lives.

But that's not the same thing as directing the gatekeepers.

-Hedge

If you wanted to manipulate the news you'd have to do it indirectly by only hiring and promoting people who are like minded as you are when it comes to reporting and choosing stories that fit their views. 

Unfortunately for  the 9/11 CT'ers, there isn't any undeniable tangible evidence yet that can be presented as indisputable.  if i news station started reporting that stuff they'd lose credibility.

[240 is Back]

Unfortunately for  the 9/11 CT'ers, there isn't any undeniable tangible evidence yet that can be presented as indisputable.  if i news station started reporting that stuff they'd lose credibility.

ON 9/11, CNN reported WTC7 fell, over an hour before it fell.
On 9/11, BBC reported WTC7 fell, 26minutes before it fell.

Neither station did research - like look up in the sky for a 47-story skyscraper.  both stations refuse to tell us where the info came from and who approved it without even looking up.  CNN won't touch the story, and BBC told us they lost every recording from 9/11, even the archieved backups.  All lost.

now, I'm sure those pesky reporters didn't know anything about anything, and were just reading what they were told.  But no steel/concrete building in history had ever fallen from history.  Ever.  No plane hit it.  Two small fires in it.  Standing completely solid with 99% of windows intact even - big fires break windows LONG before they melt steel.  Well, if fire could melt steel, which it can't

But *something* was feeding them info that day.  And that info predicted the future when no one else could.  it smells.  it smells bad.