Tune in for This Week's Episodes of CIA Propaganda

Discussion in 'YouTube Digest' started by JulieW, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,408
    Likes Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I've annoyed a number of my friends by interjecting with facts and accusations when they're watching series like Madame Secretary and others of that ilk.

    The latest binge watch by a dear friend has been Jack Ryan and I've tested his patience at times pointing out the ridiculously inept and obvious propaganda plot points and references.

    There are many movies and TV shows pitching an establishment point of view, so I was very interested to see this piece on the machinations around the new Jack Ryan series.

    Enjoy.

     
  2. ozcopper

    ozcopper Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,750
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    It is not called TV programming for no reason!
     
    Jim4silver, Oddjob and 66rounds like this.
  3. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,408
    Likes Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
  4. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    In 1948 the US Congress under Truman passed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (aka Smith-Mundt Act) which enabled the US Govt via Dept of State to further it's foreign policy aims via the use of propaganda on peoples living outside the US.

    In 2013, the US Congress under Obama approved an amendment to this Act to enable the use of propaganda on US citizens inside the US mainland. Note: the amendment was slipped in as part of National Defense Act for 2013 thus I suspect limiting scrutiny of the changes.

    The Ron Paul Institute has a good article on this. Refer link.

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...propaganda-ban-gives-new-meaning-to-old-song/

    As the article is too long to post, here are some extracts from same.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lifting of US Propaganda Ban Gives New Meaning to Old Song
    Written by Whitney Webb
    Monday February 12, 2018[​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Though its ostensible purpose is to fund the US military over a one year period, the National Defense Authorization Act, better known as the NDAA, has had numerous provisions tucked into it over the years that have targeted American civil liberties. The most well-known of these include allowing the government to wiretap American citizens without a warrant and, even more disturbingly, indefinitely imprison an American citizen without charge in the name of “national security.”

    One of the lesser-known provisions that have snuck their way into the NDAA over the years was a small piece of legislation tacked onto the NDAA for fiscal year 2013, signed into law in that same year by then-President Barack Obama. Named “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012,” it completely lifted the long-existing ban on the domestic dissemination of US government-produced propaganda.

    For decades, the US government had been allowed to produce and disseminate propaganda abroad in order to drum up support for its foreign wars but had been banned from distributing it domestically after the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. However, the Modernization Act’s co-authors, Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA, no relation to the Smith of the 1948 act), asserted that removing the domestic ban was necessary in order to combat “al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among populations.”

    Thornberry stated that removing the ban was necessary because it had tied “the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others, by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.” Yet, given that Thornberry is one of the greatest beneficiaries of weapon manufacturers’ campaign contributions, the real intent — to skeptics at least — seemed more likely related to an effort to ramp up domestic support for US military adventurism abroad following the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Libya.

    Five years later, the effects of the lifting of the ban have turned what was once covert manipulation of the media by the government into a transparent “revolving door” between the media and the government. Robbie Martin — documentary filmmaker and media analyst whose documentary series, “A Very Heavy Agenda,” explores the relationships between neoconservative think tanks and media — told MintPress, that this revolving door “has never been more clear than it is right now” as a result of the ban’s absence.

    In the age of legal, weaponized propaganda directed at the American people, false narratives have become so commonplace in the mainstream and even alternative media that these falsehoods have essentially become normalized, leading to the era of “fake news” and “alternative facts.”

    Those who create such news, regardless of the damage it causes or the demonstrably false nature of its claims, face little to no accountability, as long as those lies are of service to US interests. Meanwhile, media outlets that provide dissenting perspectives are being silenced at an alarming rate.

    The effects of lifting the ban examined

    Since 2013, newsrooms across the country, of both the mainstream and “alternative” variety, have been notably skewed towards the official government narrative, with few outside a handful of independently-funded media outlets bothering to question those narratives’ veracity. While this has long been a reality for the Western media (see John Pilger’s 2011 documentary “The War You Don’t See”), the use of government-approved narratives and sources from government-funded groups have become much more overt than in years past.

    From Syria to Ukraine, US-backed coups and US-driven conflicts have been painted as locally driven movements that desperately need US support in order to “help” the citizens of those countries — even though that “help” has led to the near destruction of those countries and, in the case of Ukraine, an attempted genocide. In these cases, many of the sources were organizations funded directly by the US government or allied governments, such as the White Helmets and Aleppo Media Centre (largely funded by the US and U.K. governments) in the case of Syria, and pro-Kiev journalists with Nazi ties (including Bogdan Boutkevitch, who called for the “extermination” of Ukrainians of Russian descent on live TV) in the case of Ukraine, among other examples. Such glaring conflicts of interests are, however, rarely — if ever — disclosed when referenced in these reports.

    More recently, North Korea has been painted as presenting an imminent threat to the United States. Recent reports on this “threat” have been based on classified intelligence reports that claim that North Korea can produce a new nuclear bomb every six or seven weeks, including a recent article from the New York Times. However, those same reports have admitted that this claim is purely speculative, as it is “impossible to verify until experts get beyond the limited access to North Korean facilities that ended years ago.” In other words, the article was based entirely on unverified claims from the US intelligence community that were treated as compelling.

    and

    The revolving door

    Another major consequence of the ban being lifted goes a step further than merely influencing narratives. In recent years, there has been the growing trend of hiring former government officials, including former US intelligence directors and other psyops veterans, in positions once reserved for journalists. In their new capacity as talking heads on mainstream media reports, they repeat the stance of the US intelligence community to millions of Americans, with their statements and views unchallenged.

    For instance, last year, CNN hired former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Clapper, a key architect of RussiaGate, has committed perjury by lying to Congress and more recently lied about the Trump campaign being wiretapped through a FISA request. He has also mad racist, Russophobic comments on national television. Now, however, he is an expert analyst for “the most trusted name in news.” CNN last year also hired Michael Hayden, who is a former Director of both the CIA and the NSA, and former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

    CNN isn’t alone. NBC/MSNBC recently hired former CIA director John Brennan — another key architect of RussiaGate and the man who greenlighted (and lied about) CIA spying on Congress — as a contributor and “senior national security and intelligence analyst.” NBC also employs Jeremy Bash, former CIA and DoD Chief of Staff, as a national security analyst, as well as reporter Ken Dilanian, who is known for his “collaborative relationship” with the CIA.
     

Share This Page