Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (18735)	1/4/2003 6:35:20 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 93284

What is ignored are these more important issues: namebase.org "One enterprising researcher took this 29 percent figure, and extrapolating from figures on CIA expenditures for covert operations, found that the cost of propaganda in 1978 was around $265 million and involved 2,000 personnel. Comparing this to figures for other news agencies, he concluded that the CIA "uses far more resources in its propaganda operations than any single news agency.... In fact, the CIA propaganda budget is as large as the combined budgets of Reuters, United Press International and the Associated Press."[8] "The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned or subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most of them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even as cover for operations. Another dozen foreign news organizations were infiltrated by paid CIA agents. At least 22 American news organizations had employed American journalists who were also working for the CIA, and nearly a dozen American publishing houses printed some of the more than 1,000 books that had been produced or subsidized by the CIA. When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its media agents what to write, William Colby replied, "Oh, sure, all the time." Since domestic propaganda was a violation of the their charter, the CIA defined the predictable effects of their foreign publications as "blowback" or "domestic fallout," which they considered to be "inevitable and consequently permissible." But former CIA employees told the Times that apart from this unintended blowback, "some CIA propaganda efforts, especially during the Vietnam War, had been carried out with a view toward their eventual impact in the United States." The Times series concluded that at its peak, the CIA's network "embraced more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals."[15]

To: greenspirit who wrote (18735)	1/4/2003 6:43:31 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 93284

Or this -- "ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh" public.iastate.edu "There are about 11,000 radio stations in the U.S., and Capital Cities/ABC is by far the largest player. Either through outright ownership or the sale of numerous services, they reach about half the radio stations in America, and this number is growing. ...With the Fairness Doctrine repealed, Capital Cities was able in 1988 to begin broadcasting one-sided editorials on conservatism. ABC Radio Network President Edward McLaughlin scoured the nation's radio stations for conservative talent, and his search led him to Sacramento, to a little known disc-jockey named Rush Limbaugh. "Rush had attracted an audience with his vigorous and spirited defense of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings. McLaughlin brought him to New York City for a one-month "on-air" trial at Capital Cities/ABC's flagship radio station, WABC. For the next two years, ABC put him on the fast track, handling all his marketing, advertising and promotion. For legal purposes, and to protect ABC's image of supposed objectivity, Rush formed his own media company, Excellence in Broadcasting. But to this day Rush continues to broadcast out of WABC's studios in New York. "ABC initially promoted Rush by arranging his appearance on other debating shows, from Nightline to Donahue to MacNeil/Lehrer. (Unfortunately, he did so poorly against real live experts that this practice was eventually stopped.) ...One of Capital City's early founders was William Casey, who would later become Ronald Reagan's Director of the CIA. At the time of Casey's nomination, the press expressed surprise that Reagan would hire a businessman whose last-known intelligence experience was limited to OSS operations in World War II. The fact is, however, that Casey had never left intelligence...Another Capital Cities founder, Lowell Thomas, was a close friend and business contact with Allen Dulles, Eisenhower's CIA Director, and John Dulles, the Secretary of State. Thomas always denied being a spy, but he was frequently seen at events involving intelligence operations...To anyone who believes that the government should not control the press, the possibility that the CIA created a media company to dispense conservative and Cold War propaganda should be alarming. "The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 by the FCC. Reagan had staffed the FCC with prominent media businessmen who were intent on slashing government regulations… the equivalent of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Among the many other regulations slashed during the Reagan years were anti-trust laws that prevented the media from becoming a monopoly "...In this atmosphere of deregulation, Capital Cities found the perfect time to take over ABC. Not only were all the legal restrictions removed, but by now Casey was head of the CIA, and whatever contacts existed between the CIA and Casey's company (in which Casey held substantial stock) were immeasurably strengthened. Capital Cities soon began buying out ABC stock. The facts of the acquisition remain curious and unconventional. Capital Cities was only one-fourth the size of ABC, and there were much wealthier corporate giants who were salivating over a plum like a television network.

To: greenspirit who wrote (18735)	1/4/2003 8:05:37 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Why Conservatives Dominate Talk Radio Michael, Thanks for the link to the "Conservative" vs "Liberal" article. However, I no longer believe that fairy tale. There is no such thing as a "Right" and a "Left." I do not believe that any group of people can be accurately divided into two internally-homogenous, opposing sides. To illustrate, please define for us two people who you feel are an accurate representative of each camp and your reasoning for choosing them.

To: greenspirit who wrote (18735)	1/9/2003 2:29:41 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Meanwhile, back in the real world: <<< On CNN's "American Morning" program Aug. 5, Cafferty mixed candor with exemplary media arrogance: "This is a commercial enterprise. This is not PBS. We're not here as a public service. We're here to make money. We sell advertising, and we do it on the premise that people are going to watch. If you don't cover the miners because you want to do a story about a debt crisis in Brazil at the time everybody else is covering the miners, then Citibank calls up and says, 'You know what? We're not renewing the commercial contract.' I mean it's a business." >>> commondreams.org