PDA

View Full Version : Government Promises to Stop Lying Because of Drudge Report Spotlight




donnay
07-28-2013, 04:20 PM
Government Promises to Stop Lying Because of Drudge Report Spotlight

Shows the power of the real media in breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall

Adan Salazar and Alex Jones
Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/government-promises-to-stop-lying-under-drudge-report-spotlight/)
July 28, 2013

In a groveling public display earlier this week, the Department of Defense announced plans to increase its public affairs efforts due to the devastating effect independent media is having on the Pentagon’s ability to control its news, more specifically, its ability to quash negative news stories before they go viral.

On Thursday, the DoD bemoaned the Drudge Report and the fact that, because of citizen journalists, social media and other online platforms reporting news in real time, the public is more quickly becoming aware of the constant patterns of contradictions and habitual lying by a government long ago captured by a group of corrupt interests.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqmCHtsCUU

Drudge Report quote around 14:00.

“..we cannot hide our bad news stories. Bad news gets out one way or the other and we must come to terms with telling bad stories as well as the good,” the secretary of defense for public affairs, George Little, stated.

“When bad things happen, the American people should hear it from us, not as a scoop on the Drudge Report,” Little said.

In essence, this is a signal of defeat to the power that is independent media, and shows just how large of an effect it is having. Alex Jones lends his analysis:

“Just as the term ‘Google’ became synonymous with ‘search engine,’ DrudgeReport.com has become the catchword for all independent forms of journalism alive on the web today.”

Jones believes Drudge’s mention in the DoD speech is a testament to how legit and credible Drudge really is. This is the reason why the news aggregator has so frequently been the target of naysayer critics ranging from exiting-DHS secretary Janet Napolitano to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer, who said that Drudge’s stories actively “hurt” the White House’s message “on a daily basis.”

On one hand, the government has revealed it is not invincible to the onslaught of curious, honest and hard-working journalists eager to obtain and report the truth. It shows just how vulnerable the man behind the curtain really is; in all his power, he’s upset over the few forms of media he can’t control.

With Drudge continually pouring out their contradictions, the federal government is finding it harder to keep their stories straight and consistently gets caught off-guard.

On the other hand, the DoD’s announcement that it will become more “engaged” with journalists is even more unsettling in light of the fact that just two weeks ago the CIA was given a green light to flood America with even more government propaganda.

The fact that they’re openly announcing their intent to infiltrate the media means they’re ready to move forward with plans to squelch the First Amendment.

This is the opening salvo public announcement of open war on the power of the press.

“This is a completely cynical move by the Pentagon,” Alex says. “They’ve been engaged forever in domestic psy-op operations, but now that they’ve been blown wide open by alternative media we’re seeing the psy-op of cognitive infiltration.

“They say they’re going to reach out to the media (that means persuading members of the alternative media with money as well) basically setting up operations against it, but they’re announcing this is not an assault. ‘We’re your friends! We come in peace! We promise we’ll be truthful and we’re gonna communicate! Listen to us!’ It’s actually the opposite. This is the Pentagon, psy-warfare and cyber-security all declaring war on the First Amendment.”

“The only huge website out there that you can call mainstream but also alternative that is really challenging the establishment is the Drudge Report, which should be considered a world treasure, along with all other alternative media. We shouldn’t be demoralized by this development, we should be excited, because this shows we’re having an effect in keeping freedom alive and spreading it worldwide.”

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-28-2013, 04:27 PM
were not citizens, were just public affairs!

JK/SEA
07-28-2013, 04:40 PM
So that means no more State of the Union Comedy Hour?

luctor-et-emergo
07-28-2013, 05:20 PM
Government Promises to Stop Lying

Really ? :rolleyes:

tod evans
07-28-2013, 05:25 PM
On the other hand, the DoD’s announcement that it will become more “engaged” with journalists is even more unsettling in light of the fact that just two weeks ago the CIA was given a green light to flood America with even more government propaganda.

The fact that they’re openly announcing their intent to infiltrate the media means they’re ready to move forward with plans to squelch the First Amendment.

Blatant and in your face..

heavenlyboy34
07-28-2013, 05:27 PM
Saw the thread title and came in here expecting a prank...I call BS. I'll believe it when I see it.

Occam's Banana
07-28-2013, 05:27 PM
White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer [said that] Drudge’s stories actively “hurt” the White House’s message “on a daily basis.”

So the truth hurts - and it especially hurts liars. Big surprise there ...

(Also interesting is the tacit suggestion that reporters/commentators are under some sort of obligation not to "hurt" the White House's "message.")

Origanalist
07-28-2013, 05:36 PM
Really ? :rolleyes:

Seems legit.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2013, 05:40 PM
Why should I trust a promise to stop lying? Isn't that a lie too?

donnay
07-28-2013, 06:15 PM
Why should I trust a promise to stop lying? Isn't that a lie too?


Their not going to do it, this is extending an olive branch with the intent to lure people into believing that they are going to be truthful.

The video was intended to be put out, to make it look like the Pentagon wants to work with everybody to disseminate the truth. What they say and what they do is two totally different stories--their track record precedes them.

Carlybee
07-28-2013, 06:20 PM
And in other news: Government decides to discontinue the income tax.

Occam's Banana
07-28-2013, 06:28 PM
Their not going to do it, this is extending an olive branch with the intent to lure people into believing that they are going to be truthful.

Exactly. "Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly ...


[...] the DoD’s announcement that it will become more “engaged” with journalists [...]

The first lesson of Basic "Access" Journalism 101: offer "engagement" in order to deepen the penetration of desired spin and talking points.

IPSecure
07-28-2013, 06:33 PM
Government Promises to Stop Lying Because of Drudge Report Spotlight



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg

paulbot24
07-28-2013, 06:37 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg

Now that video is exceptionally appropriate.

ClydeCoulter
07-28-2013, 06:55 PM
Did he suggest, using the example of Major Megan McClun (sp?), that PAO's send emails describing how dead loved ones changed their lives to make the family survivors feel better? Or am I just reading too much into the obvious? (@ ~ 19:00)

anaconda
07-28-2013, 08:19 PM
Their not going to do it, this is extending an olive branch with the intent to lure people into believing that they are going to be truthful.

The video was intended to be put out, to make it look like the Pentagon wants to work with everybody to disseminate the truth. What they say and what they do is two totally different stories--their track record precedes them.

LOL "announced plans to increase its public affairs efforts..." = code for lying with better and slicker propaganda. And on our tax dime.

anaconda
07-28-2013, 08:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg

Kirk's line of reasoning caused several computers to self destruct over the three seasons. Here's another:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU

Root
07-28-2013, 09:25 PM
If honesty was really the new policy, you don't have to make an announcement about it. You just do it without fanfare.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I3qToQWzdcA/UKxatkq1SgI/AAAAAAAAEPc/tvdZRsQhdKU/s400/charlie+brown+thanksgiving15.jpg

Carson
07-28-2013, 09:36 PM
What are the odds they would start telling the truth now?

HOLLYWOOD
07-28-2013, 10:50 PM
Well, Well... look who's name shows up again...

ICongress Really Authorizing US Propaganda at Home?
Progressives are worked up over a new "brainwashing" law for misguided reasons

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/radiotowermain.jpg

Prepare for an incoming transmission: Flickr/Steven Heger (http://www.flickr.com/photos/20028844@N06/5464140394/sizes/z/in/photostream/)Late last Friday, Buzzfeed reporter and Rolling Stone contributor Michael Hastings broke what looked like a big scoop (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban): http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

Propaganda that was supposed to target foreigners could now be aimed at Americans, reversing a longstanding policy. “Disconcerting and dangerous,” says Shank. posted on May 18, 2012 at 4:27pm EDT
http://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/user_images/web03/2012/4/3/11/mhastings-20292-1333465619-0_large.jpg (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings) Michael Hastings (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings) BuzzFeed Staff
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/5/18/16/enhanced-buzz-wide-21220-1337374234-19.jpg
Amy Sly for BuzzFeed Image by Michael Hastings (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings)


An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.
The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website.
The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.
In a little noticed press release earlier in the week — buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations — Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.”
The bill’s supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.
Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.
“Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” says Michael Shank, Vice President at the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington D.C. “That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous.”
“I just don’t want to see something this significant – whatever the pros and cons – go through without anyone noticing,”
“ says one source on the Hill, who is disturbed by the law. According to this source, the law would allow “U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.”
The new law would give sweeping powers to the government to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”
According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Critics of the bill point out that there was rigorous debate when Smith Mundt passed, and the fact that this is so “under the radar,” as the Pentagon official puts it, is troubling.
The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-02-29/afghanistan-iraq-military-information-operations-usa-today-investigation/53295472/1) the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.
In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-19/vanden-brook-locker-propaganda/54419654/1) by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.
(In fact, a second amendment to the authorization bill — in reaction to the USA Today report — seeks cuts to the Pentagon’s propaganda budget overseas, while this amendment will make it easier for the propaganda to spread at home.)
The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment.
In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.
A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment “to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to “protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will,” he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general.
The defense bill passed the House Friday afternoon.
CORRECTION: The amendment under consideration would not apply to the Department of Defense, though the it is attached to a defense authorization bill.



Information Quality
OMB announced its “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies”
on January 3, 2002 (herein Guidelines). The Guidelines were required by Section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (P.L. 106-554), also known as the Information Quality Act.
30
The Guidelines
were designed to assist agencies to develop and “issue their own information quality
guidelines” that shall ensure and maximize the “quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity” of information disseminated to the public (67 Federal Register34489).
Agencies would also be required to create procedures for reviewing information
before it is disseminated and to establish “administrative mechanisms” that permit
parties affected by the information to “seek and obtain correction of information.”