Newly Published Clinton Email Reveals How Government Manipulates Media

[Lucille]

And the lapdogs are more than happy to comply.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...ipulates-media

A Hillary Clinton staffer planted questions in a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, according to email records released this week. At the time of the interview in early 2011, Assange had already leaked sensitive, embarrassing information from the State Department. The unclassified staff email to Clinton, released amid her ongoing email scandal, demonstrates not only that the former Secretary of State and her staff were out to discredit Assange, but that the government manipulates media and wields heavy influence over it.

In an email from January 28, 2011, Philip J. Crowley, then Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, alerted Hillary Clinton that 60 Minutes conducted an interview with Assange set to air on the 30th. As Crowley informed her, “We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to ‘balance’ the piece.” This statement alone shows the access to media that powerful government agents enjoy.

He goes on to further reveal that influence: “60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview,” Crowley said, suggesting the interview would not be embarrassing to Clinton or the State Department: “We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program.”

The 2011 interview features a younger looking Assange with interviewer Steve Kroft.

Several minutes into the conversation, Kroft asks Assange point-blank if he is a “subversive.” Interestingly, the only politician Assange names directly in his response is Clinton herself: “I’m sure there are certain views among Hillary Clinton and her lot that we are subverting their authority. But you’re right, we are subverting illegitimate authority. The question is whether the authority is legitimate or whether it is illegitimate.”
[...]
Other notable, potentially planted statements and questions?
[...]
When accusing Assange of espionage didn’t work, Kroft tried another angle. He suggested that if Julian Assange was not punished, it would set a dangerous precedent for others to leak classified documents. Kroft said:

“…if they don’t come after you now that what they have done is essentially endorsed small, powerful organization with access to very powerful information releasing it outside their control. And if they let you get away it, then they are encouraging —”

Assange interrupted:

“Then what? They will have to have freedom of the press?” After a brief and tense exchange, Assange asserted, “If we’re talking about creating threats to small publishers to stop them publishing, the U.S. has lost its way. It has abrogated its founding traditions. It has thrown the First Amendment in the bin. Because publishers must be free to publish.”

Ironically, throughout their conversation about free speech and the freedom of the press, Kroft was feeding him questions straight from the mouth of government — more specifically, a government agency with a probable vendetta against Assange for releasing embarrassing information.
[interview]
The government is no stranger to manipulating the media. It was recently revealed that the CIA heavily influenced the bin-Laden-themed film, Zero Dark Thirty. The military regularly reviews films with military-subject matter and helps dictate content. The New York Times presented information in a way that deceptively downplayed the CIA’s operations in Syria, a move many view as a consequence of the agency’s decades-old efforts to manipulate the media.

News of the State Department’s manipulation of Assange’s interview is not a revelation. Nevertheless, it constitutes yet another crack in the facade of carefully crafted sound bites and the subtle, yet potent, manipulation of information.

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing to see here. Just some interdepartmental communications from MiniLuv to MiniTrue.

[Ronin Truth]

Is this the same or different than Project Mockingbird?

https://www.google.com/search?q=proj...13.Mmhk9GUu_lE

[Suzanimal]

“Madame Secretary, a very quick update. I just received confirmation from 60 Minutes that a piece on Julian Assange will air Sunday night. He will be the only person featured. We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to "balance" the piece. 60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview. We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/317294-assange-clinton-mail-cbs/

[Indy Vidual]

I searched by title "'60 Minutes' used 'planted' questions, Hillary Clinton email says" and almost started a new thread:

CBS's "60 Minutes" used questions "planted" by the State Department in a 2011 interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a State Department aide told Hillary Clinton in a newly released email.

"I just received confirmation from 60 Minutes that a piece on Julian Assange will air Sunday night," Philip Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, wrote to Clinton in 2011. "He will be the only person featured. We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to 'balance' the piece. 60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview. We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program."
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/01/medi...ted-questions/

[kahless]

//

[osan]

And the lapdogs are more than happy to comply.

That really is the crux of the matter: the question of their eagerness. I do not think that any nominally intelligent, informed, and honest human will deny that the press is as biased as it gets. The question is: why? Are they the victims of the manipulations of evil government, or are they willing partners? There was once a time when I would have been of the mind to at least concede the possibility of the former. I now hold very little doubt that these days the latter is very much in evidence and is, in fact, the sole effective factor in play. There are far too many issues on which media weighs in where I am certain they could voice opinions of a sort not in keeping with the general timbre of the "important" ones, but do not. The consistency of character tells me that these people are very much on board with whatever the broader political agenda is, which further tells me they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by those whose agendas are being made manifest in the world.

The lockstep in which the great plurality of media giants are so blatantly engaged is too vast and too perfectly uniform and consistent to be mere coincidence. I also doubt that "government" is feeding these media players every line and syllable of every story. This utter dearth of any indication of duress strongly suggests to me that the standard, long-established media can in no way to be victims of some vast and dark government conspiracy to squelch truth and spin a worldview so uniform as to be wholly non-credible in the context of the question of who it is, precisely, that pulls the strings in such matters. This is NOT organic. It is purely synthetic and completely dishonest.

[Suzanimal]

h/t Against Crony Capitalism

By Editor on October 2, 2015
We posted on this yesterday. But it’s worth another look.

So a staffer at the State Department said in an email (revealed in one of the Hillary email dumps) that the agency had “planted” questions in a 60 Minutes interview with Julian Assange.

“Planted” is the word used by the staffer as one can see in the below email.

But CBS says the above email was just a junior apparatchik trying to curry favor with his boss Hillary Clinton. But if so why would “planting” questions be something Ms. Clinton would look on favorably? (If she did.)

Regardless we’re sure CBS would never ever collude with the government on messaging. No way.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...aks-interview/
ACC is a completely non-partisan organization. We do not support/endorse or oppose any candidate for office. We believe that both major parties are heavily influenced by special interests and will report on crony capitalism wherever and whenever we see it.

CBS Goes on the Defensive After Clinton Emails Reveal “Planted” Questions for Wikileaks Interview

...
Although the email suggests collusion between “60 Minutes” and the State Department, CNNMoney reports:

“60 Minutes’ spokesman Kevin Tedesco took issue with Crowley’s portrayal of the situation and accused him of trying to curry favor with Clinton.

“‘The idea of a “plant” is as preposterous as this email writer’s attempt to get credit from his boss,’ Tedesco told CNNMoney. ‘We spoke to many sources for this story.'”

...
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/4355...722.1433438292

[Philhelm]

That really is the crux of the matter: the question of their eagerness. I do not think that any nominally intelligent, informed, and honest human will deny that the press is as biased as it gets. The question is: why? Are they the victims of the manipulations of evil government, or are they willing partners? There was once a time when I would have been of the mind to at least concede the possibility of the former. I now hold very little doubt that these days the latter is very much in evidence and is, in fact, the sole effective factor in play.

Made me recall Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Van Helsing:

"Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple. She is the Devil's concubine!"

[Occam's Banana]

“60 Minutes’ spokesman Kevin Tedesco took issue with Crowley’s portrayal of the situation and accused him of trying to curry favor with Clinton.

[enhanced_deficit]

Luckily, we have freedom of press now as we did in 2003.

[osan]

Made me recall Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Van Helsing:

"Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple. She is the Devil's concubine!"

Is this not a perfect description of truth? The Devil's concubine, indeed.

[devil21]

Speaking of Devil's Concubine/Satanism:

I wonder if Philip Crowley is related to CNN's Candy Crowley and by extension, noted occultist Aleister Crowley? Highly likely and goes to show there is no disconnect between media and government.