Scott McClellan's "war collaborators" in the corporate media. Referred to by McClellan in his new memoir, "What Happened," as "deferential, complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's war propaganda. (Photo: CBS News)'McClellan and His Media Collaborators
Friday 30 May 2008
by: Jeff Cohen, t r u t h o u t Perspective
No sooner had Bush's ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar. I'm not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer. I'm talking about McClellan's other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media. The people McClellan refers to in his book as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration war propaganda.
One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD (weapons of mass destruction) claims at the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than a Reverend Wright clip on Fox News.
Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about preinvasion coverage, saying days ago, "I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism." She spoke of "pressure" from corporate management, not just Team Bush, to "really squash any dissent." Then a co-host of NBC "Today," she says network brass criticized her for challenging the administration.
NBC execs apparently didn't complain when - two weeks into the invasion - Couric thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"
This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having to squirm over their role in sending other parents' kids into Iraq. I say "other parents' kids" because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.'
Friday 30 May 2008
by: Jeff Cohen, t r u t h o u t Perspective
No sooner had Bush's ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar. I'm not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer. I'm talking about McClellan's other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media. The people McClellan refers to in his book as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration war propaganda.
One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD (weapons of mass destruction) claims at the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than a Reverend Wright clip on Fox News.
Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about preinvasion coverage, saying days ago, "I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism." She spoke of "pressure" from corporate management, not just Team Bush, to "really squash any dissent." Then a co-host of NBC "Today," she says network brass criticized her for challenging the administration.
NBC execs apparently didn't complain when - two weeks into the invasion - Couric thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"
This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having to squirm over their role in sending other parents' kids into Iraq. I say "other parents' kids" because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.'
4 opmerkingen:
Ik laat 3 fragmenten zien van het wtc op 9-11.
1 van een amateur.
En 2 van de media,met het vliegtuig erin.
Kijk goed na de amateurfilm die geen vliegtuig laat zien,maar precies dezelfde hoek alles opnam als die van de ABC,die de wereld rond ging.
Onthou dat de media van de zionisten zijn.
Die andere is van euronews.
Die neemt alles weer op vanuit een ander punt.
Dus van het ABC en de amateurcamera zie je allebei de WTC.
Die van euronews alleen de ene WTC de eerste dus,want de tweede zit achter het wtc1.
Die het ABC uitzend schijnt het vliegtuig uit het westen te komen.
Die van euronenews uit het oosten,terwijl als je vanuit het oogpunt van euronews zou moeten kijken het vliegtuig uit het noorden zou moeten komen.
Maar deze komt uit het oosten.
Dus debunkers kom maar op.
De amateurcamerabeelden,met geen vliegtuig.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=FADr8iv3vvE&feature=related
De ABC beelden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMdzAgZ8J8
De euronewsbeelden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMdzAgZ8J8
Mindcontrol wat de media is.
Wel jammer dat ie net aan het uitzoomen was.
Nou, deze dan maar.
Vliegtuig
Voor de duidelijkheid, 9/11 was een "inside job", maar niet op de manier waarop jij dat denkt.
http://911research.wtc7.net
Uit die amateur video lijkt een stukje gehaald. Je ziet een kleine verspringing van het kader en een verandering van de scherpte van de rookwolk van het andere gebouw. Kort voor het gebouw wordt geraakt, wordt op de route waar het andere vliegtuig zou kunnnen vliegen, de groenige rook blurry. Het gebouw in de verte is trouwens toch al niet zo scherp, om dat viegtuig goed te zien.
Je laat je voor de mal gehouden, Sander, kijk maar uit!
Inderdaad.
Sander, je bedoelt het vast goed, maar laat je niet bedotten door desinformatie. De kern van de zaak is als bizar genoeg.
Een reactie posten